Should We Have The Right to Opt out Medicare and Full in with Private Health Insurance or Vice Versa?

plastererJazz on 17/05/2022 - 15:03
Last edited 17/05/2022 - 23:18

We all pay the medicare levy as we are covered by the public health system. some pay surcharge and loading even.

Could or should an individual have the right to opt-out from medicare completely and go full-on with private insurance at their own risk?

I believe a lot of people go for the basic tax-effective cover to avoid surcharge and loading and these covers probably only cover items covered by medicare already.

Some company websites even brand as tax saving plans.

Scenario 1 - public only, he/she will pay for levy and surcharge but no MLS.
Scenario 2 - private only, he/she will pay a higher tier of private health insurance but no MLS

So private cover holders only go to private hospitals and medicare holders go to public hospitals?

For example, A pays a $2000 levy and $1000 private insurance to get public health treatment and low to no private health treatment.

Would it A better of paying $3000 or $3500 more for private insurance only to get better private health treatment and free up public resources for others.

Almost forgot that their opposite is to not enrol any private insurance and happily pay for the levy.

Whether buying private insurance or not shouldn't be a tax-related action and the surcharge and MLS should be gone.

Happy discussion

Poll Options

  • 25
    Yes, levy, surcharge and loading are a pain in the ass
  • 761
    No, it will break the public system as fewer pay the levy, private insurance will be more expensive
  • 8
    Others
Health & Beauty Health Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • iNeed2Pee on 17/05/2022 - 15:04
    +68

    But you are not SlavOz 🥴

    • lgacb08 on 17/05/2022 - 16:06
      +16

      or one of the GP that used to be here and praising the US medical system.

      • Clear on 17/05/2022 - 19:42
        +10

        Is that the same as the hospital doctor who denies that ambulance ramping is a thing? There seems to be an awful lot of "doctors".

  • Hybroid on 17/05/2022 - 15:04
    +195

    No. I have never once used Medicare in past 5 years, not even Doctor's appointment, but happy to pay towards it for the greater good. Many many many others benefit from it. We live in a society.

    • geosta on 18/05/2022 - 11:52
      +62

      100% - but also, whilst you haven't had to use it, you will eventually. Everybody will one day get sick (unless they die young in a tragic manner). And when they do, they will be hoping that others will pay for their medical care because they will unlikely be able to pay for it themselves.

      Medicare is the ultimate pay it forward scheme.

      Having lived in countries without comprehensive public healthcare coverage, I cannot tell you how comforting it is to know that if my life were to fall apart tomorrow, at least I know I could turn up to a hospital if I needed to and not worry about how I was going to pay for it.

      • moar bargains on 18/05/2022 - 15:19
        +21

        (Almost) everyone who has been born in Australia has already made use of medicare. Even if a baby is born in a private hospital, Medicare covers at least some of the ultrasounds, prenatal screening tests and check-ups etc. A mother would have to be actively avoiding any contact with the health system to avoid Medicare throughout pregnancy and birth.

        • Kangal on 18/05/2022 - 18:05
          -5

          Not me, I will never ever get sick.

        • donkeydoc on 19/05/2022 - 05:20
          -3

          Doesn't cover much anymore for new borns. I have 2 kids, the 1st born in 2019 and the 2nd in 2022. For the first born, all ultrasounds were covered, and the 3D image was generated. For the 2nd, no 3D generated image and $160 per ultrasound…

          • moar bargains on 19/05/2022 - 09:51
            +1

            @donkeydoc: It depends where you go as well. There are some providers that do bulk billed ultrasounds, but most don't I think. Also they usually only bulk bill the standard ones which I think are ~10 weeks and 20 weeks. Anything outside of that I think is usually optional so user pays.

            • donkeydoc on 19/05/2022 - 10:40
              +1

              @moar bargains: Yeah 18 week ultrasound cost me $160 for 2nd child, was free just 3 years prior.

      • Seni0r El Cheapo on 19/05/2022 - 19:30
        +1

        I cannot tell you how comforting it is to know that if my life were to fall apart tomorrow, at least I know I could turn up to a hospital if I needed to and not worry about how I was going to pay for it.

        Yea sure. Provided Ambu picks you up on time and you survive 6 hours + wait time in emergency ward.

      • ribze1 on 19/05/2022 - 22:16
        +2

        Yep i felt the same as a healthy person throughout my 20s paying thousands per year in medicare levy.
        Then…i tore my ACL and broke my leg. Medicare.
        Wife had a baby. Medicare.

        • geosta on 19/05/2022 - 23:29

          That's the thing - most people are only one drunk-driver away from having significant healthcare needs for the rest of their life. And even if you end up getting a payout, it will not cover your healthcare requirements for the rest of your life. The number of times I had near misses as a teen and in my 20's that could have ended with me in a wheelchair gives me nightmares now.

          Hope the leg has recovered!

    • trapper on 18/05/2022 - 12:12
      +5

      Also nice to know you will be fixed up for free if you have some kind of accident with the chainsaw etc

    • mdavant on 18/05/2022 - 13:17
      +13

      Not a covid vaccine?

      • Hybroid on 18/05/2022 - 14:37
        +12

        Ooooh great point! I have indeed had all 3 shots on Medicare.

        Like others have pointed out, it's a service that's there for you should and when you need it.

    • CalmLemons on 18/05/2022 - 13:22
      +16

      What this guy said above^^^

      The medicare levy is a very small price to pay to not have to worry about what the americans do, on whether their private health may or may not cover that once in a lifetime $500k operation.

      We are one of the few countries in the world to have such a decent health system.

      • bobbified on 18/05/2022 - 14:17
        +16

        or may not cover that once in a lifetime $500k operation.

        I had mine already… about $250K worth, plus all the other consultations, tests and procedures before and after. The total amount I paid was $0.00.

        I'm very grateful for the Medicare system!

      • SlickMick on 18/05/2022 - 20:01

        I wouldn't say it's a small price to pay… unless you're unemployed or something.. and it's a very flawed system.
        My mother needed a hip replacement before covid - she is now an invalid and I doubt will recover whether she ever gets the hip replacement of not.

        This is one situation where it would have been better to have all the family's medicare levies over the past decades into a savings about, and we could have just got the necessary surgery immediately.

        There are doctors requiring 3 visits for a single issue at about 1 minute per visit, just milking the system.

        It will just keep costing more money for less services.

        But, yes, it's better than company-sponsored healthcare and unemployed not being able to get treatment.
        usually

    • PurchaseAnxiety on 18/05/2022 - 17:38
      +6

      This is the right mindset. Seeing the levy and surcharge at tax time stings a little, but the peace of mind is worth it a thousand times over. I sometimes don't know how people without health insurance in the US leave the house sometimes. You can experience an injury completely out of your control and be financially ruined because of it. No thanks.

      • Ultimate Gattai on 25/05/2022 - 00:16
        +1

        I don't even worry about the levy/surcharge, I'm happy to pay for it just so we don't have America's crappy system, I don't understand why everybody else panics about it and tries to find a way around it so that they don't have to cough up for it at tax time.

    • macrocephalic on 19/05/2022 - 15:27

      You're not vaccinated?

    • michaelTito on 20/05/2022 - 09:59

      One day an American will read this and start thinking how crazy you are.

  • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 15:12
    +75

    Private health cover loading was brought in by… you guessed it the coalition.
    Why might you ask?
    To prop up their private health cover mates who were crying poor that the medicare system was stealing their custom.

    Australia could be a very efficient 1 policy country, however the industry insists on propping up the private healthcare system with trash policies that people take out in order to avoid tax (which are conveniently priced just under the tax that you'd have to pay if you didn't take it out).

    Thanks Howard et al!

    It's really just a wealth transfer from the younger working generation to the older pensioners who overall cost the private health system the most.
    If the younger generations weren't already enough behind the eight ball paying off houses, they now get to also pay the elderly's medical bills! YAY

    My answer btw is no though, if it were the other way though (opt out of private health) i would in a heart beat.

    • MITM on 17/05/2022 - 15:24
      -2

      Yeah, but govt pay 24% of the premium. Carrot & stick.

      • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 15:28
        +55

        *Taxpayer pays 24% of an inflated premium to support the fat cats in private health.

    • plastererJazz on 17/05/2022 - 15:37

      Agree, I thought about this before I signed up for private insurance.

      Guess my mind has been conditioned to ignore the fact that it should be both ways.

    • try2bhelpful on 17/05/2022 - 16:57
      +43

      Yup, I’m a Gough baby. Free University and Universal Health Cover, baby. The ALP brought in MediBank and the LNP trashed it; hence MediBank Private. Not even the LNP are dumb enough to try to get rid of Medicare now. They are happy to run funding down, though. Be aware you need separate cover for ambulances. Either private health or ambulance cover direct.

      Yes the elderly do use up most of the health money but you never know when you might need a hospital and it is nice to know you are covered.

      At 38 I went roller blading and knocked myself unconscious and broke my wrist. All my medical treatment cost me nada. My private health insurance covered the ambulance; but that was a bit of a farce. It was at Carlton gardens; they should’ve, just, rolled out a gurney directly. I, also, had a cat scan because I had a head injury. God knows what all that would’ve cost me without UHC.

