by Sojourner » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:01 am
by Bat Pad » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:13 am
Sojourner wrote: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?
by Sojourner » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:44 am
by Bat Pad » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:58 am
Sojourner wrote: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.
by Bum Crack » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:39 pm
Bat Pad wrote:Sojourner wrote: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.
by gossipgirl » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:03 pm
by Sojourner » Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:29 pm
Bat Pad wrote: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.
by Ian » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:01 pm
Bum Crack wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Sojourner wrote: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.
by Bat Pad » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:18 pm
Sojourner wrote:Bat Pad wrote: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!
by Bum Crack » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:24 pm
Ian wrote:Bum Crack wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Sojourner wrote: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!!
by dedja » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:25 pm
Ian wrote:Bum Crack wrote:Bat Pad wrote:Sojourner wrote: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!!
by mighty_tiger_79 » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:34 pm
by Psyber » Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:14 pm
Our private health system has evolved over time.Bum Crack wrote: 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.
by Ian » Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:23 pm
Psyber wrote: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.Bum Crack wrote: 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.
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.
by Q. » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:24 pm
by Bum Crack » Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:13 am
Psyber wrote:Our private health system has evolved over time.Bum Crack wrote: 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.
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.
by Psyber » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:00 pm
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.Bum Crack wrote: 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.
by Ian » Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:29 pm
Psyber wrote: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.Bum Crack wrote: 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.
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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |