After paying my doctors bills, about three hundred dollars, I went to Medicare to fill in the online register paperwork. What a waste oif time.

First I didn't realize it was now part of Centrelink, so here I was seated waiting for my name to be called, and half an hour later I got up and left. There was ONE PERSON on the counter.

The lady on the floor asked me if was ok and I told her this was a joke I pay so much into this fund and this is how I get treated.

All I can say if you are going to hurt yourself, loose your job first because then you wont get charged in the first place.

So my $1700 per year in Medicare levy is for what! There is no longer a Medicare as far as I can tell.

You done what Mal wants you to do.

Any normal person would have done that on line, which is another thing Mal wants you to do.

Why did not wherever you paid your money do that for you.

If we had an NBN it would be much easier. It will take Labor and billions of $ to rectify that.

*All I can say if you are going to hurt yourself, loose your job first because then you wont get charged in the first place.*

The presumed truth in that statement, is based on a fallacy!

Rehctub,

I see you didn't enjoy your little jaunt to Centrelink to put in a claim with Medicare.

Guess who came up with the fantastic idea to amalgate those two govt agencies in the same building and staffed at a minimum?

The Abbott govt, that's who - great stuff, eh!

And you reacted exactly as is intended by walking out in disgust - because you can afford to.

As for Medicare - if you had been seriously injured by your petulance and outrage, the system would have treated you for free in any public hospital emergency department ...

Dear Rehctub,

<<So my $1700 per year in Medicare levy is for what!>>

Just think of it as ransom-money. You pay the bastards what they want, then you can go and do whatever you want with the rest....

Or can you?

The existence of Medicare prevents us from having an appropriate and truly-private health insurance. We are unable to take an Australian private-health insurance without providing a Medicare number (the only exception being if we hold a temporary working visa).

Now the way it works is that while your private health fund will refund you for all (or nearly all) your medical expenses, for most medical items it will partially charge Medicare and partially top it up itself. There is no legal way for us to claim only the top-up part from our health-fund, requesting them not to forward our claim to Medicare in the first place and to not accept the Medicare payment on our behalf.

For me, as I refuse to accept the money that was stolen from you, Rehctub, this means that I cannot claim on most medical items at all and need to pay them out-of-pocket. I still keep a so-called-private health insurance only to cover any hospital-bed costs because they could potentially rise to a 6-digit figure and fortunately, unlike doctor/medical-costs, they can still be claimed without Medicare involvement.

Dear Rehctub,

Many doctors now offer Medicare electronic claiming.

This allows you to claim your Medicare rebate when you pay
your account at the doctor's surgery. If the doctor uses
the EFTPOS system your rebate is paid into your nominated
account almost immediately. If your doctor uses the
internet-based system - your rebate is paid into your
account within a few days. The doctor's secretary should
have told you this.

I recently had surgery at a hospital. As a private patient who pays insurance each month I was slugged an extra 2000 dollars. I know people who earn much more than I do and get everything free as public patients through Medicare. No wonder the country is broke and the average worker trying to do the right thing is slugged at every point.

Dear runner,

I also have private health cover.

Always have had. And for my recent surgery
I also had to pay several thousand dollars.
However, my entire hospital stay cost over
$50,000 for which my insurance paid. Therefore
it was quite worth having the private health
cover.

Foxy

Without private health cover you would of paid nothing. So you paid for insurance, Medicare and the extra few thousand. The overall cost is irrelevant. No wonder so many people drop private cover and choose to rely on the public purse.

Insurance is designed to realise annual profits, not to deliver a fair return to you.

Private cover is useful for anything other than emergency admission. Otherwise, elective surgery could be a wait.

I am well out of pocket for family health cover and treatments over all of the years we have had it. It could finance a house.

This discussion might be better aimed at discussing the options, esp for those making those big life transitions. Although as Choice Mag (Aust Consumers Assoc) says, the providers have complicated it so much that it is very difficult to make comparisons.

I have found Medicare office quite efficient and the wait was not too long.
It is not co-sited with Centrelink, so that might be the difference.

I went to Medicare which was in the same office as Centrelink. I approached the Lady at the desk who told me to take a seat. Waited less than ten minutes and the Medicare person checked my details, was very helpful and friendly. I received a refund in the time she told me.
I confess being retired means I can happily wait but honestly I was treated promptly and well. Perhaps Recthub just picked the wrong time to put in his claim?

Foxy, i'm a great butcher, but unfortunately not too computer savvy, so just cant seem to apply online, which is why I went to seek help.

Poirot, yet another Abbott bashing thread for you to sink your teeth into hey.

How are you going with those figures?

rehctub,

You mean these figures?