      At 39 my “age spot” turned out to be a BCC and the “eyes” were a Melanoma. I paid a few hundred bucks to get it removed by my GP. The test result showed it a tad deeper than they hoped so they took 1 cm all the way around. This was done in a hospital and cost me nada. All I paid for was a few visits to the skin specialist which was, roughly, $100 each. This guy was one of the top melanoma guys in Australia.

      Because I can afford it I have a GP that costs more than bulk billing but he is, very, good and seems to have a direct line to a bunch of specialists. With my melanoma he got the specialist to stay back late to see me after hours. Otherwise it would’ve been months before he could see me.

      There are things UHC gets you, there are things private health get you and there are things out of pocket.

      If I do end up in public hospital I tell them I’m a private patient in a public hospital. The funds hate it but it gets the public hospital system a bit more money. It also gets rid of the pesky annual excess, even though you aren’t paying anything.

      The answer is to be aware of what it will cost you with each option. Me, I’m not looking for a private room I just want good medical care.

      Right now I’m 60 so I’m getting to where I’m renting myself from the medical profession. The wheels are falling off a bit so I seem to be getting quite a few tests.it is, also, a bit “would you like a tablet to go with that ailment”.

      The secret to good medical health is a good GP and get, at least, an annual check up. Make sure they do spot checks. Melanomas are some of the nastiest cancers you can get but you have better chance of spotting them.

      Keep up to date with your vaccines. My other half got whooping cough at 50 and it is nasty. His, original, vaccine had worn off.

      Make sure you understand what costings are and what they mean. We had low cover and thought “we can cover the cost of an angiogram, out of pocket, in a private hospital”. Great until something goes wrong and they admit you until you are stable enough to be moved. When we knew that we wasted all of two weeks to get one, at no cost, in a public hospital.

      If you think UHC isn’t the best thing since sliced bread have a good look at the American system. A stuffed knee can bankrupt you.

      We had a sick cat and we had health cover for it. She got sick, lasted four months, and racked up $12,000 in vet bills. Now think about what would happen to humans without cover.

      Good health everyone.

      • plastererJazz on 17/05/2022 - 23:24
        +1

        Thanks for sharing your experience

        I must clarify that the idea is to split two systems rather than government push us to get the private cover.

        • try2bhelpful on 18/05/2022 - 02:28
          +2

          The LNP pushed the private health insurance wagon. Personally I see it as pants but there are medical specialists that make their money with private and do a certain amount of public for cases in need. It helps to have the options if you, really, need it.

          The problem is private health insurance, often, comes with gap costs. Ask anyone who has had a baby in a private hospital. I ran into an American, in Europe, and he was telling us about the time he got a bit of glass in his finger. In Australia you would get your GP, or the emergency department, to remove it. He got stuffed around between various groups and it still cost him $500 gap on top of his health insurance. Also, in America, your health insurance decides what they will cover and it is often provided by your employer. So you can get where they will cover Viagra but not the Contraceptive pill.

          In Australia the real sting in the tail is the extra surcharge you pay if you go private after a certain age.

          Personally I don’t know if private health insurance is worth it, but it does give you options for earlier treatment and access to specialists who only work in private health. There are still, lots of things, your private health insurance won’t cover either. As I said my suggestion is find a really good GP and talk to him/her about their views and their access. My GP, quite literally, saved my life. I pay a gap, I can’t claim on anything, but he is worth it.

          The odds are you will use the public system even if you have private cover. If you are in a car accident they will take you to the closest public hospital. The odds on finding a private hospital in country areas is almost nil; you are lucky to find public hospitals. There is the option of private patient in a public hospital but that still gets you back to where private health insurance would need to pay a levy back to public hospitals to ensure the services are available to their clients if necessary. All the current system does is preempt that.

          I think the answer to your question is it isn’t economically feasible to separate out private from public; especially if people live away from capital cities. They won’t put in a private hospital for the twenty people who have cover.

          It always makes me laugh when older people decide on a tree change. So how long do you want to wait for that ambulance when you have a heart attack? How will you see your specialists when public transport is crap and you are too feeble to drive? Me, I live in Fitzroy; staggering distance to six hospitals. Most of the specialists I see are walking distance. You need to plan ahead.

          • netjock on 19/05/2022 - 14:29
            -1

            @try2bhelpful:

            It always makes me laugh when older people decide on a tree change. So how long do you want to wait for that ambulance when you have a heart attack? How will you see your specialists when public transport is crap and you are too feeble to drive?

            My parents picked up a farm 5 yeas ago about 2 hrs from Melbourne and 20km to nearest hospital. They are 70. I recently asked when they going to quit it (after they improved it and sell it for a profit) and move back closer to Melbourne where I am. They said 10 years. I almost burst out laughing.

            • try2bhelpful on 19/05/2022 - 16:26

              @netjock: I wish them the best of health but it may not be a laughing matter for them in the long run.

