Post by Chips on May 13, 2008 14:38:20 GMT 9.5
Health funds on life-support, courtesy of taxpayers
The Howard government did its best to prop up the private health funds by blackmailing people to join them. That the Rudd Government is taking tiny steps to redress this is welcome, but they do not go nearly far enough ("Health fund fees to soar", May 12).
Why would Britain's BUPA be prepared to pay $2.4 billion to merge with MBF? How are they going to get a return on their investment? The answer, of course, is that they are getting it from the Australian taxpayer in the form of the private health insurance subsidy.
If people want to insure themselves outside the public system, that's their business. They should not expect the taxpayer to help them.
Ian Semmel Maleny
So there it is in one sentence by a health insurance actuary: "Funds will be pushed into higher premiums because … they won't be making anywhere near as much money" under the proposed changes to tax thresholds for compulsory insurance. How was it ever so easily accepted that health insurance should be so lucrative? As private health insurers have had a mainline into our incomes and the public purse, all they have specialised in, as is the insurer's objective, is reduction of risk and increased profit margins.
The Government's biggest mistake is to apply the same tax threshold modification to the Medicare levy. It should be significantly increased proportionate to income, and let the private insurers survive in the real world of business, where they will collapse if the product is a rip-off.
Robyn Dalziell Castle Hill
The proposed change to the Medicare levy shows Labor still has an ideological hatred of private health care. How else to explain a policy that drives people from private funds, increases demand on an overstretched public system and removes any incentive for an ageing population to insure for their future health care? The change will also be highly inflationary because it will increase private spending and reduce the size of the budget surplus. The budget should be about encouraging people to work hard and do well, not about penalising those who are successful.
Eugene Herbert Balmain East
If Leone Healy (Letters, May 12) is so enamoured of the move to dependence on the public health system, she had better start praying she does not require attention for something like knee or hip reconstruction. On present indications she will face a lengthy wait.
Gwen Goodman Dubbo
When the Medicare surcharge was introduced it was touted as being targeted at high-income earners. Clearly, $50,000 is not a high income in 2008. The 30 per cent rebate has been taking a bigger and bigger slice out of government spending as more people earn above the threshold. This money can be directed to where it belongs - the public system.
Elaine Keane North Epping
I am amazed that Malcolm Turnbull supports the gloomy prognostications of the health insurance industry about the impact of increasing the cut-in point for the Medicare surcharge, a tax unchanged for almost a decade. In effect, the surcharge is being indexed to current incomes. Surely the indexation of any tax should be welcomed, even by a banker amazingly reincarnated as a champion of the common man.
Amy Wood Wagga Wagga
The Howard government did its best to prop up the private health funds by blackmailing people to join them. That the Rudd Government is taking tiny steps to redress this is welcome, but they do not go nearly far enough ("Health fund fees to soar", May 12).
Why would Britain's BUPA be prepared to pay $2.4 billion to merge with MBF? How are they going to get a return on their investment? The answer, of course, is that they are getting it from the Australian taxpayer in the form of the private health insurance subsidy.
If people want to insure themselves outside the public system, that's their business. They should not expect the taxpayer to help them.
Ian Semmel Maleny
So there it is in one sentence by a health insurance actuary: "Funds will be pushed into higher premiums because … they won't be making anywhere near as much money" under the proposed changes to tax thresholds for compulsory insurance. How was it ever so easily accepted that health insurance should be so lucrative? As private health insurers have had a mainline into our incomes and the public purse, all they have specialised in, as is the insurer's objective, is reduction of risk and increased profit margins.
The Government's biggest mistake is to apply the same tax threshold modification to the Medicare levy. It should be significantly increased proportionate to income, and let the private insurers survive in the real world of business, where they will collapse if the product is a rip-off.
Robyn Dalziell Castle Hill
The proposed change to the Medicare levy shows Labor still has an ideological hatred of private health care. How else to explain a policy that drives people from private funds, increases demand on an overstretched public system and removes any incentive for an ageing population to insure for their future health care? The change will also be highly inflationary because it will increase private spending and reduce the size of the budget surplus. The budget should be about encouraging people to work hard and do well, not about penalising those who are successful.
Eugene Herbert Balmain East
If Leone Healy (Letters, May 12) is so enamoured of the move to dependence on the public health system, she had better start praying she does not require attention for something like knee or hip reconstruction. On present indications she will face a lengthy wait.
Gwen Goodman Dubbo
When the Medicare surcharge was introduced it was touted as being targeted at high-income earners. Clearly, $50,000 is not a high income in 2008. The 30 per cent rebate has been taking a bigger and bigger slice out of government spending as more people earn above the threshold. This money can be directed to where it belongs - the public system.
Elaine Keane North Epping
I am amazed that Malcolm Turnbull supports the gloomy prognostications of the health insurance industry about the impact of increasing the cut-in point for the Medicare surcharge, a tax unchanged for almost a decade. In effect, the surcharge is being indexed to current incomes. Surely the indexation of any tax should be welcomed, even by a banker amazingly reincarnated as a champion of the common man.
Amy Wood Wagga Wagga