From the time of the last election:

Net debt was: $175 billion
Net debt now: $274 billion

Gross debt was: $273 billion
Gross debt now: $430 billion

Net debt to GDP was: 10%
Net debt to GDP now: 16.9%

Wages growth was: 2.6%
Wages growth now: 2.3%

Govt spending was: 24.1% of GDP
Govt spending now: 25.8% of GDP

Unemployment was: 5.6%
Unemployment now: 5.8%

Computers have been mainstream since 1980, that is ample time to learn something about the system. We cannot run a duel system. So get with it.

Get on the NBN that is supposed to be the greatest. A mishmash of this that and the other. What a disaster. Turnbulls centrepiece.

As Foxy said...

I have never had to make a claim at Medibank. The practitioner sends the details to Medibank, and the refund goes into my bank account.

Dear runner,

I would not be without private health cover.
Yes, we also have paid a fortune over the years -
but found that it has been worth having as in my
case it was not a matter of" elective surgery" but
life or death. And without private health cover
we would have had trouble financially. Private
health cover has served us well. As has being
subscribers to the Ambulance service. Worth having,
worth supporting. That's how I was brought up.

Ok Poirot, let me spell it out for you based on your own numbers.

Net debt rose by $99 Billion.

How much of that $99 Billion was spent on the following;

1. Servicing the illegals in detention

2. Stopping the boats

3. Finding solutions to a problem that did not exist.

Gross debt increased by $157 billion.

How much of this is for

1. Servicing the illegals in detention

2. Stopping the boats

3. Finding solutions t a problem that did not exist.

Gross debt to GDP increased by 69%

How much of this is for

1. Servicing the illegals in detention

2. Stopping the boats

3. Finding solutions t a problem that the Libs inherited.

Gross debt increased by $157 billion.

Government spending a 7% increase.

How much of this was for

1. Servicing the illegals in detention

2. Stopping the boats

3. Finding solutions t a problem that the Libs inherited.

Gross debt increased by $157 billion.

As for wages, its called a retraction in mining.

Lets see if you can now provide the REAL NUMBERS poirot.

rectub,

Typical....

This mob of wreckers have been in nearly three years, haven't managed to pass one budget yet, are obviously fiscal incompents.

..and the butcher blames Labor.

Lol!

rehctub,

"New research: Abbott and Turnbull the worst economic managers since Menzies"

http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2016/jun/14/new-research-abbott-and-turnbull-the-worst-economic-managers-since-menzies?CMP=share_btn_tw

"New research by the Australia Institute reveals that across a broad range of economic measures, the Abbott/Turnbull government has performed the worst of any Australian government since Menzies took power in 1949. The institute’s paper also notes that historically there is little correlation between “business friendly” policies and economic performance."

"But a report by the Australia Institute to be released today titled “Jobs and Growth ... And a Few Hard Numbers” shows that there is little correlation between economic performance and either political party. The report, which examines the economic performance of Australia under every prime minister since Menzies, also found that the “business friendliness” of a government does not appear to have much impact either.

The report examines economic performance across a range of 12 indicators – including GDP per capita, the unemployment rate, employment growth and the growth of real business investment and intellectual property investment.

The findings by economist Jim Stanford showed that on all but two measures, the performance under the Abbott/Turnbull government has been worse than that under the Gillard government.

Only on the measure of growth of government debt as a share of GDP is the Abbott/Turnbull government “better”. But even if you agree with the proposition that lower government debt is a good thing, the Abbott/Turnbull growth of 2.16% of GDP is only marginally better than the 2.26% of GDP growth observed under the Gillard government."

Let's take one step at a time shall we Poirot, produce the REAL numbers why don't you.

As for passing budget measures, one suggestion would be the unworkable senate. But at least that may change.

Once the real figures are produced, then, and only then can we actually compare the two. Wouldn't you agree?

No good blaming the senate if the proposed legislation was any good there would be no problem. That is what Abbott said.

Parrot,

Your reference about Abbott and Turnbull being the worst economic managers since Menzies highlights you lack of discernment about fact-gathering in your arguments against anything not suiting your looney-left ideology.

None of the objects of your hatred were Treasurers; they were Prime Ministers.

The Guardian (your reference), like you, is not the least concerned about the veracity or sense of the muck they throw at anyone they hate; and, as far as Menzies is concerned, neither you nor the Commo muck-spreader at the Guardian are old enough to know anything about the man.

ttbn,

"Parrot"

Wow! - another poster here who thinks it's great to pull out the kiddie names - what do you for an encore, ttbn?