              The problem is they can go from OK to not OK quickly and they will, probably, try to hide their issues. Things like ensuring they are eating properly, looking after themselves, cleaning the house. Something that might be hidden until you are dealing with a full blown catastrophe. I have a number of friends trying to deal, remotely, with elderly parents and it is going south. It as at those sort of times you find there is no food in the house and the house is a mess. Or you find out they fell over and didn’t seek any treatment for it.

              Fortunately things like zoom mean you can see them as well as talk to them. Gauge how they might be travelling.

              See if the region has some home help to, at least, assist with housework. At least work out what supports would be available for the future. Ensure they are onboard with what might be needed. My friends are despairing because they feel they’ve neglected their parents but if you aren’t there you don’t know. Particularly with Covid visiting has been restricted.

              Best of luck.

      • MITM on 18/05/2022 - 09:29
        +1

        Your point here about negating the PHC excess for the rest of the year is interesting.
        "If I do end up in public hospital I tell them I’m a private patient in a public hospital. The funds hate it but it gets the public hospital system a bit more money. It also gets rid of the pesky annual excess, even though you aren’t paying anything."

        • try2bhelpful on 18/05/2022 - 09:42
          +1

          Not sure if it is general but my other half went in for a procedure with his Private Health Insurance and they told him his visit to a Public hospital, as a private patient, meant he’d paid that years excess.

          • Miss B on 18/05/2022 - 15:15
            +3

            @try2bhelpful: If you're a private patient in a public hospital the hospital will bill the health fund. The health fund will pay the claim, applying the excess, and the hospital will be paid anything above that (on a day procedure this is unlikely to be any $$ unless your excess is less than about $350 - depending on the procedure. Edit: They can also claim prostheses if they use any, excess doesn't apply to them). Public hospitals often waive the excess for their patients. So essentially the hospital is covering the excess, if they get some $$ on top it's better than the nothing they'd get otherwise.

            If there are people whose health cover waives excess on day or public admissions (rather than the hospital waiving it) the excess would not be paid, so they'd still have to pay on their next admission, just something to be aware of.

            I must admit I don't know much about how hospitals get their $$ from the government and how private/public patient comes into it though. I think it must still be worth it for them if they encourage people to use it.

            Incidentally, I work for a private health insurance company and don't know anyone who minds people using their insurance in public hospitals. In a way you're opting for a public hospital over a private hospital, which saves them money, even if it was never part of your equation they don't know that. I know the contact centre would suggest people check with the doctors/hospital about any out of pockets, but other than that they shouldn't have an opinion.

            • try2bhelpful on 18/05/2022 - 17:54
              +1

              @Miss B: Thanks for the insight that was interesting. Yeah, the man ended up in a ward for a few days so, I suppose, the money covered the excess not charged back to us.

              "If there are people whose health cover waives excess on day or public admissions (rather than the hospital waiving it) the excess would not be paid, so they'd still have to pay on their next admission, just something to be aware of." so does this mean that some don't include the excess if it is incurred in a public hospital? sorry to be obtuse about the meaning here.

              • Miss B on 18/05/2022 - 18:46
                +2

                @try2bhelpful: It's more theoretical, I don't know whether or not there are funds that have covers where the excess is waived in public hospitals, we don't have any, but we can set up covers like that in our system. It's possible there could be one or more funds who have a cover like that. If the health fund isn't applying the excess to the claim then it won't count as the excess having been paid.

                We have had at least one cover where the excess is waived for day admissions, so again if there was a day admission and the excess isn't applied, it would still need to be paid on the next admission.

                • try2bhelpful on 18/05/2022 - 19:02
                  +1

                  @Miss B: It sounds like it might work or it may not dependent on how the fund applies it. We were just surprised when we were told the excess had been covered by the public hospital stay. Seemed like even a better reason to go private in public.

      • netjock on 19/05/2022 - 14:22

        Yes the elderly do use up most of the health money

        Some people seems to believe they never get old or invincible therefore never have accidents.

        If I do end up in public hospital I tell them I’m a private patient in a public hospital. The funds hate it but it gets the public hospital system a bit more money. It also gets rid of the pesky annual excess, even though you aren’t paying anything.

        This is for if you are not on a junk policy? Legit interest in this one.

        • try2bhelpful on 20/05/2022 - 10:29

          I’d be surprised if there was any policy that didn’t cover you as a private patient in a public hospital. I could see some policies wouldn’t cover you for private hospitals. Just need to check the terms and conditions.

    • Chandler on 18/05/2022 - 12:43
      +1

      My answer btw is no though, if it were the other way though (opt out of private health) i would in a heart beat.

      Likewise. The only reason I participate in the whole private health system is that you can get into surgery a lot sooner than you would the private sector. Having said that, imagine what the public health system would be like if all the money thrown into the private health system (including insurance) went into public health instead?

      • try2bhelpful on 18/05/2022 - 17:58
        +1

        From what I've been able to glean it is things like hip surgery, where it is painful rather than life threatening, where you are most likely to get the best gain from private health insurance. If you pay the exorbitant level that covers this. You can wait a while to get it in the public system.

        I do agree with you that if people put the money from private into the public system we would, all, be better off. However, bizarrely enough people are willing to pay the money for Private but scream "taxes" when it is used for Public provided services. go figure. When you think of Private somebody has to make a profit on top of everything else.

        • Chandler on 19/05/2022 - 08:35
          +2

          However, bizarrely enough people are willing to pay the money for Private but scream "taxes" when it is used for Public provided services.

          I wonder what the overlap between those people and Liberal voters is - I think a venn diagram would be mostly overlapping circles.

          • try2bhelpful on 19/05/2022 - 16:30
            +2

            @Chandler: Or voting even more rightwing than that.

            The joke is we can’t buy our own infrastructure. It is a cooperative effort. Frankly why would you put a layer of profit on essential services? It isn’t like they end up being cheaper in the long run. Madness.

    • yyhazy on 21/05/2022 - 03:12

      It is not super relevant to the discussion but I feel like to share my experience. I am a foreigner on a temporary visa and therefore ineligible for medicare benefits. The Australian Government however requires me to maintain private health cover as one of my visa conditions.
      Last year I experienced some strong chest pain and went to a public hospital for a covid test. After I described the symptoms to the nurse administering the test, they insisted that I should go to the emergency room and walked me there. Long story short, apparently nothing was wrong with me. I did however have to pay ~$900 in cash for the tests.
      Here's the fun part: my private health fund does not cover outpatient costs. "Why?" you might ask. By law, private health insurance does not offer cover for out-of-hospital medical services. Medicare covers these services. What about those who are not covered by medicare? I don't have an answer for that. All I know is that I will probably think twice before heading to the ER the next time I have chest pain.

      • dp1 on 21/05/2022 - 09:02
        +2

        There is another category of private cover that only temporary visa holders like you are eligible for, OSHC, that covers outpatient and GP costs. HCF and Allianz have both covered my patients for their GP fees at AMA rates and there may be other companies.

        • yyhazy on 21/05/2022 - 13:09

          Good point. My understanding is that OSHC differs from the other private covers in the sense that it's only available for students. Some of the other private covers do cover GP costs, but I'm not sure about other outpatient costs such as ones incurred in an ER.

          • dp1 on 22/05/2022 - 12:02

            @yyhazy: My HCF patient is a 60+ grandmother so definitely not just for students

  • Xistn on 17/05/2022 - 15:19
    +8

    SlavOz's cousin?

  • sheamas88 on 17/05/2022 - 15:25
    +40

    Private health would be FAR more expensive if you were not covered by Medicare. When you use private medical (hospitals/doctors/etc) then Medicare is still paying for some of the treatment, and private cover is paying the rest (or whatever you PDS states). So to go full private with no Medicare then I don't see how premiums would not also increase substantially since now your private cover is paying for the full treatment instead of just the gap left from Medicare.

    Also need only look at the USA to see that private is not as bang-for-buck as public health is, and Australia being such a small market for private healthcare providers in comparison. One reason public is more cost effective is scale. A country can negotiate prices for drugs and devices far better than many independent private health companies.

    So yeah, should people be able to do it? Well I am not well-versed in the financial implications that would have on Medicare, my hunch would say that very few people would be able to afford private healthcare if they had NO Medicare at all.

    *Edit

    Also depends if you count PBS under Medicare (which would probably should for this argument). So now all your drugs are far more expensive if your private health isn't covering it (or not covering it in full). For instance, if you need an Epipen for instance, you are looking at $19 in Australia, but in the USA you pay $300.

    • ESEMCE on 17/05/2022 - 15:32
      +18

      ^THIS

      Just cause you have Private Cover doesn't mean you don't benefit from Medicare.
      Your Private Cover can help to fill the gap between what Medicare covers and what is charged, but it doesn't also cover the bit that Medicare covers.
      If it was to do so, your Premiums would jump significantly accordingly.

      • sheamas88 on 17/05/2022 - 15:35
        +17

        Yep, a lot of ignorant (like OP) people don't realise that Medicare still subsidises private health services. Too many people think if they are paying for private then they get nothing out of Medicare, which is NOT the case.

        In fact you could go stay in a private hospital without private cover and Medicare would cover some of the cost, and you could pay the rest out-of-pocket. Many private-only doctors will do this

        • serpserpserp on 17/05/2022 - 19:20

          In fact you could go stay in a private hospital without private cover and Medicare would cover some of the cost, and you could pay the rest out-of-pocket.

          Yes but I think you'll find that what medicare covers is a very small amount. You will be stung with a massive bill for a Private Hospital stay without PHI. even if it was for a few days.

          • sheamas88 on 18/05/2022 - 07:06

            @serpserpserp: Sure but for the vast majority of people insurance would cost them a lot of money for no benefits, as the only way insurance works is that most people get less out than they put in. So if you have the money then the average person would be better off sticking with public care and then putting up the money personally if they ever wanted to get treated in private (i.e wanted to skip a long public waiting list for an unexpected surgery)

    • plastererJazz on 17/05/2022 - 15:56

      Hypothetically, yes the private health premium will rise significantly.

      Isn't purchasing a product/service should be under one's free will based on if one needs or want it rather than because there will be a penalty to come if don't purchase it.

      I'm happy to contribute to the public health system as a lot more will benefit from it but I would like to get insurance at my own pace rather than avoiding MLS.

      • sheamas88 on 17/05/2022 - 16:24
        +8

        If they removed the MLS completely then yeah, they maybe they could let people choose if they want Medicare or PH. If private health industry can stand on it's own two feet without being propped-up by the government then more power to them, personally I'd be shocked if they could though

        • MLS was introduced because there weren't enough people getting private health cover, with no Medicare subsidy to private doctors/hospitals then premiums would skyrocket and there'd be even less people buying in
        • Public health could just charge inflated fees to private health customers when they need to go into the public system for the many services that private health don't currently have. This might make-up for the shortfall in some people no longer paying Medicare Levy.
        • No discounted medications or devices for anyone who opt-ed out of Medicare. Good luck getting anything nearly as cheap through private health.

        Biggest hurdle will be whether we as a society want to let people suffer or die due to them opting out of Medicare and then getting stiffed by their private health or not being able to afford the gaps that private health don't cover. If they suddenly need life-saving medication that private health doesn't pay for, or at least doesn't cover all of do we just let them die if they can't afford it? What about being flown overseas to have operations as the private health provider finds it much cheaper and claims it is the same standard of care as in house. Look it up, this happens in the USA where people are flown to countries like India for surgeries as it's cheaper than treating them locally.

        Personally I'd say they made their choice and should have evaluated the risks and would have little to no empathy for them, but I think many people would look to blame the government for letting it happen. People love to claim they want more self-determination but love to point fingers at others when their own bad choices go wrong. I see this happening a lot when opting-out of Medicare.

      • DangerNoodle on 19/05/2022 - 07:15

        If we shift more to a private dominant system, you are going to be looking at prices comparable to the US. Ie. $300 for one vial of insulin compared to the $44-ish dollars we pay here for 25 vials, or $100,000-200,000 for a week of hospital care resulting from covid compared to free here, and when we shift to that sort of pricing the private companies will be looking for any loophole to not payout.

  • GG57 on 17/05/2022 - 15:44
    +3

    Interesting read on the background to Medicare, and how it should have been structured (but, at least something was put in place). Pity that dentistry was not included.
    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…

    • AustriaBargain on 17/05/2022 - 16:58
      -1

      I think the biggest problem with dentistry is that the federal government argues the states should pay for it, and the states argue the federal government should pay for it, so in the end no one pays for it and we're left with a very inefficient private dental industry.

      • GG57 on 18/05/2022 - 10:00
        +1

        When you say the federal government, that certainly applies to the LNP government. Other parties have a different view.

  • Donaldhump on 17/05/2022 - 15:52
    +14

    no because then you get gronks who opt out, have no insurance, and then expect Public Health to aid them.

  • DingoBilly on 17/05/2022 - 15:56
    +17

    No - people are too stupid to understand the implications of withdrawing from Medicare.

    • netjock on 19/05/2022 - 14:30

      There idea of implication is how much more money they got to spend on stuff (ex health)

  • bobbified on 17/05/2022 - 15:57
    +6

    From an individual point of view, I would say that we should only pay for one or the other, but I fear that if too many people went "private only", the medicare system would eventually get screwed and those that can least afford it won't be able to get the healthcare that they need. I would hate to see Australia move to a private system like America where so many people can't afford to get the care they need.

    I often wonder though, the private insurers (corporations) are obviously making money from the private health cover that supposed high income earners are being forced into (due to the MLS), so why can't the government have their "own insurer" that people are 'forced' into instead. Any profits from that the government insurer makes can go back into the health system rather than shareholders.

    • plastererJazz on 17/05/2022 - 15:57

      Yeah, I didn't put that in and for some reason I can't change the poll options.

      • bobbified on 17/05/2022 - 20:17
        +7

        America is a first world country with a healthcare system that is just way too cruel. We all need to do whatever we can to avoid heading further into that direction.

