Private Health Care Loading?

[Sojourner]

Just wondering why the need is for Private Health Care to have the 2% loading on the top for everyone over the age of 30 that does not sign up to get it? Seems that it makes it fairly difficult for people to take it up if their circumstances change - such as getting their mortgage down to something that is actually liveable?

Often wondered why the Federal Government don't try some type of amnesty month where people that are over the age of 30 can sign up for it and not pay any loading or a reduced loading to encourage more people to sign up for it, clearly the more people that have it the cheaper it is for people to have it and at the same time it relieves the government of a heap of costs and waiting times in the public hospital system.

It was mentioned today that the rebate is to be means tested which is fair enough, my only question is if its still relevant to apply a loading fee for those that may not have been able to afford it at age 30 and are now facing much higher fees to take it on?

[Bat Pad]

Just wondering why the need is for Private Health Care to have the 2% loading on the top for everyone over the age of 30 that does not sign up to get it? Seems that it makes it fairly difficult for people to take it up if their circumstances change - such as getting their mortgage down to something that is actually liveable?

Often wondered why the Federal Government don't try some type of amnesty month where people that are over the age of 30 can sign up for it and not pay any loading or a reduced loading to encourage more people to sign up for it, clearly the more people that have it the cheaper it is for people to have it and at the same time it relieves the government of a heap of costs and waiting times in the public hospital system.

It was mentioned today that the rebate is to be means tested which is fair enough, my only question is if its still relevant to apply a loading fee for those that may not have been able to afford it at age 30 and are now facing much higher fees to take it on?

Why do you feel it is fair enough?

[Sojourner]

Perhaps it depends on what the threshold is, but it occurs to me that someone on 500k per year has the capacity to pay the costs without any assistance from the Government.

[Bat Pad]

Perhaps it depends on what the threshold is, but it occurs to me that someone on 500k per year has the capacity to pay the costs without any assistance from the Government.

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

[Bum Crack]

Perhaps it depends on what the threshold is, but it occurs to me that someone on 500k per year has the capacity to pay the costs without any assistance from the Government.

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

[gossipgirl]

agreed surely the more people taking up private health insurance the better. surely you would want to encourage as many people as possible

[Sojourner]

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

Pretty sure that anyone that has Private Health Cover goes along to their GP and the Dr is paid via Medicare along with any gap to the patient be it private or public. Hence they are in fact using the public system and can also still accesss the Public System any time they like for the same fees as anyone else who goes in the public system. I would also suggest that they recieve the PBS scheme as well for their trouble, I dont know of to many that refuse it and pay the full fee then try and claim it back on their private health cover!

[Ian]

Perhaps it depends on what the threshold is, but it occurs to me that someone on 500k per year has the capacity to pay the costs without any assistance from the Government.

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

Why not, I've been paying since I was 17, I've had family cover for 17 1/2 years, add up how much I've payed, why should my 30 years of payments subsidise your claims if you decide to be a Johnny come lately, the loading should be more IMHO!!

[Bat Pad]

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

Pretty sure that anyone that has Private Health Cover goes along to their GP and the Dr is paid via Medicare along with any gap to the patient be it private or public. Hence they are in fact using the public system and can also still accesss the Public System any time they like for the same fees as anyone else who goes in the public system. I would also suggest that they recieve the PBS scheme as well for their trouble, I dont know of to many that refuse it and pay the full fee then try and claim it back on their private health cover!

So you are against the rebate in it's entirety then? Because nothing you have written has anything to do with someone's personal income.

And they are still entitled to those services because they still pay for them.

[Bum Crack]

Perhaps it depends on what the threshold is, but it occurs to me that someone on 500k per year has the capacity to pay the costs without any assistance from the Government.

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

Why not, I've been paying since I was 17, I've had family cover for 17 1/2 years, add up how much I've payed, why should my 30 years of payments subsidise your claims if you decide to be a Johnny come lately, the loading should be more IMHO!!

it should be the same price for everyone no matter when they join. what a crock of shit that your payments subsidise my claims. I have private ya peanut. i would imagine that maybe private health cover premiums may even drop if they had more people taking it up but that ain't going to happen with a loading.

[dedja]

Perhaps it depends on what the threshold is, but it occurs to me that someone on 500k per year has the capacity to pay the costs without any assistance from the Government.

It's a rebate, not welfare. They receive a portion of their costs back because they are not using the public system (which they pay for regardless).

How much money they earn is not relevant.

But someone on 500K a year puts far more into the public health system than the small rebate they receive.

People without private health should be grateful.

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

Why not, I've been paying since I was 17, I've had family cover for 17 1/2 years, add up how much I've payed, why should my 30 years of payments subsidise your claims if you decide to be a Johnny come lately, the loading should be more IMHO!!

What he said ...

[mighty_tiger_79]

higher loading to help subsidise cheaper rates for existing members

[Psyber]

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

Our private health system has evolved over time.
In the beginning before Medicare existed, private lodges like the Oddfellows and Druids, and unions like the Railway Employees Union, set up mutual systems to help finance healthcare to which members subscribed.
Over time they found some people exploited loopholes by not joining until they knew costs were imminent.
So, strategies developed to control this cheating, like waiting times for cover.

