An interesting 'article' from crikey on premiums:

What do you think we're running here? Medicare?
Jennifer Doggett writes:

Dear Minister Roxon

In response to your request to health funds to explain why our premiums keep going up, please find below for your consideration an explanation and some suggestions of how to address this important issue.

The main problem for private health funds is simply that people don't really want our product. Despite your generous 30% subsidy (and the extra 1% tax on middle and high income earners who don't sign up), less than half the population is on board.

Unfortunately for us, the people who join are often those more likely to need health care. We can't refuse insurance to anyone who is sick or old. We can't even charge high-risk people more -- they pay the same premiums as everyone else, no matter what sort of havoc that creates for our balance sheets. Allowing us to refuse insurance to people who are likely to actually need health care would ensure our premiums remained significantly lower.



The attitude of the young and healthy is also a problem. They make the foolish assumption that just because they don't get sick they don't need health insurance, not realising that their role is not to use their insurance but just to pay their premiums and subsidise everyone else. It was hard enough to get them interested when we could offer them free CDs and gym shoes, it's almost impossible now.

Another problem are fund members who feel that once they have paid their premiums for years they are entitled to get the maximum benefit from it when they get sick. They demand private rooms, their choice of doctor and the best quality hip replacements, rather than making do with a cheaper version. Although we make it as difficult as possible for consumers to work out exactly what their entitlements are, far too many of them manage to read the fine print closely enough to put a sizable dent in our profit margins.

And don't get me started on health professionals. They continually put their fees up, well aware that their patients have health insurance and won't have to pay the full cost of the increase. Optometrists suggest that their customers get a new pair of glasses each year, whether or not they need it, knowing that the government and the health fund will foot the bill. I hope you will act swiftly to put a stop to this blatant exploitation of tax payer funds. After all, don't health providers realise that private health insurance is the only industry that is supposed to benefit from this government largesse?

Finally, there are the advertising costs. With close to 40 health funds competing for less than 50% of the population, we have to keep pumping money into promotions to keep up with the competition. And with a product that has as little to offer as ours, you will appreciate that we need to spend up big to persuade consumers that they should sign up.

In the light of the above issues, I hope you understand that your support for continued premium increases is essential to maintain the unique qualities of private health insurance. After all, if we were a low-cost, efficient, equitable and popular health insurance program we would be called Medicare, wouldn't we?

yours sincerely,
A Health Fund Manager

Jennifer Doggett is a consultant who has worked in a number of different areas of the health system, including the federal health department and the community sector, and as a political advisor on health policy. She is the author of A New Approach to Primary Care for Australia.

LOL.

We have private health insurance . My partner wears glasses and hates contact lenses. Her optometrist is forever suggesting to her that she should wear both contact lenses and glasses (not at the same time) despite her refusal to. Contacts and glasses requires two different eye tests. Then of course, you have to purchase the lenses and frames and saline solutions etc. All covered by private health insurance.

OPSM now has a policy where they won't sell you contact lenses if your eye test script is less than 6 months old even though you are only required to have an eye test once a year.

the sooner we stop the health fund welfare rort the better. subsidies to private companies is a farce. if it can't provide a service and make a profit then it needs to do what the government has done and open up wholly owned private health clinics to cater for it's own clients. perhaps then it can stop leeching of the public health system.

But you can't make private systems compete with free, publicly funded systems. You either have to do away with public healthcare or support private health care in some way, albeit at less cost per user.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 9:23pm:

But you can't make private systems compete with free, publicly funded systems. You either have to do away with public healthcare or support private health care in some way, albeit at less cost per user.

agreed. however hyundi doesn't make a play for rolls royce market share. nor vic versa. trying to make private something akin to public hasn't worked.
most high end products in the market place have it's own service and warranty centres. why not health insurance companys have their own clinics?

the same goes for education. why should the taxpayer foot the bill for a parents choice? it's only pandering to aspirations to upper-middle class status.

There are no free government funded cars.

You could make private health and private education fund itself, but it would only be for the super rich. Everyone else would go back to public health care and public education, which I'm pretty sure would cost the government more. I think the government saves money from the current system. There is no reason why the super rich can't have their own exclusive services under the current system. In fact they do.

the metaphor wasn't quite up to scatch. what i was really trying to point out is the core business strategy of rolls and hyundai differ primarily due to the market share they're trying to capture. public health tries to offer(due to economy of scale) something that caters to a sector of the populace that private health insurers really aren't that interested in covering anyway. they've really only been enticed into the market with Huge government subsidies. Those subsidies the government would do better to invest directly into public health infrastructure and staffing levels without healthfund shareholders skimming off profits from.

this follows a tried and true methodolgy most conservative governments implement. take for example aboriginal settlements. while the neocon gov. of jh was in office they ran atsic into the ground with smaller and smaller grants and funding. the gov. cried foul, declared it wasn't working and promptly abandoned it. next they further reduced funding to primary health care, education, housing, welfare, infrastructure and policing. when things (expectantly) fell apart they declared something akin to a state of emergency all the while making themselves out to be heros of the day. when in fact the were the makers of the disaster.

medibank was no different - it worked. it's just that fraser didn't like it, neither did jh as minister for business and consumer affairs. it was gutted and left to die a miserable death. as fas as conservupaliers are concerned if it's public it must be sold. because private enterprise is "better" and will provide "better service". this is of course a complete lie and there is not one example today of a public utility where this has been proven to be true.

public education, health care, transport, banking, infrastructure, police, telecommunications, electricity and military should always remain public. of course these enterprises can be run to make money - but essential services are just that, essential for everyone. it has yet to be proven that it is essential or efficient to make money from public utilities or sevices.

Those subsidies the government would do better to invest directly into public health infrastructure and staffing levels without healthfund shareholders skimming off profits from.

Prove it.

As far as I can tell we would be worse off. There would be less choice and fewer government funds available per 'public customer'.

Prove it.

not possible without holding the reins of power.



As far as I can tell we would be worse off. There would be less choice and fewer government funds available per 'public customer'


less choice is good. that is how efficiency is earned, less choice - More of the simple neccessary stuff.

instead of throwing gov. funds at people to give them more choice, you concentrate on delivering lots of what families (or people who'd like to have families) need. like free education, free visits to GP's and hospitals for non-electives, cheap housing.
i've never been a fan of having the gov. throw money at health insurance companies (or any private or  religious enterprise) so the clients with all the wiz bang addons can have subsidised non-elective surgery and medical treatments.

the same goes for public education. economy of scale is what our modern society is built upon. neo-corps and churches like it so much they beg governments to let them take on government services.......

not possible without holding the reins of power

You could go a long way just by getting away from vague generalisations.

that is how efficiency is earned, less choice

It depends how you define efficiency. In such a broad argument, economists usually define it in terms of getting people what they want, which you can't do by reducing choices. There is no reasonable standard by which reduction of choice improves efficiency. Also in this case, increasing choice also reduces cost to the government. I think you are missing the main point - by subsidising private health and education, the government could actually save money and deliver a better service to public customers as well.

economy of scale is what our modern society is built upon

That is an absurd simplification. Goivernment enforced uniformity is the hallmark of communism, not capitalism.

Goivernment enforced uniformity is the hallmark of communism, not capitalism.

Which is exactly what Dooley wants for all Australians

Dooley wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 8:37pm:

the sooner we stop the health fund welfare rort the better. subsidies to private companies is a farce. if it can't provide a service and make a profit then it needs to do what the government has done and open up wholly owned private health clinics to cater for it's own clients. perhaps then it can stop leeching of the public health system.

Leeching?  Can you explain please?

That is an absurd simplification. Goivernment enforced uniformity is the hallmark of communism, not capitalism.

stretching my point easily allows pidgeonholing as communist mantra. i'd never propose that people who want their children educated by religious institutions to be dragged away from such. as a matter of fact i openly embrace pluralism. i just don't think that the government should be beholden to religious institutions through government funding. i do believe in means testing however. i do see that not every private school is a "brisbane boys grammar". On the other hand i don't agree with the elitist attitude "we are g*ds chosen people" guff that ALL private religious institutions embrace and indoctrinate in their flocks - be it catholic,  c of e, muslim or jew. I do not see the government has a role in fomenting that form of intolerance through the private education system. If people want their children to attend these institutions then good on them. But i don't want my tax dollars supporting them.

The only reason private health insurance looks so good is because the past gov's have allowed it to (state and federal) crumble under the weight of an increasingly ageing population.

that is how efficiency is earned, less choice

It depends how you define efficiency. In such a broad argument, economists usually define it in terms of getting people what they want, which you can't do by reducing choices. There is no reasonable standard by which reduction of choice improves efficiency. Also in this case, increasing choice also reduces cost to the government. I think you are missing the main point - by subsidising private health and education, the government could actually save money and deliver a better service to public customers as well.

i think the bandaid solution to fix the crumbling health and education system is typical of what jh was all about - kneejerk, ad-hoc solutions to stem the flow of public debate on the issues. there is no evidence to suggest this system has shortened waiting lists, raised nursing levels, increased the number of beds available for long term care, increased the numbers of country doctors. Sure, people with enough money to spend on PHI May be better off. nor has it improved the rate of literacy, numeracy, or social cohesion through subsidisation of private schooling.

On another tack. If we can't afford a fully funded PHS now, when the economy is in the best position it's been in for decades, when will we be able to afford one? Conservative politicians will say never. They prefer a system that we have now. Where the poor get the left overs and the wealthy have preferential treatment through subsidisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_(economics)

Ford was the progenitor of efficiency in business. I believe one of the sales pitches included the line for the t-model ford was "you can have it any colour you like as long as it is black".

Leeching?  Can you explain please?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_(computing)
also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

Dooley wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 11:03pm:

Leeching?  Can you explain please? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_(computing) also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

I asked you to explain, not wikipedia.  Are you able to?

what exactly don't you understand?

Dooley wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 11:31pm:

what exactly don't you understand?

Your statement.


Quote:

the sooner we stop the health fund welfare rort the better. subsidies to private companies is a farce. if it can't provide a service and make a profit then it needs to do what the government has done and open up wholly owned private health clinics to cater for it's own clients. perhaps then it can stop leeching of the public health system.

What is the 'leeching of the public health system' that is going on and who is doing it?

Dooley could you please explain how the current system is fraud or leeching. Perhaps if you gave some numbers it might clarify what you are trying to get across.

rather than try to explain to you what i have found through general reading an personal experience, i'll defer to some articles from Experts that numerically and logically provide what you demand.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22158060-23289,00.html
http://mja.com.au/public/issues/182_06_210305/lok10745_fm.pdf
http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/79/Editorial79.htm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1125290


you'll be interested in the conclusions from this report
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP448.pdf

the executive summary is telling in this report - it also has lots of figures for you to drool over
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP448.pdf

another damning report
http://www.healthissuescentre.org.au/docs/jaford70.pdf

if you have some alternative reading material that you'd like to submit that provides contrary arguments to those listed above i'd be happy to read. trouble is i haven't as yet found any. so i wish you good luck on that one.

as far as my comment on leeching goes - i simpley mean that jh's gov. at the time looked after long time interests of theirs. big business ie insurance companies, christian religious organisations ie private health institutions, and some sectors of the medical fraternity. by taking away funds from the public heath system and redirecting them into PHI, i believe you have created a leeching of taxpayers funds. the leecher being the PHI and those who benefit the most from it - the wealthy.

oh and sorry for the tardy reply - i've been fishing and at bbq's with friends.hope you've had a nice Autumn Equinox holiday. bb

Dooley wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 9:44am:

rather than try to explain to you what i have found through general reading an personal experience, i'll defer to some articles from Experts that numerically and logically provide what you demand. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22158060-23289,00.html http://mja.com.au/public/issues/182_06_210305/lok10745_fm.pdf http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/79/Editorial79.htm http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1125290 you'll be interested in the conclusions from this report http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP448.pdf the executive summary is telling in this report - it also has lots of figures for you to drool over http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP448.pdf another damning report http://www.healthissuescentre.org.au/docs/jaford70.pdf if you have some alternative reading material that you'd like to submit that provides contrary arguments to those listed above i'd be happy to read. trouble is i haven't as yet found any. so i wish you good luck on that one. as far as my comment on leeching goes - i simpley mean that jh's gov. at the time looked after long time interests of theirs. big business ie insurance companies, christian religious organisations ie private health institutions, and some sectors of the medical fraternity. by taking away funds from the public heath system and redirecting them into PHI, i believe you have created a leeching of taxpayers funds. the leecher being the PHI and those who benefit the most from it - the wealthy.

I'm not about to start ploughing through that lot.  But tell me why you reckon the wealthy are leeching the system?  They probably pay far more towards it than those who earn less.  It's probable that the very poor actually pay nothing towards the health system they get to use for free.

deepthought wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 1:39pm:

Dooley wrote on Mar 23rd, 2008 at 9:44am: rather than try to explain to you what i have found through general reading an personal experience, i'll defer to some articles from Experts that numerically and logically provide what you demand. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22158060-23289,00.html http://mja.com.au/public/issues/182_06_210305/lok10745_fm.pdf http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/79/Editorial79.htm http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1125290 you'll be interested in the conclusions from this report http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP448.pdf the executive summary is telling in this report - it also has lots of figures for you to drool over http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP448.pdf another damning report http://www.healthissuescentre.org.au/docs/jaford70.pdf if you have some alternative reading material that you'd like to submit that provides contrary arguments to those listed above i'd be happy to read. trouble is i haven't as yet found any. so i wish you good luck on that one. as far as my comment on leeching goes - i simpley mean that jh's gov. at the time looked after long time interests of theirs. big business ie insurance companies, christian religious organisations ie private health institutions, and some sectors of the medical fraternity. by taking away funds from the public heath system and redirecting them into PHI, i believe you have created a leeching of taxpayers funds. the leecher being the PHI and those who benefit the most from it - the wealthy. I'm not about to start ploughing through that lot.  But tell me why you reckon the wealthy are leeching the system?  They probably pay far more towards it than those who earn less.  It's probable that the very poor actually pay nothing towards the health system they get to use for free.

Dooly's right why should a government fund private companys like medical funds, more middle class welfare from the rodent and if Rudd had any goolys he'd stop the rort and put the money into the public health system.

I'm not about to start ploughing through that lot.  But tell me why you reckon the wealthy are leeching the system?  They probably pay far more towards it than those who earn less.  It's probable that the very poor actually pay nothing towards the health system they get to use for free.


when you've read the reports you'll understand why the comment you've made is superfluous. there's enough information from exposition in the above quoted articles and report to make my summations a perfectly valid point.


They probably pay far more towards it than those who earn less.

can you provide evidence to support this generalised statement?

Dooley wrote on Mar 24^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

I'm not about to start ploughing through that lot.  But tell me why you reckon the wealthy are leeching the system?  They probably pay far more towards it than those who earn less.  It's probable that the very poor actually pay nothing towards the health system they get to use for free. when you've read the reports you'll understand why the comment you've made is superfluous. there's enough information from exposition in the above quoted articles and report to make my summations a perfectly valid point. They probably pay far more towards it than those who earn less. can you provide evidence to support this generalised statement?

It's not necessary for me to read the reports, you made the claim that the public health system is being 'leeched' by the wealthy and you are clearly wrong.  If you believe it is so you need to provide evidence, not a stack of links and expect me to find it  for you.

And I can't believe you actually asked the last question!!!!

Every taxpayer pays a 1.5% medicare levy.  Once a single income earner without health insurance earns more than $50k they pay an additional 1%.   It's pretty simple arithmetic.  

A single dude earning $30k will pay 1.5% of that or $450.

A single dude earning $225,000 will pay 2.5% of that or $5625.

Who is paying the most towards medicare?  The total pool collected from those two is $6075.  Who paid the most?  The answer to the questions will show you why my statement is correct that high income earners subsidise low income earners access to free health rather than leeching off free health.

Athiest, what you call middle class welfare is actually a reduction in middle class welfare. You complain about partial funding of their health insurace but ignore the fact that they are being taken out of the public system.

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it  :)


Athiest, what you call middle class welfare is actually a reduction in middle class welfare. You complain about partial funding of their health insurace but ignore the fact that they are being taken out of the public system.

freedriver - nearly every report i've posted a link to suggests otherwise. for very good reasons. the single most important is this - what you redivest federal funds (PHI) into looking after those in the upper middle income bracket you effectively withdraw those same funds from the public health system. if middle income earners want to jump the queue then they should be willing to pay for it. but not at the expense of the general public. which is what (and the experts conclude in the reports above) is happening at the moment.

Dooley wrote on Mar 25^th, 2008 at 9:45pm:

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it  :) Athiest, what you call middle class welfare is actually a reduction in middle class welfare. You complain about partial funding of their health insurace but ignore the fact that they are being taken out of the public system. freedriver - nearly every report i've posted a link to suggests otherwise. for very good reasons. the single most important is this - what you redivest federal funds (PHI) into looking after those in the upper middle income bracket you effectively withdraw those same funds from the public health system. if middle income earners want to jump the queue then they should be willing to pay for it. but not at the expense of the general public. which is what (and the experts conclude in the reports above) is happening at the moment.

They do pay for it.  They pay the bulk of the public health funding and they pay for their own private health too.

The 'umbrella' introduced by the amazing coalition was to encourage people to get back into private health funds.  The universal medicare scheme introduced by Gough failed badly and a levy was introduced by Hawke and then increased over the Liebor years.  This double blow to private health subscribers caused them to drop out of private health and thus put an unsupportable burden on the public health system.  

To take the load off the public system the coalition encouraged people back into the private system.  If the private health system was unsupported by the government no one would stay in the funds (why pay twice)  and the public system would collapse under the load.

what you redivest federal funds (PHI) into looking after those in the upper middle income bracket you effectively withdraw those same funds from the public health system

But you are also withdrawing patients.

if middle income earners want to jump the queue then they should be willing to pay for it

Rather than some convoluted notion of fairness and queue jumping, shouldn't you first demonstrate that the system leaves public patients worse off? If everyone is better off, who cares about queue jumpers? I'm not certain what the situation is, but the argument you present indicates that you don't care whether everyone is better off, only that those with better cover pay for everything. It's not that difficult. You don't have to defer to 'experts'.

hey, you asked me to provide evidence (facts and figures) to support my generalised statements. thats what i've done. if you and dt's feel your Opinion has much more cred then that says more than just your not willing to read the material. there is no more the ten minutes reading in those url posts. and it isn't just an opinion you'll find in the material. and besides, what is more efficient? me posting url links or cut and pasting volumious quantites of text? is reading factual reports too much to expect of someone who asks for evidence to support a statement?


Rather than some convoluted notion of fairness and queue jumping, shouldn't you first demonstrate that the system leaves public patients worse off?

i needn't have to do anything other than support with credible science based Facts my belief and first hand experience - like that of many accquaintences. there are enough studies done to disprove your cockeyed notion that somehow by giving a wealthy person Any welfare - for any reason, the poor are somehow better off.

Athiest, what you call middle class welfare is actually a reduction in middle class welfare. You complain about partial funding of their health insurace but ignore the fact that they are being taken out of the public system.

yes but at whose expense are they being paid  to take leave of the public system? the low income taxpayer.

The universal medicare scheme introduced by Gough failed badly and a levy was introduced by Hawke and then increased over the Liebor years.

dt's, freedriver i doubt you're old enough to remember what a financial burden it was to go to the doctor before medicare. back in the day, most working class people could barely afford to go the gp let alone expect surgery. Only the middle class and wealthy could Afford to go to a gp.


If everyone is better off, who cares about queue jumpers?


if indeed, prove to me that is the case. there is plenty of evidence (factual evidence) to the contrary. Haven't seen any evidence from either of you yet to prove your wild unproven opinions.

thus put an unsupportable burden on the public health system.  


you make that sound so much like it was an inevitability dt's. and with a lieberal gov. full of neocons like jh, munchkin, labbotomy and grabetz it was an inevitability.  the truth is people with money (read those with few scruples) don't see any mileage in supporting a system (free medical) where Everyone has equal access to something all of us need. Healthcare. only a conservative would believe otherwise.

I double dare you to show me Any evidence (non-vested interest) or study that has proven this middle-class welfare has any benefit to the poor  :)

Go on, just for the hell of it, why don't you try and find some factual science based evidence to support your counterargument.

and besides, what is more efficient? me posting url links or cut and pasting volumious quantites of text?

How about you select key passages and figures? That way you won't be expecting others to take yo0ur word for it that the 'evidence' you rpesent is relevant. You will also save everyone a lot of time, so they might bother to check ytour evidence.

there are enough studies done to disprove your cockeyed notion that somehow by giving a wealthy person Any welfare - for any reason, the poor are somehow better off

But if you don't even understand the mechanism how are you going to be able to interpret the evidence?

yes but at whose expense are they being paid  to take leave of the public system?

You still don't get it do you? It is at the same people's expense whether they stay or go. The difference is that the expsne is reduced.

i doubt you're old enough to remember what a financial burden it was to go to the doctor before medicare

The burden is the same, it's just hidden from you.

Haven't seen any evidence from either of you yet to prove your wild unproven opinions.

There is no point presenting evidence until you understand the mechanism. Otherwise you won't be able to interpret it.

mechanism? what mechanism are you referring too? there is no b mechanism other than selfishness on the part politicians and the wealthy to look after themselves.

as for posting excerpts for everyones perusal, that might suit you, but My time constraints dictate that it's easier for you to read the material than it is for me to cutnpaste. besides, it's all relevant and to cutnpaste would do the reports and those that compiled them an injustice. if, you feel you have'nt the ten minutes to read it them simply skim and go the the conclusions. even that would give you both some idea of how far out of the ball park your opinions on this matter fall.

but My time constraints dictate that it's easier for you to read the material than it is for me to cutnpaste

I see now why you think it all revolves around selfishness. If youn can't be bothered putting together a succinct response, why should anyone accept your evidence? What you are basically saying is you can't be bothered thinking about it.

besides, it's all relevant and to cutnpaste would do the reports and those that compiled them an injustice

No it wouldn't. You might even get someone to read them if you could convince them you had a point. Stop assuming that debate revolves around you educating everyone else.

There is a mechanism. I have explained it several times already.

Dooley wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

I double dare you to show me Any evidence (non-vested interest) or study that has proven this middle-class welfare has any benefit to the poor  :) Go on, just for the hell of it, why don't you try and find some factual science based evidence to support your counterargument.

Why would you think 'middle class welfare' (whatever that is) benefits anyone but those it is targetted towards?  There will never exist any study to indicate that targetting one group with welfare will help any unrelated group.

But that's not the issue (it's not even reality).  

What is the issue (as I see it) is your unfounded belief that the wealthy leech off the poor when the exact opposite is true.  Many low income earners don't pay anything towards the health system they probably use.  Who pays for them dooley?

my "succint response" was what you claim a generalised satement.
you asked for evidence to support my "generalised statement".
i responded by providing you Both with enough evidence to counter any opinion either of you have sparingly given.
you both seem to think it is my wish to be "mother".
get real.
read the reports.
or does the prospect of finding the truth grate that much?

"Who pays for them dooley?"
certainly not the wealthy the way the tax system operates at the moment.

"What you are basically saying is you can't be bothered thinking about it."

No, what i'm saying is do the yards yourself and stop being so dependent on others to do the work for yourself. something akin to the case in point.

"You might even get someone to read them if you could convince them you had a point"

oh i believe my point is crystal. I hadn't assumed the point of this board was to convince Anyone of anything.

Dooley wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 9:15pm:

"Who pays for them dooley?" certainly not the wealthy the way the tax system operates at the moment.

So don't tell me who doesn't pay for the health system tell me who does.  If it is not the wealthy paying for the funds which goes into health (and we haven't quantified who 'the wealthy' are which is why I prefer the term 'high income earner') who is paying for public hospitals?

An answer would be good rather than a non answer.

your turn.

show me the money. provide evidence to prove the "high income earners" are the real powerhouse inkeeping he engine of free public health care alive :)

Dooley wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 10:18pm:

your turn. show me the money. provide evidence to prove the "high income earners" are the real powerhouse inkeeping he engine of free public health care alive :)

No answer?  I thought not.  Your acquiescence proves me right dooley.

Once again though I am surprised to hear you asking such a question.

Perhaps once you consider this you won't need to ask again.  Who pays the most tax in absolute terms?

If the high income earners"  are drags on society then poor economies must be wonderful.

Who wants to live in Chad, somalia ??

What about Switzerland or Sweden?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 11:05pm:

If the high income earners"  are drags on society then poor economies must be wonderful. Who wants to live in Chad, somalia ?? What about Switzerland or Sweden?

The alternative is to allow high income earners the opportunity to opt out of paying for public health and take the option of self funding private health through insurance.  This will allow the poor to keep paying for and enjoying the public system by themselves.

So you can't provide any evidence Again dt's. lala land must be such a nice place. perhaps you've never heard of broadbased taxation?

Dooley wrote on Mar 27^th, 2008 at 6:46am:

So you can't provide any evidence Again dt's. lala land must be such a nice place. perhaps you've never heard of broadbased taxation?

I can't believe you are still asking for evidence of the axiomatic kind.

Answer me two questions.

Where does the money come from for public health?

Who pays the bulk of it?

The evidence is in your answers, you don't need me.  If after answering those questions you still don't believe yourself I will get you the data you need.   But you will need to apologise for wasting my time finding answers to questions everyone but you knows.

"No, what i'm saying is do the yards yourself and stop being so dependent on others to do the work for yourself. something akin to the case in point."

Dooley stop assuming people haven't read the reports. Stop assuming that if they haven't then the reports would change their mind. If you can't explain how they are relevant beyond chanting 'read the reports' then chances are you misunderstood them.

"I hadn't assumed the point of this board was to convince Anyone of anything."

What is it then? To post links to irrelevant reports in the hope of convincing someone you are right because they'd prefer that to a wild goose chase? Do you expect people to somehow prove there is nothing in the report that supports your argument? Perhaps you want us to go through line by line and explain the report to you and why it doesn't back up your claims? Who knows what you have misunderstood in the report. We certainly don't.

If you can't explain how they are relevant beyond chanting 'read the reports' then chances are you misunderstood them.

If you've read the report/s then you'd be happy to debate the relevance. something your replies lack. oh, you have mentioned some insight into an esoteric "mechanism" as your chief catch 22 to entering any dialogue. I'd be real impressed if you can enlighten all of us exactly the mechanism you refer to.... now you see it, now you don't.


"Do you expect people to somehow prove there is nothing in the report that supports your argument?"

that'd be reportS and studies. but the answer is no. mind you all this to and fro would cease if someone did that. but Again "I hadn't assumed the point of this board was to convince Anyone of anything". what i do expect is a little bit of credible evidence to support your opinion that middle-class welfare (of any sort) is efficient? fair? honest? non-biased? cost effective? Now irregardless of whether the links i've posted contain the glimmer of gold or not, it might seem prudent to post something others Might read to support your empty claim.

"Perhaps you want us to go through line by line and explain the report (S ands Studies) to you and why it doesn't back up your claims?"

just a line or two will suffice, if you care...

I can't believe you are still asking for evidence of the axiomatic kind.

well then enlighten me, show what info your using to substantiate your insight. prove to me what you seemingly profess you know. how hard could it be?

If you've read the report/s then you'd be happy to debate the relevance.

OK here goes: They aren't relevant. This is where you respond by trying to point out how they are relevant.

I'd be real impressed if you can enlighten all of us exactly the mechanism you refer to.... now you see it, now you don't.

I have described it many times already. The government saves money by putting people onto private healthcare even though it is subsidised, if those subsidies are less than what is offered to public healthcare.

mind you all this to and fro would cease if someone did that

LOL.

just a line or two will suffice, if you care...

So I could pick any two lines that don't support your argument and you think that would be a meaningfull contribution to the debate?

it would amount to more than what either of you have delivered.

Dooley wrote on Mar 27^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:

well then enlighten me, show what info your using to substantiate your insight. prove to me what you seemingly profess you know. how hard could it be?

It's not hard at all, I'm just surprised you are asking.




Quote:

The revenue lobby in Australia have succeeded in maintaining a barrage of arguments in favour of progressive income tax. The facts, many of them set out here and in other CIS publications, do not sustain those arguments. The top 25 percent of income earners pay 64 percent of the personal income tax. This result, based on ATO data, stands up to criticism. The argument that low and middle-income earners pay more of their income in taxation than high-income earners is simply false. It is not even ‘roughly proportional’. Arguments about tax evasion and avoidance are red herrings. Even if evasion and avoidance were serious problems the top 25 percent of income earners still pay 64 percent of personal income tax and 40 percent of households still pay all tax net of welfare. Nobody should be surprised that high-income earners pay more in tax than low-income earners. That is how a progressive tax system is meant to operate. The revenue lobby’s arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Through their campaign of confusion and obfuscation, however, they are able to sustain a policy of taxation with misrepresentation. Caution - pdf file

Got that Dooley?  It's been crystal clear to the rest of us all along and now you have someone other than me telling you the bleeding obvious.