Find your own immature epithet - that one's Shadow Minister's (use it again and you won't receive a response)

"Your reference about Abbott and Turnbull being the worst economic managers since Menzies highlights you lack of discernment about fact-gathering in your arguments against anything not suiting your looney-left ideology. "

Lack of discernment? - that's rich. Okay how about giving me some facts which point to the fact that this pack of incompetent wreckers have done anything at all for the economy?

"Commo muck-spreader"

Lol! - scintillating!

"Menzies, a failure by today’s rules, ran a budget to build the nation"

http://theconversation.com/menzies-a-failure-by-todays-rules-ran-a-budget-to-build-the-nation-30823

"Robert Menzies left Australia in far worse financial shape than he found it, at least according to current treasurer Joe Hockey’s favourite debt and deficit benchmark. Having inherited budget surpluses from the Chifley Labor government, the Menzies Coalition government ran small budget surpluses from 1949-50 to 1957-58.

But then Menzies' “irresponsible profligacy” began, running budget deficits for the last nine years of his reign.

Between 1958-59 and 1966-67, Menzies averaged budget deficits of 1.8% of GDP. His biggest deficit of 3.3% of GDP in his final year in office was larger than the last Swan deficit, which the Abbott government has called a “disaster” and a “budget crisis”.

"While Hockey borrowed his “lifters and leaners” line from Menzies, he has not borrowed his fiscal strategy. Spending as a percentage of GDP rose steadily and substantially under Menzies, from 19.4% of GDP to 24.5%. The public sector that Hockey so derides grew by around 25% while Menzies, a Liberal hero to prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott – as well as Hockey – was calling the shots."

There's a world of difference between Menzies and his record and this bunch of fiscally incompetent cowboys.

Piorot, not being as old as some, and only forming an active interest in politics since the early 80's, perhaps you could tell me when the last surplus was delivered by a labor government.

I know Keating didn't, and despite the 101 promises from Swan, he didn't, so who did and when?

Rehctub,

Whitlam ran surpluses in 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75....only in 1975-76 was there a deficit.

Thanks Poirot, now back to the current numbers.

It has been suggested that the GFC accounted for $40 billion of labors spending, so take that off your numbers if you wish, but without the use of untainted figures, it is impossible to make a comparison unless you just want to grand stand the issue without the real facts.

Now if you are in fact a Labor person, then I can understand why you don't want to produce the real numbers, be cause they are appalling to say the least.

All that debt, from a surplus position, and so little to show for it, yet here they are trying to gain our trust again.

rehctub,

You can dance around all you like.

Fact..this govt has added $100 billion to "net" debt in less than three years - after cutting anything they could which wasn't required to pass through parliament.

You give me the numbers, rehctub?

I have provided perfectly good figures from reputable sources.

All you have done is jump up and down and tell me you want some other "numbers".

I've noticed that you're quite lazy in this regard.

If you are not happy with the figures I've produced, then go and do some research and provide something that refutes it.

Don't keep sitting there requesting I do your work - I've already provided the figures supporting my argument.

How about you do the same?

By the way, rehctub,

Those "reputable sources" I mentioned...

I got those figures from economist Stephen Koukoulas when he posted them on twitter.

I attributed them to him.

He tweeted me that he couldn't take attribution as he had sourced those figures straight from Scott Morrison's MYEFO.

So there you have it....my figures, which you reckon aren't good enough - came straight from Morrison.

I will take it on notice Poirot, but unlike most on this site, I work full time, but I will try none the less.

I will also send an email to that guy you mentioned and perhaps he can provide the figures, as the REAL FIGURES form a very important part of the argument, otherwise you are simply using labor spin.

BTW, the question is very simple, so perhaps someone else on this site can find them.

Q. Of the libs $99 billion in additional debt while in office, how much of this was expended on labor failures, such as illegals,
Stopping the boats
Dealing with the 2000 that started as TWO
The resettlement costs for the remaining 1998

Insulation,
Rectifying the stuff ups
Funding the royal commission
Compensation paid

Plus anything else labor conveniently left behind after their failed Kevin 07 experiment.

Poirot,

'Parrot' doesn't suit SM: he doesn't just parrot back someone else's rubbish as you do. If some deadbeat Commo says something, you parrot it back as though it were the gospel truth.

Won't get a response? You call Tuesday's blather a response, do you? More reference to your favourite nutters, that's all it was. Ever thought of finding out things for yourself?

You are definitely a talking bird merely repeating what your masters say. Perhaps not a parrot - more of a little cage-bred budgie. I'll call you Budgie, then.

How about "some facts" from you, showing that the people you mentioned did more harm to the economy than Swann, Rudd and Gillard did? Swann was the only Treasurer in that shower (none of yours were/are Treasurers, but I'll play by your rules and bring leaders in). Swann was a blithering idiot, lead by morons. Gives us facts refuting that.