  • AirbusA389 on 17/05/2022 - 15:57
    +15

    Medicare is under attack all the time. it's not the same Medicare 10 years ago.

    To opt out from full medicare and go full private.. isn't that same as America? You sure you want American healthcare costs? I dont know about quality. I'm pretty sure quality of care is directly related to how much you can pay.

    • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 16:46

      I'm pretty sure quality of care is directly related to how much you can pay.

      America is case and point that this isn't always the case.

    • MrKnowItAll on 18/05/2022 - 12:53
      +2

      This one troubles me the most, all too often you hear of people who are in quite bad shape refusing medical care and not going to hospital because they could never afford it in the first place - some will die before they go to a hospital. This is an area that makes me so proud to be living in Australia and something we've definitely got right.

      • AirbusA389 on 18/05/2022 - 14:14
        +5

        exactly. Medicare allows us to move forward as a country, not as an individual.

        Here comes along someone with 200k income (45% income bracket) doing his maths:

        Medicare levy 2% + 1% MLS surcharge: $7.2k. that's too dear.

        How about $5000 for private health insurance?
        tax refund 45% translates into $2250 for health insurance.

        it's my autonomy to choose what's best for myself! modify anti-vax slogans and start ranting

        perhaps OP should look at the limitations of private hospitals. if the patient is too sick or requiring too many specialist input, the patient is transferred to a public hospital. No, there is no priority given JUST BECAUSE you have private health insurance. the nurses dont give a shit. Unfortunately, OP needs to be in quite a fair bit of medical troubles to truly understand this point.

        • bobbified on 18/05/2022 - 14:29
          +5

          Here comes along someone with 200k income (45% income bracket) doing his maths:
          Medicare levy 2% + 1% MLS surcharge: $7.2k. that's too dear.

          Not everyone!

          I have the option of paying a bit over $4,000 in MLS or buying the bottom level hospital cover for about $1000 (to avoid MLS) and saving myself about $3000 each year. I've chosen to keep paying the MLS instead of giving money to the private health insurers for pretty much nothing. I had private cover for more than ten years before and when I actually needed to use it, they covered absolutely nothing! The rebates for the consultations came from Medicare. So I completely ditched my private cover! When I needed a huge operation recently, it was done in a public hospital. The treatment and care was first class and I could not have asked for more.

          • AirbusA389 on 18/05/2022 - 14:32
            +3

            @bobbified: this is wisdom coming from someone who has been through both public and private health system.

            young and/or healthy people: MLS is just another rip-off! why am I paying for what i dont use?

            it's me myself and I. why should i pay for others to benefit?

          • MrThing on 18/05/2022 - 15:38
            -2

            @bobbified: So to get that straight, u pay more mls just so u dont pay a private health insurance company?

            Hmm, thats pretty stupid / stubborn muh freedumbs move

            • bobbified on 18/05/2022 - 16:33
              +5

              @MrThing:

              Hmm, thats pretty stupid / stubborn muh freedumbs move

              You're entitled to your own opinion.

              As I mentioned earlier, I decided to do this after paying 10 years of premiums into the private system and getting nothing out of it when I needed it. I have subsequently had an operation worth about $250K in the public system, so the additional money that I'm paying in MLS now is really nothing in comparison. I've got about 30 years of work before retirement so even if I add it all up, it won't even cover half the benefit I received just from that one operation itself. I'm happy with my salary and it's enough for me not to miss the few thousand each year. Actually, I'm just happy to be alive - thanks to our public healthcare system.

          • aliceisstupid on 19/05/2022 - 08:47

            @bobbified: if you’re paying $4k MLS, you’re in the top tier (>140k or family >280k) so chances are pretty much zero that your PHI premium would only be $1k. It’s structured so that basic PHI is usually only just cheaper than MLS.

            Completely agree with the principle though, I do the same (pay MLS instead of dogshit PHI)

            • bobbified on 19/05/2022 - 15:24

              @aliceisstupid:

              so chances are pretty much zero that your PHI premium would only be $1k

              Yeh, my $1K figure was the cheapest I found a few years ago. I'm not surprised that there's anything under $1k/year. They keep jacking their premiums!

              I did have a quick look out of curiousity at the NIB policies and the cheapest one that they advertise is $18/week. Assuming it's already discounted by the 30% rebate, the cost with no rebate would be $26/week or $1352/year. Still not too bad if someone wants a junk policy.

          • netjock on 19/05/2022 - 14:32

            @bobbified:

            they covered absolutely nothing

            Lot of people buy junk policies to avoid MLS and also loading. When you get old enough (or people have babies) they switch to higher levels of cover. Not that I am advocating that but just saying.