"The top 25 percent of income earners pay 64 percent of the personal income tax."

"40 percent of households still pay all tax net of welfare"

So the top 25% of income earners (the wealthy or high income earners) pay 64% of all income tax.  And all gross income tax collected is paid for by only 40% of all households.

It is as I said that many low income earners pay no tax at all and the health care they expect for free is paid for by the wealthy.  Far from leeching the wealthy pay for all public health and often also have private health cover too.

Your apology if you would be so kind old boy.

i'll take the time to read dt. ta

deepthought wrote on Mar 27^th, 2008 at 7:10pm:

Dooley wrote on Mar 27th, 2008 at 4:43pm: well then enlighten me, show what info your using to substantiate your insight. prove to me what you seemingly profess you know. how hard could it be? It's not hard at all, I'm just surprised you are asking. Quote: The revenue lobby in Australia have succeeded in maintaining a barrage of arguments in favour of progressive income tax. The facts, many of them set out here and in other CIS publications, do not sustain those arguments. The top 25 percent of income earners pay 64 percent of the personal income tax. This result, based on ATO data, stands up to criticism. The argument that low and middle-income earners pay more of their income in taxation than high-income earners is simply false. It is not even ‘roughly proportional’. Arguments about tax evasion and avoidance are red herrings. Even if evasion and avoidance were serious problems the top 25 percent of income earners still pay 64 percent of personal income tax and 40 percent of households still pay all tax net of welfare. Nobody should be surprised that high-income earners pay more in tax than low-income earners. That is how a progressive tax system is meant to operate. The revenue lobby’s arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Through their campaign of confusion and obfuscation, however, they are able to sustain a policy of taxation with misrepresentation. Caution - pdf file Got that Dooley?  It's been crystal clear to the rest of us all along and now you have someone other than me telling you the bleeding obvious. "The top 25 percent of income earners pay 64 percent of the personal income tax." "40 percent of households still pay all tax net of welfare" So the top 25% of income earners (the wealthy or high income earners) pay 64% of all income tax.  And all gross income tax collected is paid for by only 40% of all households. It is as I said that many low income earners pay no tax at all and the health care they expect for free is paid for by the wealthy.  Far from leeching the wealthy pay for all public health and often also have private health cover too. Your apology if you would be so kind old boy.

here's something else to consider.

One of the most striking features of the tax system is its extraordinary
stability over most of the life cycle. Income tax hovers at about half of
total taxes for much of the life cycle, before plummeting dramatically
once retirement nears and after children have left home. Similarly, the
total tax burden as a percentage of gross income is relatively stable, at about 47 per cent of gross income, for most of the life cycle. It is less than 40 per cent for only single persons aged 65 years or more.

If the tax burden is measured as a percentage of gross income, then
above-average burdens are borne by the most affluent 20 per cent of
households, single persons living by themselves and aged less than 65
years, couples with no children and with one or no earners, households
whose primary income source is private (not wage and salary) income,
single income couples with dependent children and smoking
households. Households with below-average tax burdens are the least
affluent 40 per cent of households, single aged, sole parents and
households whose principal income source is government cash benefits.

http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/pubs/dps/dp39/dp39.pdf

this study of course doesn't take into account what most average to high paid workers these days in both the private and public sector have available to them:  salary packaging.  salary packaging of housing, cars, laptop computers, food and other items deemed acceptable by the ATO, such as superannuation.
Nor does take into account things like salary/wage minimisation schemes like trust fund arrangements.

you'd be lucky to get an apology from me on this one.


sorry about the stuff up with the cutnpaste of the article

Dooley wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 7:10pm:

here's something else to consider. If the tax burden is measured as a percentage of gross income, then above-average burdens are borne by the most affluent 20 per cent of households, single persons living by themselves and aged less than 65 years, couples with no children and with one or no earners, households whose primary income source is private (not wage and salary) income, single income couples with dependent children and smoking households. Households with below-average tax burdens are the least affluent 40 per cent of households, single aged, sole parents and households whose principal income source is government cash benefits. http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/pubs/dps/dp39/dp39.pdf this study of course doesn't take into account what most average to high paid workers these days in both the private and public sector have available to them:  salary packaging.  salary packaging of housing, cars, laptop computers, food and other items deemed acceptable by the ATO, such as superannuation. Nor does take into account things like salary/wage minimisation schemes like trust fund arrangements. you'd be lucky to get an apology from me on this one.

Don't worry too much about your inability to apologise.  I never expect leftoids to display common courtesies such as following through on agreements.  Courtesy is strictly a right wing province.

I am delighted you are finally up to speed with this though.  Now you finally see that far from leeching, the high income earner actually funds all public health for the low income earner to use.

evrything is relative in the context of this argument dt. you make the assumption that a small number of people who pay a larger personal tax bill outweigh the Large number of people who pay a relatively higher indirect tax bill.
it is noted in the report that there is a similar tax burden across All groups. Which basically means that any favours directed toward the middle class/wealthy outweigh aginst the poor. Which you'll understand, is why i refer to the leeching off the poor.

As a proportion of income the low paid have a higher burden of tax and no allieviation through subsidies for education, housing, super, health, transport...... but i figure like most righturds you don't care if your in a better position than the poor, as long as the poor and downtrodden continue to ready for you to prosper off while off course you scream "poor poor me"

Typical Leftard...proven wrong then dodge, ducks and weaves.

Suck it up Fooley...you are out and out wrong- you are devoid of facts and the real world

Dooley wrote on Mar 29^th, 2008 at 9:58pm:

evrything is relative in the context of this argument dt. you make the assumption that a small number of people who pay a larger personal tax bill outweigh the Large number of people who pay a relatively higher indirect tax bill. it is noted in the report that there is a similar tax burden across All groups. Which basically means that any favours directed toward the middle class/wealthy outweigh aginst the poor. Which you'll understand, is why i refer to the leeching off the poor. As a proportion of income the low paid have a higher burden of tax and no allieviation through subsidies for education, housing, super, health, transport...... but i figure like most righturds you don't care if your in a better position than the poor, as long as the poor and downtrodden continue to ready for you to prosper off while off course you scream "poor poor me"

Nothing is relative.  The facts are plain and now you know them along with the rest of Australia.  All net income tax is paid by the high income earner.  It is not possible to leech from your own funds as you paid them.  To use your term - leecher - the only leechers are those who take but never give.  They are the low income earners and those on welfare who pay no net taxes.   The high income earners give and they give again when they also take private health insurance.  The low income earners and welfare recipients get public health paid for them by the wealthy.  They contribute nothing at all.

einstien would be impressed with your folly.
that would only be true if income tax is the only tax we pay. and it isn't, as we all know.

there are a multitude of ways we pay tax and poor people pay a higher Proportion of their income through indirect taxes than wealthier people.

as well poor people do not, will not, and cannot use services that are offered by governments to the wealthy because they are poor.

middle class welfare - only helps to make the poor Less able to access the Help they Need to get through life because of lack of funding due in large part because of middle class welfare.

Therefore the welfare handed out to those who can look after themselves - because they have high incomes - is leeching off the poor.

Imagine at the family gathering the rich uncle scrooge takes out a little money to give to his poor relations, and as he is about to hand the money over he tells them about the private tuition for his children, the costs of his PHI, the repayments for his salary packaged car, house, food and transport and gives them a little less than half of what they need to get by.

but hey, they'll have something won't they? that's why they call it charity (oops) i mean welfare don't they.

the wealthy pay sfa towards the upkeep of the system and true to form they will greedy enough to demand subsidies where there is no Need for it.

there are a multitude of ways we pay tax and poor people pay a higher Proportion of their income through indirect taxes

I call BS on your statement- please provide figures to justify your outlandish statement

Dooley wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

einstien would be impressed with your folly. that would only be true if income tax is the only tax we pay. and it isn't, as we all know. there are a multitude of ways we pay tax and poor people pay a higher Proportion of their income through indirect taxes than wealthier people. as well poor people do not, will not, and cannot use services that are offered by governments to the wealthy because they are poor. middle class welfare - only helps to make the poor Less able to access the Help they Need to get through life because of lack of funding due in large part because of middle class welfare. Therefore the welfare handed out to those who can look after themselves - because they have high incomes - is leeching off the poor. Imagine at the family gathering the rich uncle scrooge takes out a little money to give to his poor relations, and as he is about to hand the money over he tells them about the private tuition for his children, the costs of his PHI, the repayments for his salary packaged car, house, food and transport and gives them a little less than half of what they need to get by. but hey, they'll have something won't they? that's why they call it charity (oops) i mean welfare don't they. the wealthy pay sfa towards the upkeep of the system and true to form they will greedy enough to demand subsidies where there is no Need for it.

I'm astonished dooley.

Despite the evidence (that everyone but you already knew) the most disadvantaged pay no net taxes you still claim they have the raw deal because the wealthy are leeching off them.  And they have contributed nothing!!!

Could you explain how the high income earner is ripping them off even though they are providing their entire means please?

contrary to you and your minority opinion the poor have the highest tax burden and lowest net gain from welfare. how could you possibley argue the wealthiest contribute the most? all i see them do is grab the most from whats on offer.

contrary to you and your minority opinion the poor have the highest tax burden

I am prepared to believe you if you put up some facts to back your argument Mr Dooley.

Can you, or are you a liar?

Dooley wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:

contrary to you and your minority opinion the poor have the highest tax burden and lowest net gain from welfare. how could you possibley argue the wealthiest contribute the most? all i see them do is grab the most from whats on offer.

So you ignore the evidence of your eyes and . . . .

Just what are you relying on that tells you the poor shoulder the burden of taxation and the rich just use it for their own greedy means?

Post your evidence if you would.

Another perspective - in financial terms, the rich get by far the most benefit from government spending. For the most part their wealth would not be possible without the infrastructure built by government.

This argument could go round in circles all day. The rich do pay more tax, even if it is measured as a percentage of income. This is a simple statement of fact. But to put it in emotive terms of leeching, fairness or 'shouldering the most burden' misses the point completely. Our vast wealth could only be attained by cooperation and multiple layers of social contract. You cannot analyse teamwork or a functioning society from a purely competitive perspective. In considering the impact of legislation or legislative changes, it is the various tradeoffs that matter, not some ideological notion of what constitutes fairness. There is no point demanding evidence for what are essentially emotive concepts lacking substance. It means nothing without the perspective gained form understanding the various tradeoffs.

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:54pm:

Another perspective - in financial terms, the rich get by far the most benefit from government spending. For the most part their wealth would not be possible without the infrastructure built by government. This argument could go round in circles all day. The rich do pay more tax, even if it is measured as a percentage of income. This is a simple statement of fact. But to put it in emotive terms of leeching, fairness or 'shouldering the most burden' misses the point completely. Our vast wealth could only be attained by cooperation and multiple layers of social contract. You cannot analyse teamwork or a functioning society from a purely competitive perspective. In considering the impact of legislation or legislative changes, it is the various tradeoffs that matter, not some ideological notion of what constitutes fairness. There is no point demanding evidence for what are essentially emotive concepts lacking substance. It means nothing without the perspective gained form understanding the various tradeoffs.

Without evidence it is simply one person's claim.   Do you believe dooley's assertion that the rich are taking what allegedly belongs to the poor?

Do you believe dooley's assertion that the rich are taking what allegedly belongs to the poor?

I think the claim, inasmuch as he actually made it, and your attempt to refute it, are both meaningless.

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 6:56pm:

Do you believe dooley's assertion that the rich are taking what allegedly belongs to the poor? I think the claim, inasmuch as he actually made it, and your attempt to refute it, are both meaningless.

You mean you don't understand the words?  Or they don't relate to private insurance?  

You need to be a little specific if you want your words to have any meaning in the context of the discussion after accusing others of having no meaning.

liar liar pants on fire?

http://www.unitingcare.org.au/downloader.cgi?%E0%F0hc%60%E0%DA!%9E%B8%D5%00z%CE%8B!(P%60j%B3%D8Der:101:uploads%2Ffile%2FTaxation_June1998.pdf:0

Another significant myth is that those in receipt of social security benefits do not have to pay tax. In fact,
they are subject to high tax rates in a way which is unfair, creates a disincentive to work and perpetuates the
poverty trap. For example, the earning of certain levels of additional income which are then subject to tax
sees families lose benefits and actually lose money by earning income. For example a low income family
with children have their family payment reduced by 50 cents for each additional dollar they earn above
$23,000. As identified by The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), “for many of these families,
earning an additional $10,000 per year would leave them little better off, due to the combined impact of a
34% tax rate, a 50% rate of withdrawal of family payment, and a 1.4% Medicare levy. In this case the
effective marginal tax rate exceeds 80%.”

the poor generally pay more of their income in taxes. plus they aren't able to benefit from middle class welfare.

liar liar pants on fire?

Yes you are...perhaps try finding something a little more relevant than from the Uniting Churches in 1998

You do realise the tax scales have changed somewhat...you can thank JH for that  ;D

Well said

Dooley wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:33pm:

liar liar pants on fire? http://www.unitingcare.org.au/downloader.cgi?%E0%F0hc%60%E0%DA!%9E%B8%D5%00z%CE%8B!(P%60j%B3%D8Der:101:uploads%2Ffile%2FTaxation_June1998.pdf:0 Another significant myth is that those in receipt of social security benefits do not have to pay tax. In fact, they are subject to high tax rates in a way which is unfair, creates a disincentive to work and perpetuates the poverty trap. For example, the earning of certain levels of additional income which are then subject to tax sees families lose benefits and actually lose money by earning income. For example a low income family with children have their family payment reduced by 50 cents for each additional dollar they earn above $23,000. As identified by The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), “for many of these families, earning an additional $10,000 per year would leave them little better off, due to the combined impact of a 34% tax rate, a 50% rate of withdrawal of family payment, and a 1.4% Medicare levy. In this case the effective marginal tax rate exceeds 80%.” the poor generally pay more of their income in taxes. plus they aren't able to benefit from middle class welfare.

34% tax rate????   1.4%  medicare levy?????

What the . . . . .

Perhaps Dooley can pull some welfare and taxation figure from 1978 to help further bolster the highly factual argument he is putting forward.

Seeing that 10 year old data wasn't a stretch for him, perhaps 20 year old will make his argument just that more plausible  ::)

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 8:02pm:

Perhaps Dooley can pull some welfare and taxation figure from 1978 to help further bolster the highly factual argument he is putting forward. Seeing that 10 year old data wasn't a stretch for him, perhaps 20 year old will make his argument just that more plausible  ::)

Tax today on $25,000 is $2850.  That's a bit over 11%.

I think he's harvesting stuff from the dark ages of Liebor when the poor did cop it in the arse.

perhaps the data was old, but it didn't come from a right wing stink tank like CISpit.
i hope this isn't too dated.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22158060-23289,00.html

Subsidies threaten Medicare

July 30, 2007

THE $6 billion "corporate welfare" paid to subsidise private health insurance each year is putting Medicare under threat, a former top bureaucrat says.

A summit in Canberra today heard major health system reform was necessary to make sure all Australians had access to affordable health care.

Almost half of the population had missed out on health services they needed because they could not afford them, while another 15 per cent suffered financial pressure after paying for health care, figures presented at the National Health Reform Summit showed.

Centre for Policy Development chair John Menadue said government subsidies for private health insurance (PHI) were approaching $6 billion a year, including $4.8 billion for the private health insurance rebate, lost tax from the Medicare levy exemption and TV advertising.

"The trend to a two-tier health system in Australia is a serious threat,'' Mr Menadue, a former head of three government departments including Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam, said.

"When the government subsidises wealthy people in PHI to jump the queue, we are on the way to crippling Medicare.

''(Health Minister) Tony Abbott says that the Howard government is the best friend Medicare ever had. Words are one thing. Actions tell a different and alarming story.''

Mr Menadue said the money would be better spent directly on mental, indigenous, preventative or dental health.

"Administration of the $6 billion annual subsidy to PHI should be transferred to Treasury, who would quickly recognise it for what it is - corporate welfare and not a health program,'' he said.

More than 40 health groups - including peak bodies for GPs, rural doctors, nurses and physiotherapists - are attending the meeting today to push the government to reform the health system.

Mr Abbott was originally listed as speaking at the forum but declined to attend.

Mr Menadue said the health minister and his predecessors had been too timid to undertake a major redesign of the health system.

He said the government should set up a national independent authority to drive health reform, and call a public inquiry into the health system.

"Tony Abbott speaks of health as a 'dog's breakfast', but has made no serious effort to fix the mess,'' he said.

"Our health leaders lack the will for health reform because they are strongly influenced by the vested interests that abound in health."

Melbourne's Health Issues Centre CEO Centre Tony McBride told the forum that community consultations held across four states had found cost prevented 45 per cent of people accessing essential health care in the past 12 months.

Another 15 per cent had experienced financial hardship as a result of paying for care.

"Now it's not a representative sample, but even so these are very, very high figures, figures that I think would be concerning any health minister,'' Mr McBride told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

The private insurance subsidies meant wealthier Australians could access services such as dental care, but those who could least afford to pay for dentistry were getting nothing, he said.

Dooley wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 9:33am:

perhaps the data was old, but it didn't come from a right wing stink tank like CISpit. i hope this isn't too dated. <snip>

Perhaps not but it is just some dude's opinion with absolutely no evidence.  freediver would call it meaningless.

Got any facts that verify the rich are ripping off the poor even though the rich pay all the tax anyway?

Perhaps you two need to explain what your positions are in real terms.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 6:23pm:

Perhaps you two need to explain what your positions are in real terms.

I did.  You didn't understand it though.

some dude eh? doubt he spoke without qualification. but then it wouldn't matter what was posted you stand by what you say. so do i.

John Menadue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

John Menadue AO (b. 1935) is a former Australian public servant and diplomat.

Menadue was born in South Australia and graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1956 as a Bachelor of Economics. He is married with four children and ten grand children.

From 1960 to 1967 Menadue was Private Secretary to Gough Whitlam, Leader of the Opposition. He then moved into the private sector for seven years as General Manager, News Limited, Sydney, publisher of The Australian.
Contents

   * 1 Public service career
   * 2 Business career
   * 3 References
   * 4 External links

[edit] Public service career

Menadue was head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet from 1974 to 1976, working to Prime Ministers Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser. He was closely involved in the events of November 11, 1975, when Whitlam was dismissed. He was Australian Ambassador to Japan from 1976 to 1980. Menadue returned to Australia in 1980 to take up the position of Head, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In March 1983, he became Head of the Department of the Special Minister of State. He was appointed Head of the Department of Trade in December 1983.

[edit] Business career

Menadue was Chief Executive Officer of Qantas from June 1986 to July 1989. He was a Director of Telstra from December 1994 to October 1996, a Director of NSW State Rail Authority from 1996 to 1999, and Chairman of the Australia Japan Foundation from 1991 to 1998.

Menadue is an adviser to several companies. He chaired the NSW Health Council which reported to the NSW Minister for Health in March 2000 on changes to health services in NSW. He also chaired the SA Generational Health Review which reported to the SA Minister for Human Services in May 2003.

In October 1999, Menadue published his autobiography Things you learn along the way. He was the founding Chair of NewMatilda.com, an independent weekly online newsletter which was launched in August 2004. He is now chair of the public-interest think tank, the Centre for Policy Development.

Menadue was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in 1985 for public service. In 2003 he was awarded the Centenary Medal ‘for service to Australian society through public service leadership’. In 1997, he received the Japanese Imperial Award, The Grand Cordon of the Order of the Sacred Treasure (Kun-itto Zuiho-sho), the highest honour awarded to foreigners who are not head of state or head of government.

Dooley wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 7:17pm:

some dude eh?   <snip>

Yep.  Some dude.  And his opinion remains his opinion.   But it is not borne out by facts.




Quote:

Taxation take is helping Howard battlers NEW figures have shaken the widely held contention that the Howard Government is lavishing middle Australia with welfare while the genuinely needy go without. The tax and welfare systems are redistributing income from high- to low-income earners, who receive the lion's share of government assistance, new Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show. The average household receives more in government services than it pays in tax, with corporate taxes redistributed across the community. According to the figures, only 40 per cent of households actually pay any net tax, after the value of all government benefits is counted. The average household pays total taxes of $360 a week, but gets back $375 in both cash benefits and government services, such as health and education. Tax raised from the corporate sector covers the difference. The ABS figures will make it harder for John Howard's opponents to criticise his administration of tax and welfare in the lead-up to the federal election, due to be held within months. Peter Costello seized on the data last night as vindication of government policies, while Labor Treasury spokesman Wayne Swan refused to comment. The Treasurer said the figures were evidence that the Government was fair to taxpayers and welfare recipients. "The government policy of cutting income tax and increasing family tax benefits has lifted real disposable incomes across the board and has benefited lower-income earners substantially," Mr Costello said. "Increases in spending on health have been made possible by disciplined economic management. This illustrates the way in which good economic management leads to a social dividend." The figures, covering the five years to 2003-04, support the Treasurer's contention that real wages are rising, along with spending on services and benefits. Although the burden of GST hits poor-income households hardest, its effect has mostly been offset by reductions in other indirect taxes. After taking account of inflation, real incomes rose by 8.9 per cent over five years, while the value of government services rose by an additional 7.2 per cent, with big increases in government spending on pharmaceuticals, community health services and other health benefits. The improvement in the jobs market means that the Government has been able to cut the cost of unemployment benefits from an average of $21 per household a week to $15. The savings have been redirected into an increase in family benefits - which have risen from $20 per household a week to $28 - and in the aged pension. The study also shows there is a massive recycling of tax and cash benefits from the rich to the poor. The best-paid 20 per cent of the population, with household incomes of $120,000 or more, receive just $17 in family and other cash benefits, but pay $800 a week in tax. The poorest segment of the population by contrast pays just $22 in tax and gets $300 a week in cash benefits. High-income families still receive about $150 a week in government services, making heavier use of tertiary education than other groups and also using community health services. With their children in private schools, high-income families make a much smaller call on the education budget. The most affluent households cost taxpayers $31 a week for school education, compared with support of $72.50 for the poorest groups. Link

John Howard created paradise for the whole of society with those best able to pay a heavy tax load paying it, those least able to pay a heavy tax load not paying it and the wealth re-distributed across society in a most equitable way.

His economics are world renowned and John Howard was easily the most successful modern PM Australia has had.

The poor have never had it so good, but that is changing fast.

[/quote]

John Howard created paradise for the whole of society with those best able to pay a heavy tax load paying it, those least able to pay a heavy tax load not paying it and the wealth re-distributed across society in a most equitable way.

His economics are world renowned and John Howard was easily the most successful modern PM Australia has had.

The poor have never had it so good, but that is changing fast.[/quote]

those comments sort of remind me of similar remarks made by grabott a few years ago

Abbott made his comments on a program entitled “Going Backwards”, broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s weekly current affairs show Four Corners. To a limited extent at least, the program laid bare the plight of Australia’s growing army of “working poor”—families who are officially classified as living in poverty, even though one or more family members are working full-time.

Four Corners cited statistics from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), showing that almost half a million people, or 42 percent of those defined as poor, were trying to live on wages that were so low that they remained below the poverty line. NATSEM’s head, Professor Ann Harding, said the number of low-wage earners had doubled between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s. Moreover, child poverty in wage and salary earning households increased by almost 40 percent between 1996 and 1998.

The program interviewed several low-wage workers. One, Mara Apelis, was employed as a full-time casual in a telephone call centre but could not survive on the $300 to $400 a week she was paid. She had worked at the centre for 13 years, and was on call every day, but not entitled to sick leave. She had not taken a holiday since 1993 and could not even afford to visit a dentist.

Zenny Aruta, a housemaid at a five-star hotel, said her weekly wage of $425 was well below the $580 per week she needed to provide for her family of three children, a son-in-law and a grand-daughter. The household lived on rice and vegetables, occasionally supplemented by cheap meat or a can of sardines.

Confronted by this evidence, Abbott reverted to two crude responses. The first, possibly in keeping with his past study of theology at a Roman Catholic seminary, was to damn the poor as sinners. “We can’t stop people from making mistakes that might cause them to be less well off than they might otherwise be,” he asserted.

Abbott reacted so sharply because the program exposed the lie of the government’s program of slashing welfare entitlements and herding working class families into low-paid work. The government’s claim, in line with those of its counterparts in the United States and Britain, has been that welfare creates poverty and that the problem will be substantially eradicated by placing people in work.

In fact, the essential purpose of the policy is to push down wages and conditions. While increasingly dismantling the welfare system, the government has also undermined minimum pay regulations and encouraged employers to use casual, part-time and contract employment to cut labour costs. As those interviewed by Four Corners made plain, these processes are impoverishing entire layers of the working class.

This outcome is the entirely predictable result of the unrestricted operation of the market, as alluded to on the program by John Buchanan, from Sydney University’s School of Business. “Within any market society, there is basically no discipline on how far wages can drop,” he observed.

Left floundering, Abbott made the extraordinary claim that the “working poor” simply did not exist. He was not prepared to accept the term because it was an “emotive and distorting tag”. He reiterated the government’s basic credo that: “Unemployment, and not low pay, is the chief cause of poverty in our society.”

any tax on people living below the poverty line has an increased effect on the ability to live. until wealthier people are taxed on negative income like the poor are, then i will continue to believe the working poor pay relatively more in tax than other sectors in the community.

to quote from the same article

"Professor Harding pointed out that GST represented 6.9 per cent of the income of a low-income household, but just 3.5 per cent of high-income household income."

in case you have trouble with those figures, it is almost double the indrect tax burden.

any tax on people living below the poverty line has an increased effect on the ability to live. until wealthier people are taxed on negative income like the poor are, then i will continue to believe the working poor pay relatively more in tax than other sectors in the community.

I have never read such an excuse in all my life for an inability to be able to explain such a distorted pint of view.

Please explain how the 'poor' are taxed on negative income- you sound like so many bludgers that prefer the dole to actually working. I'm guessing thats where you are coming from

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s994830.htm

MARK COLVIN: A new report has blown a hole in the myth that homeowners with big mortgages are the Australians who are suffering most from debt. It's found instead that it's the unemployed and low wage earners who are at the heart of the debt crisis. Many of them are running up huge credit card bills to pay for essentials like food, rent and medical expenses.

The report by the University of Newcastle and the Financial Counsellors' Association says that as levels of consumer debt continue to rise, those finding themselves in trouble are also getting younger, some are just 18.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18766207-2702,00.html


Cut to the bone: working poor on the rise

   * Font Size: Decrease Increase
   * Print Page: Print

Elisabeth Wynhausen and Tracy Ong | April 10, 2006

EVEN before they and their workmates were sacked by Cowra Abattoir last week, Vicki and Terry Rawiri supplemented their earnings from the meatworks with casual jobs at the Bi-Lo supermarket.
They were trying to get ahead by paying off the mortgage of their $365,000 home in Cowra in eight years.

By day they worked at the supermarket, while at night Vicki, 42, weighed carcasses and Terry, 43, classified as a labourer, worked as a slaughterman.

The couple are still agonising about going back to the meatworks, which has withdrawn the dismissal notices. But compared with an increasing number of Australian workers, the Rawiris are in clover.

New research suggests a period of unrivalled prosperity in Australia has coincided with an alarming rise in worker poverty, with growing numbers of employees facing what Barbara Pocock, director of the Centre for Work and Life at the University of South Australia, described as a "a pervasive sense of struggle and deprivation".

The number of working Australians who make less than two-thirds of median earnings - $533 a week or $27,716 a year - has risen from 1.2 million to 1.8 million, a rise of 50 per cent in about a decade, Ms Pocock said.

In a project funded by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Australian Research Council, universities and trade unions, researchers investigating the experiences of low-paid workers interviewed 18 childcare workers and 23 cleaners.

By the time they have paid the rent or met mortgage payments, many low-paid workers find they have no money left for basics such as dental care and school excursions for their children.

Some can afford phones that take only incoming calls. Some say even visiting friends is beyond their means - they cannot afford the petrol.

But poverty imposes its own irrational exigencies.

"I have to drive an unregistered car," one woman, a 29-year old childcare worker with three children, told researchers. "Then you get caught. Then you get a fine from the cops ... and then you can't afford to pay court fines. So it's basically a web that slowly ... eats you up."

Conscious of their isolation, some workers spoke to researchers about living in a different world from other Australians.