The loading system was introduced later because some people continued to join up only when they discovered they needed treatment.
Apparently, joining a private fund and waiting 12 months to be covered was still attractive enough rather than settling for, or waiting for, free treatment for non-emergency issues under the public system.
That was still driving up costs for the long term privately insured, who helped reduce the bed pressure on public hospitals for non-emergency treatment.
So, eventually the funds got their act together and supported moves to control this with the introduction of the loading.
The government supported this because they believed supporting private healthcare did save spending a lot more money on public hospitals.
[Note the recent campaign in SA by the Rann government to encourage people not go to public hospitals with minor ailments, but go to your private GP next day.]

Before this, some years ago when sometimes funds would waive waiting times for new members, one of my neighbours had a guest from the UK staying with them for a few weeks.
She had a Femoral Hernia - these hardly ever strangulate so they are low fatality and low priority to the UK's NHS.
So, she was on a 2 year waiting list for surgical repair.
When one of these offers came up she joined an SA fund and got it repaired privately while here.
I can't blame her for taking advantage of a situation on offer, but it meant other members had to subsidise this loss the fund made.

It is only fair to long term members that they have closed these avenues of taking advantage of the benefits at others expense.

[Ian]

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

The loading system was introduced because some people had no conscience problem about not taking out private insurance, then joining up when they discovered they needed treatment.
Joining a private fund and waiting 12 months to be covered was better than settling for, or waiting for, free treatment for non-emergency issues under the public system.
That was driving up costs for the long term privately insured, who helped reduce the bed pressure on public hospitals for non-emergency treatment.

Occasionally, some funds would have crazy market share recruitment drives and waive waiting times for people who signed up by a certain date.
This didn't pay either because those people tended to drop out again once they'd had the treatment.

Years ago one of my neighbours had a guest from the UK staying with them for a few weeks.
She had a Femoral Hernia - these hardly ever strangulate so they are low fatality and low priority to the UK's NHS.
So, she was on a 2 year waiting list for surgical repair.
When one of these offers came up she joined an SA fund and got it repaired privately while here.

It is more fair to long term members that they have closed these avenues of taking advantage at others expense.

What he said

[Q.]

Thanks Psyber, great explanation.

[Bum Crack]

and people with it shouldn't be paying the loading if they want to take it up. it's a lot of money to pay each month as it is, let alone with the loading. They should be encouraging people to get private health and charging a loading fee does not do that. And yes, i do have private health cover.

Our private health system has evolved over time.
In the beginning before Medicare existed, private lodges like the Oddfellows and Druids, and unions like the Railway Employees Union, set up mutual systems to help finance healthcare to which members subscribed.
Over time they found some people exploited loopholes by not joining until they knew costs were imminent.
So, strategies developed to control this cheating, like waiting times for cover.

The loading system was introduced later because some people continued to join up only when they discovered they needed treatment.
Apparently, joining a private fund and waiting 12 months to be covered was still attractive enough rather than settling for, or waiting for, free treatment for non-emergency issues under the public system.
That was still driving up costs for the long term privately insured, who helped reduce the bed pressure on public hospitals for non-emergency treatment.
So, eventually the funds got their act together and supported moves to control this with the introduction of the loading.
The government supported this because they believed supporting private healthcare did save spending a lot more money on public hospitals.
[Note the recent campaign in SA by the Rann government to encourage people not go to public hospitals with minor ailments, but go to your private GP next day.]

Before this, some years ago when sometimes funds would waive waiting times for new members, one of my neighbours had a guest from the UK staying with them for a few weeks.
She had a Femoral Hernia - these hardly ever strangulate so they are low fatality and low priority to the UK's NHS.
So, she was on a 2 year waiting list for surgical repair.
When one of these offers came up she joined an SA fund and got it repaired privately while here.
I can't blame her for taking advantage of a situation on offer, but it meant other members had to subsidise this loss the fund made.

It is only fair to long term members that they have closed these avenues of taking advantage of the benefits at others expense.

If that's the case, surely they could waive the loading after a certain time (say 4 years)?? A lot of people do not just jump on board because they need an op etc.

[Psyber]

If that's the case, surely they could waive the loading after a certain time (say 4 years)?? A lot of people do not just jump on board because they need an op etc.

Given the cost of medical care and private hospitalisation one would have to calculate how many years it would take, not only to make up the past costs, but to catch up with the contributions to overall member welfare by long term members.
If you join later in life you are closer to being a more expensive elderly member in future, and this has to be allowed for in the calculations too.
Memberships fees at age of entry are based on actuarial calculations of your contribution lifetime versus your statistically likely cost as you get older.

Despite being an ALP man to his core, my father maintained private health cover via the Railway Employees Union and/or the Druids' Lodge.
He fell for the trap of relying on Gough Whitlam's MediBank - the forerunner of Medicare -when he retired in 1974 and lived to regret it.
When he died in 1984, my sister and I paid to join our mother up again.

[Ian]

If that's the case, surely they could waive the loading after a certain time (say 4 years)?? A lot of people do not just jump on board because they need an op etc.

Given the cost of medical care and private hospitalisation one would have to calculate how many years it would take, not only to make up the past costs, but to catch up with the contributions to overall member welfare by long term members.
If you join later in life you are closer to being a more expensive elderly member in future, and this has to be allowed for in the calculations too.

Exactly my point earlier, those of us that have been in "for life" end up subsidising the Johnny cone latleys if there is no levy for those taking it up later in life.