Looking forward to hearing some first-hand FACTS from you, Budgie. I suppose that handle for someone like you is insulting to other budgies; but useless, twittering little bird seems apt for you.

ttbn,'

I skimmed half your post.

When I referrenced Shadow Minister in regards to "parrot", I was referring to his semi-regular habit of regressing to primary school tactics and calling me "parrot".

I was reflecting that was his kiddie name for me - and perhaps use should use your considerable genius for puerile banter and come up with something original.

I don't know what other garbage was in your post - and nor do I care.

You are one poster here who is hardly worth the effort.

Poirot, when are you going to stop the games and come up with the real numbers.

Using your own figures, net debt from labor went from negative $20B to $175B. Allowing $40B for the GFC, that still leaves $155B that those fools racked up, and for what?

We had a ridiculous NBN that was to take fibre to some 94% of households, with no guarantee they would use it, an unfunded educational mess, unfunded NDIS, policy failure after policy failure like fuel watch/grocery watch, and an insulation debacle costing billions to get wrong, more billions to rectify (the libs problem of cause) and four young lives.

Of cAuse the mother of all mothers was Rudds ultimate 'brain fart', the illegals debacle, where he inherited TWO and left two thousand.

So I will make it as easy as I can Poirot;
$x is where the libs started from
$Y is where they are now, and $Z are the dollars required to service the debts and commitments left behind by labor.

You can save face by providing these REAL NUMBRS, or you can continue the blame game but i'm not buying it.

Of cause you can also throw your hands into the air and take your bat and ball home as you have threatened to, and I must say, I don't blame you.

You started this argument, and unless you provide the REAL NUMBERS, you are admitting guilt.

You can't fool me Poirot.

"You can't fool me Poirot."

Lol!....I wouldn't dare try, rehctub!

How could I fool a hard working butcher who appears to spend half his time on OLO asking the same question...but never has time to come up with the REAL NUMBERS to throw back at me.

(I thought you emailed Stephen Koukoulas for those, anyway)

Btw, let's have a look at the lastest machinations of that very strange character the govt have made Treasurer.

"Scott Morrison takes Coalition scare campaign to the brink of parody"

"Scott Morrison has turned the volume to 11 in the Coalition’s intensifying campaign to scare voters off voting for the Greens or independents.

The treasurer has launched a new Liberal advertisement with a loud rock soundtrack entitled “The Greening of Labor” which, in the fine tradition of the fabulous faux documentary about the fictitious rock band Spinal Tap, stretches the “attack ad” genre to the point of parody."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/15/election-2016-scott-morrison-coalition-greens-scare-campaign-parody?CMP=share_btn_tw

It's almost surreal that this fella is actually the Treasurer of Australia - and not some second-rate comedy actor having a pull of our leg.

Actually Poirot, I spend about half an hour at around 5am, another hour or so during the day, then sometime a bit more at night. I rather enjoy it and prefer this to watching the box, unless of cause the Broncos are playing. I drive my wife mad.

I should get time today to email that guy, lets see what he comes back with hey!

rehctub, Foxy,

Interesting article...

"Medibank customers hope to get their money back with ACCC's help"

"For 15 years she paid for Medibank's most comprehensive private health insurance policy, giving her peace of mind she wouldn't pay out-of-pocket fees in hospital.

And for 15 years, that was the case, even when her chronic Crohn's disease saw her admitted up to 10 times a year.
Advertisement

But then, following a two-week stay at the Cabrini Hospital in Melbourne's east in April last year, they arrived: a $500 bill for an MRI scan and a $200 bill for tests.

"I thought it had been sent to me in error, so I rang up and said 'what's going on? I've received a bill; I never receive bills'," she said.

The 47-year-old TAFE teacher says the hospital explained that Medibank had changed its policies and limited its cover for in-hospital pathology and radiology results.

"I was furious," Ms Harrison told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

"If I had of been made aware of the change in the policy, I would have gotten coverage from a different provider, because I know that I need those services.

"The reason I have that top-level cover is so I don't get saddled with a massive bill."

Now, the consumer watchdog has accused Medibank and its subsidiary, ahm, of deliberately keeping the policy changes secret.

It did so, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleges, to protect its brand and boost its profits ahead of being privatised and listed on the stock exchange in November 2014.

The ACCC launched court action on Wednesday accusing Medibank of misleading and unconscionable conduct, alleging the insurer relied on the high probability customers like Ms Harrison would think in-hopsital free were still covered."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/medibank-customers-hope-to-get-their-money-back-with-acccs-help-20160616-gpkn6h.html#ixzz4BmnvRd4