"I can't afford ... everyday things that people might take for granted. I sort of think, 'Oh no, if I go to the pictures, it means that's $20 less for the food ... or bills to be paid'," said another woman, a 55-year old cleaner raising two children on her own.

John Buchanan, from the Workplace Research Institute at Sydney University, said statistics of consumption patterns in the wider population showed the fast-growing legions of low-paid workers spent $30 a week less on food and half as much on clothing and footwear.

negative earnings occur where low income earners are Forced to subsidse their income with debt against credit cards and pawning their possesions.

Dooley wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 9:36pm:

Four Corners cited statistics from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), showing that almost half a million people, or 42 percent of those defined as poor, were trying to live on wages that were so low that they remained below the poverty line. NATSEM’s head, Professor Ann Harding, said the number of low-wage earners had doubled between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s. Moreover, child poverty in wage and salary earning households increased by almost 40 percent between 1996 and 1998.

Though this has little to do with the tax take, who pays it or how the rich actually subsidise the poor, the figures you are quoting here support my statements that Liebor give the poor hell and Johnny fixes it.

The dates Professor Ann Harding is talking about are when Bob Hawke and Paul Cheating ran the tyranny and ensured the poor suffered the most - this is standard Liebor operating procedure.

They rooted the poor between the mid 80s and the mid 90s.  John Howard began to address it in 1996 and by the early part of this century had gone a long way towards repairing the damage - as my figures demonstrate.

Thanks for further proof.

you'll find no argument from me that lieberal or labour are any better than one another on this issue dt as they're both rightwing smitten with the ideal that company and corporates need more rights, privileges and welfare than humans.  

Dooley wrote on Apr 1^st, 2008 at 3:40pm:

you'll find no argument from me that lieberal or labour are any better than one another on this issue dt as they're both rightwing smitten with the ideal that company and corporates need more rights, privileges and welfare than humans.

Once again though while that was the intent during the Hawke/Cheating era it has been levelled out considerably since.   That this was so is evidenced by the boasts of both Cheating and Beazley that it was always their intent to make companies profitable at the expense of workers.

Now, since John Howard's Australia, the low income earner can receive more in benefits than they pay in tax - the corporate dollar (corporate tax) props them up.

This is the reason I always support John Howard.  He protected the poor, the needy and the disadvantaged through dramatic tax revisions whereas his predecessors did not.

i agree that jh has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. keeping more poorly paid workers on benefits due to the anti union laws succesive governments have brought into place over the last 20 years. leaving the burden to non-human (corporation and businesses) entities with no loyalty to nations well-being will only see massive poverty and homeless When the next reccession comes along.

Dooley wrote on Apr 1^st, 2008 at 9:44pm:

i agree that jh has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. keeping more poorly paid workers on benefits due to the anti union laws succesive governments have brought into place over the last 20 years. leaving the burden to non-human (corporation and businesses) entities with no loyalty to nations well-being will only see massive poverty and homeless When the next reccession comes along.

Huh?  Who said Johnny made the rich richer and the poor poorer?  Who are you agreeing with dooley?  It can't be me because I have been saying all along Johnny helped even it out.  

The period of the mega rich was during the Hawke Cheating years (when all those articles you posted are from) when moguls like Bond, Skase etc were created and the ordinary rich like the Packers, Murdochs, Holmes a Courts etc became ultra rich.

This is when the poor fell off the edge as far as the government was concerned. Johnny brought them back.

http://news.smh.com.au/national/sydney-doctors-face-surgery-overload-20080515-2enm.html

Doctors at Sydney's main children's hospital regularly face up to 18 hours of booked surgery a day, even before emergency cases arrive, a NSW public health inquiry has been told.

Westmead Children's Hospital head of anaesthesia Dr David Baines said the overload was causing stress for children booked in for surgery who missed out when emergency cases came in.

He said an "overwhelming number of emergency cases" meant doctors often found themselves with almost a day's worth of patients before emergency surgery was even factored in.

You can't claim to support private health care while making those who want it pay for both private and the public system. The tax was not intended to 'target' the rich, but to give people the option of going private or doing their bit to support the public system.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23738717-5013947,00.html

MALCOLM Turnbull has savaged the Rudd Government as ideologically opposed to private health insurance and accused Labor of being determined to undermine it as he stepped up the Opposition's attack on the Government's first budget.

Under the change, which Treasury expects will cause more than 480,000 people to abandon private health insurance, the surcharge threshold for single people will rise from $50,000 a year to $100,000, and the threshold for families will increase from $100,000 to $150,000.

Mr Turnbull said the decision made no sense, and would increase pressure on public hospitals and make private insurance more expensive for people who retained the cover.

"The changes to the Medicare levy surcharge are the most misguided and potentially the most dangerous in this budget," Mr Turnbull said.

"This is a Government that hates private health ... and that is seeking to undermine it. There are no winners from that."

But Kevin Rudd hit back at the attack last night, insisting his Government supported a dual system of public and private health services, with each sector "strong and complementary".

Mr Turnbull's attack came as he delivered the Opposition's traditional post-budget speech at the press club.

Dr Nelson, campaigning in Victoria for the Gippsland by-election, joined the attack on Labor's private health policy, accusing the Government of bias against the private sector.

"They don't like people with private health insurance, in the same way they don't like private education," Dr Nelson said.

But Mr Rudd, also in Victoria yesterday, said the health insurance decision was aimed at relieving middle-income earners from a tax originally designed to target the rich.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said Labor supported both the public and private sectors.

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 2:04pm:

You can't claim to support private health care while making those who want it pay for both private and the public system. The tax was not intended to 'target' the rich, but to give people the option of going private or doing their bit to support the public system.

Can you explain that in greater detail?

yes

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 2:25pm:

yes

Thanks

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

I take very little notice of fools.   ;D

wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 5:06pm:

I take very little notice of fools.   ;D

And there's plenty of them posting on this topic.

I really can't be bothered with engaging them.

MORE than 10 million Australians have private health insurance, the highest level in a decade.

And Health Minister Nicola Roxon is using that growth to urge the Senate to approve her means test of the 30 per cent subsidy for insurance.

An extra 243,000 people took out private health cover over the past year, according to figures released by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. And the largest growth in the past three months occurred among 20 to 24-year-olds: the least likely to use health insurance.





A Gillard Government plan to save $1.9 billion by means-testing access to the 30 per cent tax break on health-fund premiums was meant to take effect in July, but has been blocked in the Senate, adding to the Government's budget woes.

The Opposition and Independent senators fear the means test applying to singles earning more than $75,000 and families earning more than $150,000 could force people to drop their cover as it becomes more expensive.



But Ms Roxon said the latest figures indicating a large growth in health fund membership over the past year showed this was a furphy.

The membership growth came despite another set of Government changes in 2008 that axed a tax penalty applying to middle-income earners who did not take out health insurance.

Health funds fought this measure, arguing it would encourage one million Australians to drop their health cover; instead, Ms Roxon said, 670,000 people took out health insurance.

"The proportion of Australians with private hospital insurance has also increased to 44.8 per cent, up from 44.6 per cent in the June quarter, the highest rate since March 2001."

She said the Government would push ahead with plans to take the Private Health Insurance Tax Rebate off the richest Australians.

"If the changes do not go ahead, Treasury modelling indicates this will cost the budget $100bn over the next four decades," Ms Roxon said.

As long as the Government doesn't cancel the NHS system....it's ok to have Private Health as well...

All very well and good I'm sure, but never the less, we cant all afford private health insurance.  Should we means test the rebate?.  I cant see why not.  Do we want to keep Medicare and bulk billing?.  Of course,  (You bet we do )

wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

All very well and good I'm sure, but never the less, we cant all afford private health insurance.  Should we means test the rebate?.  I cant see why not.  Do we want to keep Medicare and bulk billing?.  Of course,  (You bet we do )

Yes, and THAT is what I said...

Means test it is fine.

Only problem is plenty of wealthy people dont actually own anything, things are tied up in trusts and spouses names.

You can try, but you wont catch the ones you want by doing it.

Also, I hope the cost of administrating the means testing doesnt outweight the benefits.

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

We shouldn't all be able to afford private health cover.

Otherwise what would be the point of it?

When you have a private and public sector - there should be both a quality and service level difference between the two.
If private wasn't better then we wouldn't bother getting it would be?

In Market Capitalism terms, which we all agree is the best model we have in society, there has to be a service reciprocated to your outlay.

Public cover should be a base level cover assisting those who cannot afford it.

Private should be a premium service for those who can.

That's the way the world works.
I have no issue with it. I have no silver spoon in my mouth, I am an ordinary working class kid so I have no 'born to rule' view of the world here that I want to keep in place - merely it makes sense if you pay, you should get better than those who don't bother to pay.

Verge wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

A private Health thread by imcrook. Has he ever bumped his own threads?

Maybe I shoudl just merge IMFULLOFITs threads into a handful of topics.

We have:

HEALTH INSURANCE
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
WAGES ISSUES
ACTU ADVERTISING

what else does he go on about?

THE private health insurance rebate is expected to cost taxpayers more than $5 billion next year, with premiums expected to rise by 5.5 per cent, as fund membership has reached a 35-year high.   :o

The rise increases pressure on the Gillard government to get its long-thwarted plans to means-test the rebate through Parliament.

Independent MPs in the House of Representatives so far have resisted efforts by Health Minister Nicola Roxon to win their support for legislation to phase out the 30 per cent rebate for singles earning more than $80,000 and for couples earning more than $160,000.   :(


The government stands to lose $770 million in budgeted savings next financial year if it cannot get the changes passed. The government has shelved plans to introduce the legislation this year.

Health funds have reported profits totalling more than $1 billion this year on the back of membership growth and above-inflation premium rises, which have been imposed every year for much of the past decade.

Industry sources expect next year's premium increase to be about 5.5 per cent, to meet continued rises in hospital costs and increased claims driven by the ageing of the population.

Yesterday Ms Roxon said the health funds' swelling membership bolstered the case for a means test.   ;)

''Now is a good time to do it, and that money could actually be much more effectively spent for the benefit of the whole population,'' she said.

The figures showing that 10.3 million people had hospital insurance and 12 million had general or ancillary coverage revealed that the health funds were in good shape, unlike when the rebate was introduced as an incentive 14 years ago, Ms Roxon said.

While the figures show more people have insurance than in 1976, the actual proportion of Australians with hospital insurance now, 45.6 per cent, is not as high as the 50 per cent plus who had private cover before the introduction of Medicare in 1984.

Ms Roxon said she was in talks with the independent MPs on the means test. The growth in health fund membership has spurred the planned entry into the market of the first new health insurance fund in many years.

The health.com.au fund was seeking regulatory approvals and planned to open early next year, its chief executive officer, Andy Sheats, said.

Mr Sheats told The Age the fund would not have shopfronts but would be national and based online, seeking to deliver a more personally focused service along the lines of the amazon.com model.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/health-fund-rebate-to-cost-5bn-20111116-1nj6x.html#ixzz1dtr6fN3o

For crying out loud, means test the private health insurance rebate, once and for all.   :'(

Health insurance rebate cost to taxpayers?

Ha ha what a joke. :( :( :( :( :( :(

Whom do you think pays for public health dopey pinko head?

If people move OUT of private health insurance it will cost taxpayers a schitt load more my pinko comrade.... :D :D :D :D

UP to 25 per cent of higher-income earners would downgrade their cover if the federal government succeeds in means-testing the $4 billion private health insurance rebate -- challenging federal government claims that the move would not harm funds financially.

The head of leading market research company Ipsos Australia told the National Press Club yesterday that analyses of surveys conducted by the company had shown "many low-, middle- and even some relatively high-income earners could not afford their current private health insurance if the rebate they get was removed".

Ipsos Australia executive director Tony Quint told The Australian most of those earning enough to be affected by the proposed means test, which would cut in progressively for singles earning more than $75,000 and for couples earning more than $120,000, had indicated they were unlikely to drop their cover altogether, to avoid paying more tax. But this concealed a widespread intention among individuals to limit the hit to their disposable incomes, by switching to cheaper health insurance policies.


"Not many higher-income people have said they will drop private health insurance (if the means test comes in), because most of them realise they are locked in by the tax -- they will pay a higher Medicare levy surcharge if they drop it," Mr Quint said.  

"But one in four of the people in the affected income groups that would be captured by the proposed means test . . . would downgrade their level of cover."

Mr Quint said this was likely to see more people taking out policies with higher excess payments, which in turn would probably lead to more people choosing treatment in public rather than private hospitals.

This sounds rather wishy-washy to me - either way, the sticks for high income earners remain more effective than the token carrots...

As for the claims about the impact upon the public health sector, they are couched in terms of 'likely' and 'probably' - and this only loosely applies to the 25% of the affected group who indicate that they might opt for lowering their level of cover in favour of a higher excess if the 30% Rebate was withdrawn and then may (or may not) choose to jump queue to be hospitalised in a public hospital...

| Spokesperson Rachel Siewert
Wednesday 9th September 2009, 12:00am.  


I will start by stating the obvious, the Greens very often stated position: we are opposed to the private health insurance rebate. We have argued many times before that it is bad policy. It pours taxpayer funds into the pocket of the private health insurance industry as subsidies for their products at the expense of Australia's desperately underfunded public health system. Our public hospitals and our health workers are struggling with a lack of resources, while $3.8 billion goes to the private health insurance industry. We believe that these funds would be much better directed to the public health system. We remain implacably opposed to this approach to health funding.

That said, we concede that means testing the private health insurance rebate is an improvement on the current flat rebate approach of 30 per cent to all private health insurance holders, irrespective of their income level and capacity to pay. Removing the rebate from those on higher incomes is a step towards the Greens position of getting rid of the rebate altogether.

I have in the past outlined the Greens' position on the private health insurance rebate quite extensively. We believe that the Greens are not alone in this view. In fact, as has been mentioned in this place before, Treasury shared the Greens economically responsible position. In February this year, the Age ran on its front page an article saying that Treasury had advised the government that the private health insurance rebate was in fact bad policy and that the $3.8 billion would be better spent in our ailing public health centre, a sentiment with which we concur. The article cited documents from a Treasury briefing to the Rudd government shortly after the election. The article reads:

   THE private health insurance rebate paid to millions of Australians is ‘very poor policy' and should be dumped, according to a confidential briefing to Treasurer Wayne Swan ... The briefing said the billions of dollars lost annually to the rebate would be better spent on public hospitals.

