This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Budget 2019

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Would that be a good or bad thing ?
Click to expand...
I really don't know but I do find it a bit frustrating to see people paying $$$ for private health insurance, with government money on top, and then they're sent to a public hospital anyway because the private ones don't treat old people or whatever.

It's like paying for business class seats and then finding out that there's zero difference between business and economy anyway. May as well just pay for economy then.... :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
I really don't know but I do find it a bit frustrating to see people paying $$$ for private health insurance, with government money on top, and then they're sent to a public hospital anyway because the private ones don't treat old people or whatever.
Click to expand...

If people are refused private treatment that they have paid for, they should have all the premiums that they have ever paid refunded.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I'm not aiming to shoot you down - just playing devil's advocate. :D

I definitely agree that removing complexities has advantages both in terms of administrative costs and also through the closing of loopholes.:2twocents
Click to expand...

I agree that what to tax and how much to tax it is going to be the hard part and I don't think that everyone will necessarily agree, bit nobody ever does when it comes to taxation.

The principle of the consumption tax as I see it is that it is all about letting people choose how they will be taxed through their own consumption of goods and services. They can choose to be frugal and pay less, or big consumers and pay more.

It should be geared towards protecting those on low incomes by exempting almost everything that would be considered essential to survival such as basic food, clothing, shelter, medical and essential services. Luxury goods would be taxed at a much higher rate to maintain the progressive aspect of taxation.

I don't agree with those who say that it would disadvantage low income earners, as they are already hit by the GST. The exemptions on the tax I envision would be very broad and would enable those who only pay modest rent, eat fresh fruit and vegetables, and buy cheap clothes to pay virtually no tax at all.

The motivation to pay less tax would encourage some people to be more self-sufficient and to waste less.
 
SirRumpole said:
If people are refused private treatment that they have paid for, they should have all the premiums that they have ever paid refunded.
Click to expand...
There was an incident in Hobart recently which made the news. 78 year old refused admission to a private hospital (via ambulance) due to age so ended up in the public hospital right next door instead.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...d-away-from-private-hospital-for-age/10961950

The building this hospital is in used to be part of the Royal Hobart Hospital (public) but was leased to the private operators by the Liberal-Green state government in the 1990's. As you'd expect, taxpayers have since stumped up an order of magnitude more cash than the value of the lease to redevelop and extend the RHH.
 
Last edited:
I try not to confuse health insurance with medical outcomes.
It is a hedge for lifestyle/financial reasons. Any non-public medical service that insurance can provide can also be "bought" at an invoiced cost to a patient ......... insurance is the hedge to pay less than the invoice cost (so someone else pays part of your invoice).
 
I think showbag Bill, may well have got a bad case of foot in mouth desease, time will tell.
 
SirRumpole said:
If people are refused private treatment that they have paid for, they should have all the premiums that they have ever paid refunded.
Click to expand...
I get the sentiment .......
for info .......if you rock up to the emergency department of a private hospital then u are treated as an "outpatient" (you have not been allocated a bed or been admitted to the hospital). There are a number of 'Private Hospital Insurance' policies that do not cover the cost of this situation - and will only pay the costs once u are admitted as an "inpatient".

What will be covered depends upon the written agreements between the hospital and the insurer. Caveat emptor.
 
sptrawler said:
I thought medicare covered most treatments for those on welfare? unless it was experimental.
Things like MRI's, I would imagine you get, if it is needed by the specialist.
Fortunately I haven't had cancer, so no first hand experience.
Click to expand...
Today I talked to an elderly friend, who recently lost his wife, after an 18 month battle with cancer.
I asked him if there was any financial costs involved, he said the prognosis was 8 to12 months without treatment, 18 months with treatment.
He was amazed how accurate they were, he also said he told the specialist that he was prepared to take his wife to the U.S for treatment, the specialist said the treatment would-be no different. So I asked him was the out of pocket expenses much, he said there was no out of pocket, it was all covered.
I found that interesting, in light of people having to sell their houses for treatment, I would be contacting the ombudsman.
 
Do not force me to get private insurance, give me freedom of choice.Put all my tax money into the public system..I am ok with that but no obamacare or mandatory private insurance as we have now.
Then I can make the choice of going private if I want to, but I pay fully for it.Why is that not fair and obvious..and you remove once again a huge admin cost for the gov.make tax return easier etc...
A better country
I believe we just keep forgetting here that the more complex and convoluted, the more PS and local heads of departments xxx we have, at an horrendous cost to the country.
But these useless job are first some jobs, then numbers sweet in the eyes of various head of, ministers, etc...and if you add the private insurers , private clinics lobby, tax payers do not have much hope
 
Have to have a heart procedure, my cardiologists likes to use ONE piece of equipment that is apparently superior to others. My TOP level health cover does not cover this one piece so I have to go the public system to have the procedure done. Been waiting an age to gain an opportunity and can be bumped on the day.
I love seeing thousands of dollars in premiums being taken from my account waiting on treatment that is then covered by the public. I am well aware that other health insurers do cover this same equipment, but you don't find out the specifics till you are booked in for the 'treatment'. That is the really frustration part of it all. Add to that the substantial level of paid advertising telling you can have cover for what you choose, like it really is a good thing. What a load of horse dung.
 

Private Health is a bit of a lottery. Unfortunately you don't know whether you're covered until the event occurs. Even doctors and nurses don't seem to understand the system, and understand what is covered and what isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

So who are the winners and losers of the 2024 budget?
Replies
7
Views
1K
qldfrog
D
Lease adjusted ROCE for ASX stocks?
Replies
1
Views
750
divs4ever
M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
731
SirRumpole
Australian Federal Election 2025
27 28 29
Replies
564
Views
14K
basilio
Australian budget/regional airlines
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes