It's scary isn';t it. Fancy trying to do the upper crust out of some welfare.
A Joice said he can't live on 2 million a year.
What is the proposed cut off limit in $
Well and truly justified.
The call has been for welfare reform, so here is an installment. The estimate i think was 1.5--2 billion in savings in 4 years.

That's from the Deloitte report, isn't it Shadow Minister.

>>Pericles, The biggest risk identified was that about 4.6 million will downgrade their insurance.<<

Plus a bit of your own inflation, I notice...

"Over a five-year period those numbers will dramatically rise to 1.6 million people who will withdraw their private cover and 4.3 million people who will downgrade their cover."

There are a couple of interesting things about that report. The first is that it was entirely based upon an ANOP/Newspoll survey, that asked for consumer reactions to "a 10 per cent increase in price". All the subsequent modelling delivered numbers that were based on that single premise.

http://www.hbf.com.au/pdf/Save-Your-Rebate-Deloitte-Report-2011.pdf

Every year the cost of PHI has increased by around 6%. And every year, membership has increased, and the level of cover maintained. The conclusion can only be that people don't tend to ditch or downgrade their health insurance just because the price goes up. There are deeper, lifestyle-related, family-related issues that drive their membership.

It is also worth pointing out that there was no discernible upward spike of new membership when the rebate was originally introduced.

Three measures were used by the Government to encourage membership, and they went like this:

1. Private Health Insurance Incentives Act (July 1997), the "stick" that introduced the Medical Levy Surcharge of 1% for high earners without PHI.

Impact: membership over the next year declined.

2. Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme (January 1999), the "carrot" of the tax rebate.

Impact: membership over the next year increased slightly.

Lifetime Health Cover (July 2000), the carrot/stick that said if you don't join by June 30th 2000, you'll pay a 2% per year uplift on your premium, counting from your 31st birthday.

Impact: membership over the next year increased substantially, from just over 30% of the population to over 45%, where it has remained ever since.

I think the PHI industry will have egg on its face over this, and the Coalition may be crying wolf over an issue that is not going to win them a single vote.

I agree that the state should not subsidize the health of the wealthy.

Yes, the state needs to subsidize the health of the poor, but No, it should not subsidize the health-professionals.

Would you like it if the law forced you to purchase cucumbers?
If failure to purchase a certain amount of cucumbers would result in a fine exceeding the price of those un-bought cucumbers?
What if you didn't like cucumbers, or perhaps if you were even allergic to them?

- But that's exactly what the government is doing with medical services in collusion with the AMA!

Fortunately the government is not in collusion with the cucumber growers (although I am told that in Queensland it is in collusion with the sugar growers), but it is with the Australian Medical Association.

The bottom line is that the government forces people to buy a product they don't want and never asked for.

If a middle/high income earner wants to obtain a medical service, then they should simply find a provider/doctor/practitioner and pay for that service.

It is simple.

It encourages people to have a healthy life-style.

It encourages good practitioners, rather than the AMA's yes-men.
It discourages bad practitioners.
It creates a level playing field between conventional and non-conventional healing modalities, allowing the customer to choose.

It allows for more diverse medical-insurance schemes, including schemes that are currently illegal, such as those with more than $500/year excess.

Personally, I would select a medical insurance with say $50,000 excess to provide for the unlikely event of requiring any of the most complex operations. For the rest, if I choose to see medical doctors in the first place, I can and should pay myself.

Statistically, self-insurance is the cheapest!

The AMA knows it, so it uses the government to stifle competition and fill up their pockets.

Pericles has encapsulated the situation perfectly. The LNP likes to talk up the downside.
That is their policy platform in it's entirety SM.

Can I ask if the Deloittes assessment was commissioned by the PHI to put their case because that is all I could hear, from the bleating voices of the opposition during the debate in the Senate on the way home. The Member for Murray is an absolute disgrace with her lie-fest of a speech going all the way back to pink batts. You mean we actually pay such people for their contribution ?. Why ?.

Of course we should end the Health Subsidy and put more back into the Public Health Sector.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3826920.html

The link I'm providing gets really interesting when you start reading through the comments. The article describes the history of this subject for all of you youngsters.

A nurse describes the difference between the staff car parks of private hospitals and public hospitals and then goes on to say where all the public money has gone into the private health system. Into the pockets of doctors driving Porches and Rolls Royces. It's as close as you can get to the real picture.

private insurance..[like all insurance seems great]
till you have to pay the top up...[and realise you got scamed..or flooded out]

people dont realise..paying extra
means you must pay extra when you get sick

think of all the non docters
getting rich..from your health dollar
and worse..paying bonus to shareholders..needing a return

someone is proffiteering...on your sickness
insurance in japan..is only payable when your healthy
when your sick..you shouldnt have to cough up extra

think of one who paid full insurance
who goes to private hospital[for proffit]
dies after a few weeks..then his estate..cops a bill
when these lazey..docters..ignorance..kills them

or how about the private docter
time is money..so every birth is a ceaser
leaving ho\rrible scars..then plastic surgery corrections

and you must pay the excesss
to those who want it in cash..or on ya credit card

govt bad laws..
contribute to our illhealth
govt legislated the environment..that made us sick

its only right they..and the polutions
that made us sick alone should pay

does health insurance
insure the cost of court cases

to bring
the cause..of your illness
to account?

how is that greedy annual increase..
in private insurance cost..indexed
*way abouve..inflation..

no for proffit insurance
no for proffit health beurocracy

Means testing passed the senate this morning. The noalition voted against, as normal, and expected.
There seems little regard by the opposition for the economy, of our nation.
In fact they won't even mention the economy.