Vote -1  Australian Greens.  The fair and sensible people.   :)  

Access Economics did an interesting analysis on the impact of the proposed means-testing changes to the Private Health Insurance Rebate - here's a poignant extract: -


Quote:

Scenario analysis In the brief time period since the 2009-10 Federal Budget was presented to the Parliament, Access Economics has not undertaken comprehensive modelling of the Budget measure. However, we have undertaken some simple scenario analyses of the impact of the changes to the PHI rebate. We identified three broad types of PHI policies which, in turn, reflect our observations regarding the preferences of three broad groups of policy holders (see Table 3.1). Table 3.1 Preferences of policy holders by category Category of members / Most likely type of policy Group 1: Those with the highest incomes and/or the highest aversion to risk. Elderly single and widowed females are particularly risk averse. This group is generally assumed to have the lowest price elasticity of demand for PHI. Most likely type of policy A high-end (higher priced) fully-featured product offering the most generous benefit entitlements. Group 2: Those with middle incomes who see value in having PHI but who are also concerned with the affordability of their cover. Also seek value. This group is generally assumed to be more sensitive to the price of PHI than group 1. Most likely type of policy A low-premium product, most likely with the highest front-end deductible on offer and, if they are not at all risk averse, perhaps exclusions as well. Group 3: The “surcharge avoiders” whose primary (if not sole) purpose in having PHI cover is to save money compared with any MLS surcharge they would otherwise pay. As Clayton’s members of a fund, they attach little or no value to any potential benefits they might be entitled to. Their decision to hold PHI (or not to hold as the case may be) might be influenced by the higher premiums that could apply under Lifetime Health Cover if they drop their cover and rejoin at a later date. These arrangements are, however, not well understood. Most likely type of policy A low-premium product, most likely with the highest front-end deductible on offer and, if they are not at all risk averse, perhaps exclusions as well. Source: Access Economics

Source: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cha.org.au%2Fsite.php%3Fid%3D1043&ei=rTC5TcTPG8b5rAfk4uTdBA&usg=AFQjCNHQpNLPV_acxO5PL0tgGZinokko7g

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

Proposed changes to the health insurance rebate will encourage more than 1.6 million Australians to drop private hospital cover, a new survey shows.

The report by market research company ANOP and consultant Deloitte surveyed health insurance members about the federal government's plan to means test the 30 per cent rebate.

The report rejected Treasury's forecast of 25,000 consumers dropping their private health cover in the first year the changes come in.


"You are looking at very significant percentages that are going to drop or downgrade for hospital and even bigger numbers in terms of dropping or downgrading their extras cover," ANOP chairman Rod Cameron told media in Canberra on Wednesday.

In the report, 1.6 million insured Australians would drop private hospital cover over five years while 4.3 million would downgrade their policies.

Australian Health Insurance Association (AHIA) chief executive Michael Armitage said the government had underestimated the potential impact of this policy.

"In an attempt to find savings, the government has developed a policy which will demand a greater financial injection than it saves in order to repair the health system," Dr Armitage said.

Labor has tried to means test and reduce the rebate for individuals earning more than $75,000 a year and couples earning more than $150,000 a year.

It has been blocked twice by a hostile Senate but the plan could be passed when the Australian Greens take the balance of power in the upper house from July 1.

The government will be claiming savings in the budget of around $2 billion over four years through changes to private health insurance measures.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the government rejected claims by AHIA of 1.6 million Australians dropping hospital cover due to means-testing of the private health insurance rebate.

"The findings are based on general questions being asked of 2000 people via a telephone poll without all the relevant financial information available," Ms Roxon said.

"People don't make decisions about family budgets during telephone polls. They make them in a more considered fashion with all the facts available."

She said means testing the rebate was fair as 90 per cent of lower-income adults should not subsidise private health cover for the top 10 per cent.

The proposals could change the overall demographic of those holding health insurance, Mr Cameron said.

"People who are going to drop out or downgrade their private health insurance are the more healthy and younger (people), leaving a less healthy pool in the privately health-insured population," he said.

"Of course, (this) is going to have, by itself, impacts on premiums."

Deloitte estimates the policy change would increase private health insurance premiums by 10 per cent more than otherwise by 2016.

Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said the coalition had blocked the proposed changes as there would be consequences to the public system.

"It also shows that our public hospitals will be swamped with close to an additional million admissions above normal growth over the next five years and that the costs of that to the taxpayer will be billions of extra dollars," Mr Dutton said.

Labor has tried to means test and reduce the rebate for individuals earning more than $75,000 a year and couples earning more than $150,000 a year.

It has been blocked twice by a hostile Senate but the plan could be passed when the Australian Greens take the balance of power in the upper house from July 1.   :)  

You have made several threads on this topic in the past, why has nothing been done about your constant spamming?

I don't regard Imcrook's topics as spamming. He raises many
issues which need to be acknowledged and addressed, but
seldom, if ever, are.

And long may he continue to do so.

Hmnnn....according to the article, the phone survey was of 2,000 health-insured people - how did they select the respondents and what proportion of them would be affected by the proposed changes...!?

Hello, the proposed changes will only affect the top 10% of income earners - bearing in mind that the associated sticks are bigger than the rebates!

wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

Proposed changes to the health insurance rebate will encourage more than 1.6 million Australians to drop private hospital cover, a new survey shows. The report by market research company ANOP and consultant Deloitte surveyed health insurance members about the federal government's plan to means test the 30 per cent rebate. The report rejected Treasury's forecast of 25,000 consumers dropping their private health cover in the first year the changes come in. "You are looking at very significant percentages that are going to drop or downgrade for hospital and even bigger numbers in terms of dropping or downgrading their extras cover," ANOP chairman Rod Cameron told media in Canberra on Wednesday. In the report, 1.6 million insured Australians would drop private hospital cover over five years while 4.3 million would downgrade their policies. Australian Health Insurance Association (AHIA) chief executive Michael Armitage said the government had underestimated the potential impact of this policy. "In an attempt to find savings, the government has developed a policy which will demand a greater financial injection than it saves in order to repair the health system," Dr Armitage said. Labor has tried to means test and reduce the rebate for individuals earning more than $75,000 a year and couples earning more than $150,000 a year. It has been blocked twice by a hostile Senate but the plan could be passed when the Australian Greens take the balance of power in the upper house from July 1. The government will be claiming savings in the budget of around $2 billion over four years through changes to private health insurance measures. Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the government rejected claims by AHIA of 1.6 million Australians dropping hospital cover due to means-testing of the private health insurance rebate. "The findings are based on general questions being asked of 2000 people via a telephone poll without all the relevant financial information available," Ms Roxon said. "People don't make decisions about family budgets during telephone polls. They make them in a more considered fashion with all the facts available." She said means testing the rebate was fair as 90 per cent of lower-income adults should not subsidise private health cover for the top 10 per cent. The proposals could change the overall demographic of those holding health insurance, Mr Cameron said. "People who are going to drop out or downgrade their private health insurance are the more healthy and younger (people), leaving a less healthy pool in the privately health-insured population," he said. "Of course, (this) is going to have, by itself, impacts on premiums." Deloitte estimates the policy change would increase private health insurance premiums by 10 per cent more than otherwise by 2016. Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said the coalition had blocked the proposed changes as there would be consequences to the public system. "It also shows that our public hospitals will be swamped with close to an additional million admissions above normal growth over the next five years and that the costs of that to the taxpayer will be billions of extra dollars," Mr Dutton said.

Keep posting the stories that matter imcrookonit. Issues that effect the lower % of earning power need to be addressed.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

Keep posting the stories that matter imcrookonit. Issues that effect the lower % of earning power need to be addressed.

Do we need several threads on this VERY topic, started by the original poster.

He isnt posting what matters, he is spamming, and is too lazy to go back and find existing threads he started on the topic and bump them with updates.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

Keep posting the stories that matter imcrookonit. Issues that effect the lower % of earning power need to be addressed.

They could always get a job....

People go on about those of us who earn more than average.
Have you ever stopped to think about the costs of living we have as well?
My mortgage in Australia was over $4,000 per month.

Means-test to 'stretch hospitals'


THE Gillard government's plans to extract $1.9 billion in savings from health insurance may backfire if they result in increased demands on public hospitals.

NSW and Victoria have warned the government that if its plan to means-test the health insurance rebate created an exodus from private to public hospitals, the states would seek compensation to cover the resulting cost increase.

Their demands follow an industry-commissioned study that found the means test would prompt the flight of 1.6 million people from health insurance over five years, generating an increased caseload of 846,000 patients needing public hospital treatment.


That would swell public hospital costs by about $1 billion a year by 2016, the Deloitte study, based on the results of a survey of 2000, found.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon has rejected the estimates but state health ministers have voiced concerns over the figures.   :)

The federal government has estimated that its means test on the 30 per cent rebate on premiums, which would cut in at incomes of $80,000 for singles and $160,000 for couples, would save $1.9 billion over four years.   :(

NSW Health Minister Jillian Skinner said it would be ''naive to ignore the role that private hospitals and private health insurance play in providing patients with access to timely quality healthcare''.

''NSW would expect the Commonwealth to adequately compensate NSW for any increases in public hospital demand that arise from the Commonwealth's introduction of means testing of the private health insurance rebate,'' Ms Skinner said

Victorian Health Minister David Davis said the withdrawal of the means test would have a dual impact: patients would flood back into public hospitals and the public hospitals would lose the revenue flowing from privately insured patients treated in public hospitals.

Victoria would seek compensation for the results of the unilateral action by the Commonwealth, Mr Davis said.

WA Premier Colin Barnett has said there was no doubt people would pull out of private health insurance and put further stress on our public hospitals.

Ms Roxon said yesterday that the measure would not have a significant negative effect on private health-insurance coverage, premiums or demand on public hospitals.   ;)

Equitist wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

Hmnnn....according to the article, the phone survey was of 2,000 health-insured people - how did they select the respondents and what proportion of them would be affected by the proposed changes...!? Hello, the proposed changes will only affect the top 10% of income earners - bearing in mind that the associated sticks are bigger than the rebates!

So how did they get 2000 people from the top 10% of income earners to answer the poll?

wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 6:42am:

Means-test to 'stretch hospitals' THE Gillard government's plans to extract $1.9 billion in savings from health insurance may backfire if they result in increased demands on public hospitals. NSW and Victoria have warned the government that if its plan to means-test the health insurance rebate created an exodus from private to public hospitals, the states would seek compensation to cover the resulting cost increase. Their demands follow an industry-commissioned study that found the means test would prompt the flight of 1.6 million people from health insurance over five years, generating an increased caseload of 846,000 patients needing public hospital treatment.

These figures aren't adding up - for starters: -

Is it the case that over 50% of the population access privately-insurable hospital services once every 5 years!?

Of the 1.6 million who will purportedly be 'encouraged' to drop private health insurance over 5 years, what proportion of them will be hit with a Medicare Surcharge which exceeds the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate that they would otherwise receive and what proportion of the remainder would pay for Private Health Insurance regardless!?

Please delete wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 8:47am:

Equitist wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 8:57am: Hmnnn....according to the article, the phone survey was of 2,000 health-insured people - how did they select the respondents and what proportion of them would be affected by the proposed changes...!? Hello, the proposed changes will only affect the top 10% of income earners - bearing in mind that the associated sticks are bigger than the rebates! So how did they get 2000 people from the top 10% of income earners to answer the poll?

I'm not sure that they did - but they appear to be relying upon uninformed and/or misinformed responses from people who wouldn't be affected in any event...

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?
A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has made a pitch to the rural independents as she tries to sell Labor's proposed changes to private health insurance.

Ms Roxon said people in regional areas often don't have private cover or, if they do, they don't earn enough to be affected by the plan to means test and reduce the 30 per cent rebate.

The health minister also argued on Sunday that the Gillard government had a mandate for the $2 billion reform as it took the policy to the 2010 election.


Labor promised not to touch the rebate before the 2007 poll but broke its pledge once in power.

It twice tried to means test the rebate and increase the Medicare surcharge levy for those without cover but was blocked by a hostile Senate.

"The last two times of course there were arguments about this proposal not having been taken to to the public," Ms Roxon told Network Ten.

"(But) this was our policy very clearly, it has been for two years, we took it to the last election."

The Gillard government wants to save $2 billion over four years by means testing the rebate for individuals earning more than $80,000 and families earning more than $160,000.

At the same time, it plans to increase the surcharge for the wealthiest Australians without cover, from one to 1.5 per cent of taxable income.

Ms Roxon believes country crossbench MPs including Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who have previously voted against the measure in the lower house, can be won over.

Their votes will be crucial as the coalition has vowed to again vote against the legislation.

"Regional Australia is usually quite low (in terms of private cover) because there often aren't many private providers where consumers can actually use their services," Ms Roxon said.

"They (the independent MPs) also represent electorates where there are a lot of very low income earners who would not be affected in any way by these changes."

The health minister insisted the overhaul was "sensible".

"But I think we've got a bit of work to do to calm people down," she said.

How many smacking treads do you need to start on the topic of private health insurance.

bugger me sideways, no wonder we cant find any threads here more than two days old with all the spamming you and macca do on a daily basis.

Sooner these two retards get given the flick the better.

Private Health is a Rort that is based upon the USA Scam system ...a nation that is 3rd World Medically.
I know this, I worked the Private Health System for 5 years.

Means test defeat would blast budget.    :(


THE government faces a hole of about $3.4 billion over four years in its budget if its proposed means test on the private health insurance rebate is rejected.   :(

The legislation, yet to be introduced, is struggling with Queensland independent Bob Katter hitting out against it yesterday and New South Wales MP Tony Windsor saying he would vote against it if the proposal was in its previous form.

Their comments come a day after Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie expressed severe doubts.


Mr Windsor said he was having talks with the government next week. His comment opens the possibility that he might be more open minded if there were changes to the proposal.

A spokesman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon left open the possibility of compromise, saying the government would work closely with the crossbenchers to negotiate the legislation's passage.

The potential saving from the measure is much higher than the $1.9 billion estimate, for a little shorter period, when the legislation was put to Parliament unsuccessfully last term. The new saving estimate was disguised in the budget, and the government refuses to confirm it until it brings the legislation back.

Mr Katter said he was ''scared silly of people moving out of the private health system into the public health system, which is already collapsing in Queensland''. It was necessary to try to ensure people who were able to afford it stayed in the private health system, he said.

The legislation was defeated twice in the Senate last term but with the hung parliament it will stand or fall in the House of Representatives. The Coalition is opposed so its fate depends on the six crossbenchers - the government needs four for a majority.