            • bobbified on 19/05/2022 - 15:12
              +2

              @netjock: I actually had top cover. They didn't cover private specialist fees at all, whereas Medicare still provided a rebate of $110 (if I remember correctly).or so per consult.

              I must admit that I already knew it when I bought the policy but it feels very different to actually experience it. It was the first time I was sick and required something more than a GP and I ended up spending a few grand on specialist appointments. So after that, it made me wonder what exactly I was paying for.

              Sounds weird to even say it - "private health cover doesn't cover private specialists". lol

  • AndyC1 on 17/05/2022 - 16:05
    +1

    Speak with your federal member as nothing will be done here.

    • GG57 on 17/05/2022 - 16:31
      +3

      The (former) LNP Health Minister didn't even try to hide his intention to move our healthcare system closer to that of the USA; it was part of his maiden speech to Parliament. Thank goodness he has gone now, but the LNPs still managed to remove more items from Medicare recently.

      • AndyC1 on 17/05/2022 - 17:20

        Speak with your federal member , not former member.

        • GG57 on 18/05/2022 - 10:02
          +1

          The former member "retired" a couple of weeks ago. No-one has replaced him.

  • OzziB on 17/05/2022 - 16:21
    +5

    You can always move to the USA if this is your preferred medical system. Please look into other International HC Systems and how they work. You will undoubtedly find none are ideal for all.

  • pao2x on 17/05/2022 - 16:21
    +4

    You think your 2% medicare levy pays for all that public health does?

  • rektrading on 17/05/2022 - 16:42

    The way to play this is to reduce your income to avoid the MLS by shifting your income to a different entity. This works quite well for high-income individuals.

    • AndyC1 on 17/05/2022 - 17:24

      Just make sure it's one of the legal methods used.

      high-income individuals is wrong. They earn less than a public servant, but they own and get paid in shares or assets via legal methods or other ways that I have no idea about as I do not earn enough to pay for the dodgy, but legal accountants.

  • Benoffie on 17/05/2022 - 16:52
    +8

    There should be no private health rebate and all private funding should go public.

    Governments have no business paying corporations.

    The model works well OS and modelling has shown doing the above would bolster Medicare and the hospital system for ages.

    • bobbified on 17/05/2022 - 17:17
      +5

      Governments have no business paying corporations.

      Governments also have no business forcing us to pay corporations!

  • trustnoone on 17/05/2022 - 17:03
    +4

    For example, A pays a $2000 levy and $1000 private insurance to get public health treatment and low to no private health treatment.

    First question IMO is why the F do we pay $1k a year and get absolutely nothing out of private health insurance, what a rort (and should give you a good idea on what will happen if you go Private Health Only).

    Would it A better of paying $3000 or $3500 more for private insurance only to get better private health treatment and free up public resources for others.

    IMO not really, I'd likely get more out of paying $2k for medicare then I'd get with that extra $2k in health insurance. Less hassle to deal with too.
    A few issues comes with it as well. A big part of this is that most middle to high income earners pay for health insurance for the low income or students or those in a bad place or vulnerable. From a wide lens it works well as it supports Aus as a whole and allows for these people to get back on their feet to provide for the economy/country along with reducing crime etc. Of which they can't do if money is taken away from medicare.
    From a personal view though, it can be easy to only care about myself and thus only pay for care for me, which is great for me/family but screws the country over more.

    Also I really, really don't trust companies, if they can get a monopoly in private health, they will. And I wouldn't not be surprised if this little "nudge" end up turning too "now this is in place and most workers are paying for private health, why don't we tie it to the American model and use that". And I DO NOT EVER want that.

  • tsunamisurfer on 17/05/2022 - 17:16

    As said above.

    Even if you use private health, that always sits ON TOP of what Medicare already subsidises.

    Without any Medicare the bill will be much much more.

    Not to forget you are also foregoing the PBS for medication, without PBS the prices are astronomical that no insurance would ever pay.

  • wallet72 on 17/05/2022 - 17:18
    +2

    stop the 30% tax rebate and put that money into Medicare

  • SF3 on 17/05/2022 - 17:22
    +13

    “Someone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.”

    • OzziB on 17/05/2022 - 17:53
      +1

      Something lost on current adult generations it appears

      • plmko on 17/05/2022 - 18:26

        You'll be surprised how many boomers hate medicare.

        • BartholemewH on 18/05/2022 - 20:47

          I would be. Tell us more.

  • brendanm on 17/05/2022 - 17:41
    +13

    No.

    Medicare is one of the best things about this place. I hate paying tax, as most of it is wasted, but very happy about the part that funds Medicare. Health and education need more funding, not less. We should be opting out of all the garbage the government spends money on, not opting out of paying for healthcare for all.

    • OzziB on 17/05/2022 - 17:54

      What do you deem as garbage?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join