Private health and private education - over protected sectors ?

[Pessimistic]

Theres been some significant scaremongering over proposed or actual government policy. They must be missing the previous government who basically directed extra cash their way, not seeming to ask the two sectors to become more efficient in return like the rest of the economy has had to.

They have been lifting fees at twice inflation for nearly a decade now.

Isnt it good policy that, given both sides of govt accepts they are legit, that they should reform as required ?

 

[Qsaint]

You are not forced to send your kid to Private school, you are with Private health

 

[acker]

Private Health needs to have a big look at their profit margin and administrative costs.

 

[dan warna]

The withdrawal of subsidies will bring much needed efficiency measures to the private health insurance system.

honestly I've used private health several times (knee/achilles/shoulder surgery) on a pay for use service as well as for my wife and kids which I wont go into here.

And its far cheaper for us to use and pay for on a need to use basis than it is to pay insurance and then claim back.

I fully endorse a private medical scheme, the insurance system though is a joke.

I honestly don't care if the private insurance system collapses because folks will still use private health as they did before the joke of a rebate system, which was basically soaked up by increased inneficiencies in insurance.

And as we all know, if you are really sick, you end up at one of the major public hospitals anyway.

 

[Geelong2k9]

Private Health needs to have a big look at their profit margin and administrative costs.

health funds pay back on average 80 to 90 cents in the dollar back on costs for hospital, doctors, physio, etc.

Admin costs have increased significantly in the last 2 years with new technology changes; eg. online claiming, electronic claiming, etc.

 

[medusala]

What a remarkable way of looking at it. Pessimistic indeed.

Take education.

Everyone pays for this via tax. Out of this tax parents can either choose to send their kids to a state school for free or are forced to once again cough up and pay 1/3rd of their childs education.

Despite this clearly unlevel playing field around 1/3 of parents do.

Should not the question be:

If all parents had a choice to send their children to a school via a voucher system then how many would choose the state system?

Of course the answer would be stuff all

On health

The state system also gets a hand here via the medicare levy

Again the question should be: if one were able to forego the medicare levy if one took out private health how would that affect the state of play?


Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who love statism and despise consumer choice.

 

[dan warna]

i have no problem with private health getting a helping hand.

i DO have a problem with private health INSURANCE getting a hand.

if you want to go private health, I think a rebate would be appropriate.

if the inefficient insurance industry were to have some of the fatter and less competent businesses die off or change their structures, then that would be good for consumers as long as there was sufficient competition in the market.

 

[medusala]

i DO have a problem with private health INSURANCE getting a hand.

Should not taxpayers be able to opt out of the public health system?

Many people are forced to pay for both public and private health insurance and use neither.

How is that sensible (not to mention "fair")?

 

[Richo83]

Dan, government finding of private health has been great, for many it's allowed them to afford treatments and services they would never be able to afford otherwise. The rebate IMO is a good move, it makes private health more appealing, affordable and strengthens the health system.

 

[dan warna]

Should not taxpayers be able to opt out of the public health system?

Many people are forced to pay for both public and private health insurance and use neither.

How is that sensible (not to mention "fair")?

because health insurance is inneficient, it is a subsidy for a bad industry.

I think private health could do with a hand, but insurance is merely a layer of fat in between the client and the service provider at the moment.

labor is rightly trimming some of the useless fat.

i have no problem with funding private health, through a rebate to the consumer, not to the insurance.

 

[medusala]

because health insurance is inneficient, it is a subsidy for a bad industry.
.

Less efficient than public health?

 

[1jasonoz]

Less efficient than public health?

Yes by a very large margin aswell.

 

[Qsaint]

Dan, government finding of private health has been great, for many it's allowed them to afford treatments and services they would never be able to afford otherwise. The rebate IMO is a good move, it makes private health more appealing, affordable and strengthens the health system.

Generally a rebate only makes things more expensive because a customer will have a price expectation of $X for a service, have a look at water tanks they have gone up in price substantially

 

[1jasonoz]

What a remarkable way of looking at it. Pessimistic indeed.

Take education.

Everyone pays for this via tax. Out of this tax parents can either choose to send their kids to a state school for free or are forced to once again cough up and pay 1/3rd of their childs education.

Despite this clearly unlevel playing field around 1/3 of parents do.

Should not the question be:

If all parents had a choice to send their children to a school via a voucher system then how many would choose the state system?

Of course the answer would be stuff all

On health

The state system also gets a hand here via the medicare levy

Again the question should be: if one were able to forego the medicare levy if one took out private health how would that affect the state of play?


Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who love statism and despise consumer choice.

These two statements contradicte each other don't they?

1. Take education.

Everyone pays for this via tax.

2. Out of this tax parents can either choose to send their kids to a state school for free

So they have paid for the education system through their taxes-but its free?

If all parents had a choice to send their children to a school via a voucher system then how many would choose the state system?

Of course the answer would be stuff all

What is the percentage of children attending the state system v Private system in Sweden where a voucher system operates?

 

[1jasonoz]

Dan, government finding of private health has been great, for many it's allowed them to afford treatments and services they would never be able to afford otherwise. The rebate IMO is a good move, it makes private health more appealing, affordable and strengthens the health system.

How does the private health insurance rebate strengthen the public system-do you think the private sector offers full services like the public system or simply cherry picks the most profitable ones?

The rebate was simply taken up by a group of people whom would have paid for private iinsurance even without the rebate.

What treatments does the rebate make affordable that where unaffordable prior to its introduction?

 

[dan warna]

Less efficient than public health?

Private health insurance by its nature and by the fact its subsidised is in itself an innefficent service, hence the need for subsidy.

My wife prefers not to use a bulk billing medical service, I have had surgery for sports injuries privately, my wife has had private medical services and we have had various medical procedures for our kids done privately. We also public health when available and suitable for our needs.

All in all I would say we are FAR more in front financially better off than had we taken private insurance.

personally I see it as an inneficient layer of fat between the service provider and the consumer.

 

[Richo83]

Generally a rebate only makes things more expensive because a customer will have a price expectation of $X for a service, have a look at water tanks they have gone up in price substantially

In some cases yes in some cases no, people put money into healthcare and then are benefited in health payments by the money that comes back. It's like funding from private schools, people pay taxes for funding of schools and the government effectively rebates some of their private schooling payments by paying it themselves through government funding of private schools.

 

[Richo83]

How does the private health insurance rebate strengthen the public system-do you think the private sector offers full services like the public system or simply cherry picks the most profitable ones?

Probably does, I should have made it that the rebate strengthens the private sector which by funding many health services for people they wouldn't have been able to afford previously.

The rebate was simply taken up by a group of people whom would have paid for private iinsurance even without the rebate.

Possibly but it makes healthcare more affordable. You use healthcare or need it, some of the money you put in healthcare comes back to fund your healthcare.

What treatments does the rebate make affordable that where unaffordable prior to its introduction?

Surgery mainly, I was able to afford surgery due to the rebate two years ago. It covered many of the costs that I would have had to been paid without a rebate system. IIRC it cut the cost in half.

 

[medusala]

These two statements contradicte each other don't they?

No they dont, its free at the point of service. I think most people could understand that

What is the percentage of children attending the state system v Private system in Sweden where a voucher system operates?

15% of high school students. The stats were on a prev link as you are no doubt aware as you are that the system hasnt been going for long ie since 1992

 

[medusala]

The rebate was simply taken up by a group of people whom would have paid for private iinsurance even without the rebate.

If the rebate was removed cover would plummet.

How can you argue that a price increase of 40% wouldnt effect demand?

 

[medusala]

Private health insurance by its nature and by the fact its subsidised is in itself an innefficent service, hence the need for subsidy.

Of course it needs subsidy. Few people can see the point in paying twice for health care. Its not like its a choice of either/or.

All in all I would say we are FAR more in front financially better off than had we taken private insurance.

And I would be way in front if I had never paid the medicare surcharge.

However, I dont ge a choice.

 

[dan warna]

Of course it needs subsidy. Few people can see the point in paying twice for health care. Its not like its a choice of either/or.



And I would be way in front if I had never paid the medicare surcharge.

However, I dont ge a choice.

my wage is in the 50k to 100k and our combined wage is under 150k so its a good policy for me.

I never took private health insurance so its a double winner for me

either way, if labor didn't bring this in, I wouldn't have taken private health insurance.

the removal of the subsidy will force companies to bring in efficiencies.

subsidy and financial penalty to try and rail road people are mechanisms that bring inefficiency's and dependency in an industry.

 

[medusala]

the removal of the subsidy will force companies to bring in efficiencies

.

It will bring about a very large drop in coverage. Private health relies on having those who dont benefit from cover subsidising those that do. If the only people wanting private health are those most likely to use it then profits will plummet, prices will rise and coverage will drop. You then end up with a situation like the UK ie a disaster.

subsidy and financial penalty to try and rail road people are mechanisms that bring inefficiency's and dependency in an industry

I agree, however health is a bit different due to universal state coverage. You need a private health system.

The only way you can achieve this is via penalties and incentives if you insist on having a universal system like Medicare.

 

[Richo83]

If the rebate was removed cover would plummet.

How can you argue that a price increase of 40% wouldnt effect demand?

Yep.

If we removed the rebate many Australians would be unable to afford healthcare they need. It would be a disaster. Just as like the government helps fund the use of private school, so should it fund private health, and so should we accept taxes being put forward to making private health, in which many Australians use, more affordable. As you say and I have said, the rebate strengthens the private health industry by ensuring it is more accessed and accessible to Australians.

 

[dan warna]

<shrug> give people the choice,

I have no intention of ever taking private health insurance unless it was off benifit to me.

I would have been one of those who was a net loser from having private health insurance so personally I think its great we have never wasted our money there.

suckers that do are that.

health insurance is the useless fat between the provider and the consumer as far as many folks are concerned, and as we all know if you are really sick you end up in the public sector anyway.

if people were a fraction smarter they could use private health services without going thorugh the useless turds in the insurance industry for the vast majority of cases.

anyway with legislation going through hopefully we'll see some reasonable offerings for a change.