In a big effort to get the numbers, the government is preparing information for all the crossbench House members about the impact of the means test on their electorates.

The spokesman reassured the country independents that ''the vast majority of people with private health insurance in regional Australia are below the thresholds at which the means test will come into effect - and therefore they won't be affected.''   ;)

Mr Wilkie told Parliament this week he was ''yet to be convinced by the government that means testing the health insurance rebate is the most sensible thing to do''.

Yesterday he said he was waiting for the government to give him a detailed breakdown on the private health care take-up in his seat of Denison and modelling on the effect on the public healthcare system.

The Greens MP Adam Bandt will vote for the legislation. Independent Rob Oakeshott has voted both for and against. West Australian National Tony Crook has yet to declare a position.

Here's what I don't particularly like is - if I am paying for private health insurance to pay for myself, why should I not receive a credit for not using the public system?

Here's the thing - if I am paying for myself - why should I be paying for say someone who doesn't work to get free healthcare?

They would pay in nothing and I would be paying twice.

Seem fair?

andrei <<Here's the thing - if I am paying for myself - why should I be paying for say someone who doesn't work to get free healthcare?>>
..........................................................................

It's just how it is in a so called civilised society. If you don't like it, you know what you can do?

stop paying and stop whingeing   :)

Pray we don't get the USA Private Health System. It is the most costly and corrupt system in the world. Most USA citizens take a 'holiday' in Canada, Cuba and even Mexico to get better Care for your money.
USA may show some shiny new equipment due to their expensive 'rates' but really the only great drug they came out with was Ecstasy amongst other such drugs.

As for Australia: Upon an ABC Forum, the top Medics in the country agreed that the Medical Industry doesn't really need Money, but the right reults from policies implemented - which was not happening.

Nurses are sooooo overpaid. They can make $100 an hour and throw in the availability to do extra hours if they so choose on top of that. These extra wages just go into them buying their cigarettes and alcohol - because work is so hard, especially when they can't cope with having more male staff than just 9% and more 'heterosexual' attitudes at that in the male staff.

wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 5:20pm:

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has made a pitch to the rural independents as she tries to sell Labor's proposed changes to private health insurance. Ms Roxon said people in regional areas often don't have private cover or, if they do, they don't earn enough to be affected by the plan to means test and reduce the 30 per cent rebate. The health minister also argued on Sunday that the Gillard government had a mandate for the $2 billion reform as it took the policy to the 2010 election. Labor promised not to touch the rebate before the 2007 poll but broke its pledge once in power. It twice tried to means test the rebate and increase the Medicare surcharge levy for those without cover but was blocked by a hostile Senate. "The last two times of course there were arguments about this proposal not having been taken to to the public," Ms Roxon told Network Ten. "(But) this was our policy very clearly, it has been for two years, we took it to the last election." The Gillard government wants to save $2 billion over four years by means testing the rebate for individuals earning more than $80,000 and families earning more than $160,000. At the same time, it plans to increase the surcharge for the wealthiest Australians without cover, from one to 1.5 per cent of taxable income. Ms Roxon believes country crossbench MPs including Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who have previously voted against the measure in the lower house, can be won over. Their votes will be crucial as the coalition has vowed to again vote against the legislation. "Regional Australia is usually quite low (in terms of private cover) because there often aren't many private providers where consumers can actually use their services," Ms Roxon said. "They (the independent MPs) also represent electorates where there are a lot of very low income earners who would not be affected in any way by these changes." The health minister insisted the overhaul was "sensible". "But I think we've got a bit of work to do to calm people down," she said.

Labor has no mandate whatsoever for any policy at all. They dont even havea mandate to form government!

Verge wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 8:05pm:

How many smacking treads do you need to start on the topic of private health insurance. bugger me sideways, no wonder we cant find any threads here more than two days old with all the spamming you and macca do on a daily basis. Sooner these two retards get given the flick the better.

You could always ask the mods to do something about it!!


LOL!!!

I needed a laugh!!!

Having worked for a Private Health Provider...
the only good thing about it is the Doctors that you get. I was privaleged to have worked for these guys in my own insignificant way.
But the Management who worked for the Health Provider were just disgusting! I was so ashamed to have worked in such a RORT/SCAM.
People worked hard, paid a lot of money into Health Insurances like HCF, MBF, NIB, etc and then pay another 75% on top of that to these Providers: Fees, extras, rates, etc.
What you get is absolute CRAP for your money. No, I tell a lie. You get some of the best Doctors, but even they were frustrated that there was hardly any equipment, Staff and quality efficiency.
All you get is a fascade. A nice 'Hotel' more than a top Medical example. They just spruce over the rort with cheap paintings on your single room wall, carpet corridors and decent food. But you have stuff all Medical equipment ...in a nutshell, if anything went 'medically' wrong - you were shipped back to the Public Hospital. What a joke! ::) >:(

THE government's problem with its proposed $3.4 billion means test on the private health insurance rebate increased yesterday when Greens MP Adam Bandt warned he might not support the bill if it was watered down.   :)

The legislation, to be introduced, will need crossbench support to pass the House of Representative because the Coalition will oppose it.   :(

Under means testing, the 30 per cent rebate for singles earning more than $80,000 a year or couples earning more than $160,000 falls to 20 per cent - then 10 per cent for singles earning more then $93,000, or couples earning $186,000, before cutting out altogether for singles who earn more than $124,000 or couples earning $248,000.


The government needs four of the six crossbenchers. Queensland independent Bob Katter attacked the move, while Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie is doubtful about it, awaiting more information.

NSW independent Tony Windsor, who voted against the legislation twice, said he would do so again if it's unchanged.

The government is signalling it is willing to negotiate but is now caught, because any softening could possibly see Mr Bandt peel off.

Mr Bandt said: ''I cannot guarantee that I will support a watered-down version of this important budget saving, especially without knowing what the government will cut to make up the shortfall.''

But the Greens are caught in a bind of their own. They want to see the private health insurance rebate abolished - by voting against a watered-down means test they would be in effect going against their own policy.

Greens leader Bob Brown said if the bill did not get up, public health services would miss out.   :(

Yes Mr Bandt the private health insurance rebate should be means tested.  Also right again Mr Bandt, you should not support a watered down bill.  Thank you Mr Bandt.   :)  

Imcrook - Tell me, why should I pay for my and my family's own healthcare and then pay through my taxes for others to have it at my expense as well?

Why should I pay twice and others pay no times?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 11:05am:

Imcrook - Tell me, why should I pay for my and my family's own healthcare and then pay through my taxes for others to have it at my expense as well? Why should I pay twice and others pay no times?

BECAUSE YOU CAN LOL....SUCK IT UP  ;D

We cant all afford private health insurance.  If you want it, and you can afford it then good luck to you.  However I don't see why peoples decision to have private health insurance, should be on the condition that they get a rebate.  Especially for someone that is paid quite well.   I cant see why it should not be at the least means tested.   ;)  

Thing is, we are paid more because we work hard and have gained an education to get paid more.

Why should we be penalised for that and we give people who didn't bother a free-ride?

Why do you guys seem to be so against the middle to high income earners who have worked bloody hard to get where they are?

Things aren't just handed to us on a plate you know.

They are not handed to anyone on a plate, even the low income workers.   :(  

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

They are not handed to anyone on a plate, even the low income workers.   :(

ten times as much is handed to low income earners tho. And most of us dont complain abou that. what we DO complain about is mindless unemployed cretins like you complaining that you want MORE and you want to harm others earning more than you.

THATS why we dont like you.

Go back to your hole idiot.   :P

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

We cant all afford private health insurance.  If you want it, and you can afford it then good luck to you.  However I don't see why peoples decision to have private health insurance, should be on the condition that they get a rebate.  Especially for someone that is paid quite well.   I cant see why it should not be at the least means tested.   ;)

thre is just SO MUCH you cant see from your unemployed welfare dependant position. You'd be AMAZED at what you can learn from having a job!

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

They are not handed to anyone on a plate, even the low income workers.   :(

Really?
So tell me, someone who doesn't have a job.

He is given money by the state and gets healthcare at the expense of the taxpayer (of which he is not one).

How is that not being handed to him?

They're right I'mCrookAtIt,
Australia's Middle-Class philosophy has always treated the so-called 'poor' more favourably than any other nation, to the point that there isn't 'poor' ...nor should there be.
Sure there are Rich, but chances are, its due to Foreign Interests and involvements more than anything ...like Harry Kewell making his $26 million via the UK rather than the A-League.

What I saw was Private Health ripping off the Rich for little in return
and 'Free' Public Health being abused/sued by the Poor.

Reckon a Republic via Libs V Unions and ALP V Indpendents, will sort things out though.

ten times as much is handed to low income earners tho. And most of us dont complain abou that. what we DO complain about is mindless unemployed cretins like you complaining that you want MORE and you want to harm others earning more than you.   Of course you don't complain, why would you when you earn four or is it five time more than a low income worker.  Oh yes that's right, I forget you pay to much tax.  Then again, you guys always complain about that, don't you.   :'(      

Imcrook - I also spent 4 years at university and a further 3 years studying after that.

Now do you realize how much that costs and just how much dedication that takes from people?

Now do you see why such people are paid more?

Yes I  do see why some people are paid more, and that is fair enough.  Although it does seem there are several people, that look down on those less fortunate than them.  As you have said before, life is not that bad.  Well I am afraid to say for some people it is.  If you are on the sort of money (That you say you are)  and good luck to you.  Well I am afraid to say, you cant rely complain anyway.   ;)    

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

ten times as much is handed to low income earners tho. And most of us dont complain abou that. what we DO complain about is mindless unemployed cretins like you complaining that you want MORE and you want to harm others earning more than you.   Of course you don't complain, why would you when you earn four or is it five time more than a low income worker.  Oh yes that's right, I forget you pay to much tax.  Then again, you guys always complain about that, don't you.   :'(

Google 'work'. it will explaint it to you. if not ask your parents but on second thoughts you are probably 4th generation welfare family.

Ring a friend (at work).

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

Yes I  do see why some people are paid more, and that is fair enough.  Although it does seem there are several people, that look down on those less fortunate than them.  As you have said before, life is not that bad.  Well I am afraid to say for some people it is.  If you are on the sort of money (That you say you are)  and good luck to you.  Well I am afraid to say, you cant rely complain anyway.   ;)

since you are one of those that ABUSES people with good jobs maybe you shoudl have a rethink.

HA, and how many times have we seen YOU abuse people?.   :o

You do seem to have a significant issue with people who are on just average, middle of the road incomes though.

We're not talking about rich people here.

I am as against rich people avoiding tax and getting welfare as you are.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

Thing is, we are paid more because we work hard and have gained an education to get paid more. Why should we be penalised for that and we give people who didn't bother a free-ride? Why do you guys seem to be so against the middle to high income earners who have worked bloody hard to get where they are? Things aren't just handed to us on a plate you know.

Well yes they are actually.

http://www.civilsociety.org.au/CorporateWelfare.htm

But nobody in Australiaa has much of a leg to stand on when complaining about how much money they have.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/welfare-net-best-in-australia/story-e6frg9qo-1225817876786

The discussion shouldn't be about money, it should be about quality of life issues. Bragging about how hard you work is just boasting about how little time to you make to care for your kids. Life isn't meant to be one long game of MONOPOLY tm.

Getting back to the topic.  Why should people that want private health insurance get a rebate?.  Why should there be a condition on if you want health insurance, you have a rebate?, when there are people that cant afford to have it anyway.  It seems fair enough to me, if you want it (And good luck to you, if you do) then pay for it.  At the very least, why not means test it?.  The money saved could go back into the public hospital system, thus making it better.   ;)  

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Getting back to the topic.  Why should people that want private health insurance get a rebate?.

Because if they don't get a rebate then they are paying for private healthcare and also paying for others to get healthcare through taxes.

They are paying TWICE.

That's been my point mate. Why should they pay twice when some don't pay at all?

If they don't take out private cover, they are whacked with a penalty tax.

Do you think this is fair??

What about the people that cant afford private health insurance?.  Maybe they would like it, but they simply cant afford it, rebate or no rebate.   :(

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 2:41pm:

What about the people that cant afford private health insurance?.  Maybe they would like it, but they simply cant afford it, rebate or no rebate.   :(

Well then they get public healthcare.

That's how it works.

I would like a Ferrari but I can't afford one.

Yes well, I would like a top of the range Mercedes, or a top of the range Lexus.   :)    See you later Andrei.

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 2:47pm:

Yes well, I would like a top of the range Mercedes, or a top of the range Lexus.   :)    See you later Andrei.

When you get yours I will race you in my Ferrari when I get mine.

wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

HA, and how many times have we seen YOU abuse people?.   :o

I dont LOOK DOWN ON YOU. I call you an idiot. The difference is that the former is offensive while the later is accurate.

Here's what I don't particularly like is - if I am paying for private health insurance to pay for myself, why should I not receive a credit for not using the public system?

Here's the thing - if I am paying for myself - why should I be paying for say someone who doesn't work to get free healthcare?

They would pay in nothing and I would be paying twice.

It is not entirely correct that a person with private health cover pays for him/herself. If a private person has an operation under private cover, the hospital is paid by the private health fund, but the doctors bill is still paid by medicare, as are most prescriptions. The main advantage the private health provides, is, no long waiting time for any non-life threatening operations. I stand to be corrected on this.

And no one should think that all private health members are rich; many pay, to have the convenience of no waiting time, but it is a huge burden.
Whats the solution?
Here is my humble suggestion: Scrap all the subsidies for private health, introduce three tier health cards; green for low income, yellow for medium income and a red card for the high income earners.
The green card holders would pay 10%, the yellow card 20% and the red card 30% of any medical or health cost. There would also have to be a safety limit, similar to the current safety net for medical prescription, which should also be proportional to income.
But the government should than provide a decent health care system, with no long waiting times, and the so called extras like dental, physio, etc. should also be included; after all they are part of health.

Private Health hardly ever take on 'life-threatening' operations - too much money on the budget.
They mostly do 'routine' operations and yes, if you're old, the last thing you wanna do is wait for that hip operation.
Private is a Scam and Public lacks balls ...and I say that in the most heterosexual male nurse way.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 6:01pm:

Private Health hardly ever take on 'life-threatening' operations - too much money on the budget. They mostly do 'routine' operations and yes, if you're old, the last thing you wanna do is wait for that hip operation. Private is a Scam and Public lacks balls ...and I say that in the most heterosexual male nurse way.

Thats rubbish. I know several people who ahve had extensive neuro surgery and lung reduction surgery - all in private hosptials.

we have to scrap elitism and competition and make everything equal for everyone.  I want to ban profit and wealth hoarding and have everything distributed equally... 8-)

Yeah Longweekend, it does happen ...15% of the time in 15% of the Private Hospitals that make $385million Profit pa.

I remember working 13 patients in a Ward for HealthScope. There was only an R.N with me and she snapped and [quote] "I'm going back to New Zealand where you only get 4 patients to Nurse ratio!" as more Doctors arrived to be served and the phones rang. HealthScope could have paid for Agency Staff to help out with their big budget but "Nooooooooooooo" and although we got through it (and although she did not return again) I kinda wonder if Patients were being short-changed with the same old "Short-Staffed" excuse ::) we had to apologise with.
...and to think they are overworked in the Public system with a majority of 8 Patients to Nurse ratio ::)

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

MORE than two million people are likely to avoid a sharp rise in their private health insurance costs.

The Gillard Government was last night struggling to persuade crossbench MPs to support a reform to reduce the rebate to as low as 10 per cent.

The Government fears defeat of its reform will blow a $3 billion hole in the Budget.   :(

At least three independents - Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Tony Crook - have raised serious concerns over the impact on rural communities if the 30 per cent rebate is tightened.

Marginal seat Labor MPs - nervous over a public backlash to the carbon tax - have been warned of another campaign by the private health insurance lobby if the legislation goes ahead.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon is expected to introduce legislation in Parliament tomorrow, paving the way for a means test on the rebate.


Under reforms, an estimated 2.4 million people will lose some, or all, of the 30 per cent rebate introduced by the former Howard government to encourage families to take out private health insurance.

Single people earning more than $80,000 and couples or families on more than $160,000 will drop to 20 per cent while the rebate drops to 10 per cent for singles on $93,000-plus and families earning more than $186,000.

A further 740,000 people will lose the entire 30 per cent rebate, including singles earning more than $124,000 and families on $248,000-plus.

Of the six crossbench MPs in the House of Representatives, only the Greens' Adam Bandt is certain to support the Government's reforms. Mr Windsor has voted against the means test twice and said he retained "serious concerns" on the impact of the measure on the bush.

Mr Katter said voters who worked in rural and regional areas would be disadvantaged.

"I'm convinced that people will move out of the private system if we implement means testing, therefore putting more pressure on the public system which is already overburdened," he said.

Mr Crook, the Independent Nationals MP for the West Australian electorate of O'Connor, cited a report by Deloitte that estimated up to 1.6 million people might drop private health care over five years.

Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie said he was considering his position but in May told Parliament he was "yet to be convinced means testing the health insurance rebate is the most sensible thing to do right now".

While Ms Roxon admits it will be tough to get the numbers, she says the proposed rebate changes "are designed to make private health insurance fairer for all Australians". Her comments came as the Australian Health Insurance Association wrote to more than 20 Labor MPs yesterday reminding each of the thousands of voters in their electorates with private health insurance.

While Ms Roxon admits it will be tough to get the numbers, she says the proposed rebate changes "are designed to make private health insurance fairer for all Australians".   ;)

I hate socialist, communist governments......

of course people will move away from it..what do they think people actually like giving incompetent govts even m ore money to dribble down the drain.

all this lot seem to do is pay compensation to people for damaging their livelyhoods..[aka cattlemen] where is that money coming from???

these same people are also paying the poo levy because this incompetent govt had wasted any reserves they may have had, and couldnt fund a flood.

now we are reading in the media that the Pacific Highway a notorious killer may not get Fed funding thats been promised..because of cost blow outs...wouldnt have anything to do with all this freaking compensation this incompetent govt keeps on having to pay out due to ridiculous kneejerk actions.. or in somecase non actions..

its unbelievable.. no its more than that is disgraceful.

<<.wouldnt have anything to do with all this freaking compensation this incompetent govt keeps on having to pay out due to ridiculous kneejerk actions.. or in somecase non actions..>>
............................................................................

Wait until the claims come in for human rights abuses. Howard loved lawsuits, he cost us a mint, and this govt. is no different.

THE government's problem with its proposed $3.4 billion means test on the private health insurance rebate increased yesterday when Greens MP Adam Bandt warned he might not support the bill if it was watered down.   :)

The legislation, to be introduced, will need crossbench support to pass the House of Representative because the Coalition will oppose it.

Under means testing, the 30 per cent rebate for singles earning more than $80,000 a year or couples earning more than $160,000 falls to 20 per cent - then 10 per cent for singles earning more then $93,000, or couples earning $186,000, before cutting out altogether for singles who earn more than $124,000 or couples earning $248,000.   :)


The government needs four of the six crossbenchers. Queensland independent Bob Katter attacked the move, while Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie is doubtful about it, awaiting more information.

NSW independent Tony Windsor, who voted against the legislation twice, said he would do so again if it's unchanged.

The government is signalling it is willing to negotiate but is now caught, because any softening could possibly see Mr Bandt peel off.

Mr Bandt said: ''I cannot guarantee that I will support a watered-down version of this important budget saving, especially without knowing what the government will cut to make up the shortfall.''

But the Greens are caught in a bind of their own. They want to see the private health insurance rebate abolished - by voting against a watered-down means test they would be in effect going against their own policy.

Greens leader Bob Brown said if the bill did not get up, public health services would miss out.   :(

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-baulk-at-a-diluted-means-test-20110526-1f6kr.html#ixzz1RH0VFhRv

Howard was for the working people of Australia...... this govt is for the scum of Australia.l.....

But the Greens are caught in a bind of their own. They want to see the private health insurance rebate abolished.   :-X

Howard was for the working people of Australia......    Howard was for the well off, and the big end of town.   :(

wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

Howard was for the working people of Australia......    Howard was for the well off, and the big end of town.   :(

LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell Adam Brandt to go w*** himself. He is a P***.

The Howard government had their time.  Unfortunately eleven plus years.  They are now were they belong with their workchoices, in the rubbish bin of history.   :)

And JULIA has spent all teir savings......

She's run out now....


She NEEDS MORE TAX  TAX  TAX!!!! LOL

After she has taken all the monies from the workers she starts with the lower end.......



She NEEDS MORE TAX  TAX  TAX!!!! LOL

I personally dont have a problem with it, but we will see how good the Greens are at negoiation as opposed to demanding.

beware wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

I hate socialist, communist governments......

The FACTS ...







buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 9:08pm:

The Government is rebalancing the suite of policies supporting private health insurance – so that those with a greater capacity to pay for their own private health insurance do so. Consistent with the Government’s commitment to maintaining the balance between public and private health systems, high income earners will receive less Government payments for their private health insurance, but will face an increase in costs should they opt-out of their health cover. From 1 July 2010, the Government will introduce three new ‘Private Health Insurance Incentive Tiers’ – so that higher income earners receive less ‘carrot’ and more ‘stick’ to be insured: •Tier 1: for singles earning more than $75,000 (couples $150,000), the Private Health Insurance Rebate will be 20 per cent for those up to 65 years (25 per cent for those over 65, and 30 per cent for those over 70 years). The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will remain at one per cent. •Tier 2: for singles earning more than $90,000 (couples $180,000), the Private Health Insurance Rebate will be 10 per cent, for those up to 65 years (15 per cent for those over 65, and 20 per cent for those over 70 years). The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will be increased to 1.25 per cent. •Tier 3: for singles earning more than $120,000 (couples $240,000), no Private Health Insurance Rebate will be provided. The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will be increased to 1.5 per cent. All income thresholds would continue to remain indexed to wages, keeping these changes fair and sustainable into the future. These changes will affect around 10 per cent of Australian adults. For low and middle-income earners, the existing 30, 35 and 40 per cent Private Health Insurance rebates will remain in place. http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2009/048.htm&pageID=&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0 "SOCIALIST POLICY" ? I'd HARDLY put the abolishing of tax-payer funded hand-outs to couples on a quarter of a million per year in the "socialist policy" basket Nor do I believe anyone affected will "drop out" because they can "no longer afford it" It's GOOD POLICY

Its a bit like the socialist handouts for the Carbon Tax........

We will pay some to sit at home and use electricity and drive cars all day and those that go to work will pay for it because they will NOT get any compensation!!!

I hate socialist, communist governments......

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

Health fund premiums to jump by 5.57 pct.


Families will have to fork out more for their private health cover from April after Health Minister Nicola Roxon approved a hike in premiums for 34 of 35 funds.

Costs will jump an average of 5.57 per cent. That translates to an extra $1.61 a week for individuals paying $1500 a year and $3.21 a week for families with a $3000 policy.

This year's increase is marginally lower than the 2010 rise of 5.78 per cent across the board.


Ms Roxon said the premium hike would have been higher without her intervention.

"During the premium process I asked 17 of the 35 health funds to resubmit their applications, which helped reduce the premium increase for 7.9 million Australians," Ms Roxon said in a statement.

The health minister said one fund, Australian Unity, declined to reduce its planned increase and she'd therefore refused to approve any rise yet.

"I am not satisfied that Australian Unity has done all they can to ensure their customers get a reasonable deal so I'll be asking them to go back and reconsider their position," she said.

Benefits paid out to members of health funds jumped 7.7 per cent in 2009/10 to $12.2 billion.

Oh well, we cant all afford private health insurance anyway.    :(

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Oh well, we cant all afford private health insurance anyway.    :(

It looks like the waiting time for the public health system will be getting a lot longer. Take your swag and esky to the emergency room, you might be there for a few days before you see a doctor.....if you last that long.

You don't strike me as the kind of person to have private healthcare Imcrook?

A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?

Private health insurance? I think there must be a catch behind it.

You can get insurance for private health now :)

I do have private health insurance, but know a lot of people who either can't afford it or don't bother!

It doesn't cover a lot/I would probably be better off saving the money, but it's nice to have just in case.

I wonder how much the federal government spends on the 30% rebate to private health insurers?

First, it's not a flat 30%. It can be more for aged members and it can be less for people who join after age 30.
Second, it does cover a lot, especially if you have extras cover for things like dental, optical &etc. Even if you have hospital only cover, it can mean the difference between getting joint repacements or other procedures next month or in 2 years time.
Third, whatever it costs the budget for the rebate is more than value for money interms of the pressure it takes off the public hospital system, which means a social gain of incalculable value.
Just imo of course.

Private health insurance is a scam .... although not quite as bad as funeral insurance ......

private health funds take the money willy nilly, but come time to pay they keep changing the rules ... I know a lady who had cover, paid $3000 in premiums, had a baby, had to pay $1000 in gap  ... if anything had gone wrong, she had been told they would rush her to the public hospital because they didn't have the specialists available to deal with certain scenarios ..

I've never had it, paid zero premiums and zero gap ... can't fault a single thing at the public hospital, couldn't have hoped for anything better , and all the specialists were just down the hall. ...

only people with more $ then sense and fools pay for private health insurance. Why would you want to pay for something twice?

John Smith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Private health insurance is a scam .... although not quite as bad as funeral insurance ...... private health funds take the money willy nilly, but come time to pay they keep changing the rules ... I know a lady who had cover, paid $3000 in premiums, had a baby, had to pay $1000 in gap  ... if anything had gone wrong, she had been told they would rush her to the public hospital because they didn't have the specialists available to deal with certain scenarios .. I've never had it, paid zero premiums and zero gap ... can't fault a single thing at the public hospital, couldn't have hoped for anything better , and all the specialists were just down the hall. ... only people with more $ then sense and fools pay for private health insurance. Why would you want to pay for something twice?

wait until you get something painful but not life-threatening and you have to wait months (or years) while your friend with private insurance is in and out and healthy again.

I had private health insurance when my appendix was about to burst. The problem was that my symptoms were atypical and a public hospital would have sent me home but te private hospital kept me for observation. I was under the knife 30mins after it burst. In  public system I would have either died, spent a month in hospital and a year recovering.

im pretty pleased with my private insurance.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 7th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Private health insurance is a scam .... although not quite as bad as funeral insurance ...... private health funds take the money willy nilly, but come time to pay they keep changing the rules ... I know a lady who had cover, paid $3000 in premiums, had a baby, had to pay $1000 in gap  ... if anything had gone wrong, she had been told they would rush her to the public hospital because they didn't have the specialists available to deal with certain scenarios .. I've never had it, paid zero premiums and zero gap ... can't fault a single thing at the public hospital, couldn't have hoped for anything better , and all the specialists were just down the hall. ... only people with more $ then sense and fools pay for private health insurance. Why would you want to pay for something twice? wait until you get something painful but not life-threatening and you have to wait months (or years) while your friend with private insurance is in and out and healthy again. I had private health insurance when my appendix was about to burst. The problem was that my symptoms were atypical and a public hospital would have sent me home but te private hospital kept me for observation. I was under the knife 30mins after it burst. In  public system I would have either died, spent a month in hospital and a year recovering. im pretty pleased with my private insurance.

In that case I'll simply pay cash .... even if I pay $15 g to have my appendix removed its still cheaper than paying all the premiums and gaps for the next 40 yrs.

John Smith wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 8th, 2012 at 5:32pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 7th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Private health insurance is a scam .... although not quite as bad as funeral insurance ...... private health funds take the money willy nilly, but come time to pay they keep changing the rules ... I know a lady who had cover, paid $3000 in premiums, had a baby, had to pay $1000 in gap  ... if anything had gone wrong, she had been told they would rush her to the public hospital because they didn't have the specialists available to deal with certain scenarios .. I've never had it, paid zero premiums and zero gap ... can't fault a single thing at the public hospital, couldn't have hoped for anything better , and all the specialists were just down the hall. ... only people with more $ then sense and fools pay for private health insurance. Why would you want to pay for something twice? wait until you get something painful but not life-threatening and you have to wait months (or years) while your friend with private insurance is in and out and healthy again. I had private health insurance when my appendix was about to burst. The problem was that my symptoms were atypical and a public hospital would have sent me home but te private hospital kept me for observation. I was under the knife 30mins after it burst. In  public system I would have either died, spent a month in hospital and a year recovering. im pretty pleased with my private insurance. In that case I'll simply pay cash .... even if I pay $15 g to have my appendix removed its still cheaper than paying all the premiums and gaps for the next 40 yrs.

an argument based entirely on you never needing hospital treatment in the next 40 years.

brilliant, sherlock.