Is private health insurance a con? The answer is in the graphs
Greg Jericho
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/feb/06/is-private-health-insurance-a-con-the-answer-is-in-the-graphs

The government has to blackmail people into buying health insurance. Describing it as a ‘free market’ is absurd

—-
In reality, what is absurd is not the ALP’s policy but the suggestion the private health insurance industry is an example of a free market.

Far from being free, the industry is absolutely dependent upon governments doing all they can to encourage people to join it and penalise those who don’t.

Since the first step into universal healthcare with Medibank in 1975, the percentage of the population in private health insurance has steadily fallen. When the Hawke government introduced Medicare in 1984, 54% of the population held private health insurance; by 1997 it was down to 33%.

Then the Howard government came to the rescue. It introduced the Medicare levy surcharge for everyone earning over $100,000, and in 1999 the 30% private health insurance rebate.

And then came the doozy – in 1999 the Howard government came up with a plan to blackmail people into joining private health insurance.

The introduction of “Life Time Health Cover” in July 2000, which penalised people 2% of the premium for every year over 30 they weren’t in private health, saw the percentage of those in the private health system rise to 46% – around where it has remained ever since.

dv said:

Is private health insurance a con? The answer is in the graphs
Greg Jericho
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/feb/06/is-private-health-insurance-a-con-the-answer-is-in-the-graphs

The government has to blackmail people into buying health insurance. Describing it as a ‘free market’ is absurd

—-
In reality, what is absurd is not the ALP’s policy but the suggestion the private health insurance industry is an example of a free market.

Far from being free, the industry is absolutely dependent upon governments doing all they can to encourage people to join it and penalise those who don’t.

Since the first step into universal healthcare with Medibank in 1975, the percentage of the population in private health insurance has steadily fallen. When the Hawke government introduced Medicare in 1984, 54% of the population held private health insurance; by 1997 it was down to 33%.

Then the Howard government came to the rescue. It introduced the Medicare levy surcharge for everyone earning over $100,000, and in 1999 the 30% private health insurance rebate.

And then came the doozy – in 1999 the Howard government came up with a plan to blackmail people into joining private health insurance.

The introduction of “Life Time Health Cover” in July 2000, which penalised people 2% of the premium for every year over 30 they weren’t in private health, saw the percentage of those in the private health system rise to 46% – around where it has remained ever since.

I don’t have a problem with “blackmailing” people who can afford it into private health insurance.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t have a problem with “blackmailing” people who can afford it into private health insurance.

It ends up like solar power and power bills.

Those who can afford to opt out of the ‘public’ system (and payments for it) do so, leaving the cost of the operation of the ‘public’ system to be funded by an increasingly small pool of contributors – usually, those who can’t afford the alternative (or much else).

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t have a problem with “blackmailing” people who can afford it into private health insurance.

It ends up like solar power and power bills.

Those who can afford to opt out of the ‘public’ system (and payments for it) do so, leaving the cost of the operation of the ‘public’ system to be funded by an increasingly small pool of contributors – usually, those who can’t afford the alternative (or much else).

I don’t think it’s much like that.

Public health care is mainly funded from taxes, not directly by the people using it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t have a problem with “blackmailing” people who can afford it into private health insurance.

It ends up like solar power and power bills.

Those who can afford to opt out of the ‘public’ system (and payments for it) do so, leaving the cost of the operation of the ‘public’ system to be funded by an increasingly small pool of contributors – usually, those who can’t afford the alternative (or much else).

I don’t think it’s much like that.

Public health care is mainly funded from taxes, not directly by the people using it.

In the longer term, pressure for ‘user pays’ will increase. Govts of all stripes, especially conservative, love to cut taxes for their friends, and anything they can do to facilitate that for those friends will be considered.

If the proportion of non-privately insured people reaches a significantly low level, then some govt or other will be prepared to abandon them, and it’s hello to US-style health care.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t have a problem with “blackmailing” people who can afford it into private health insurance.

It ends up like solar power and power bills.

Those who can afford to opt out of the ‘public’ system (and payments for it) do so, leaving the cost of the operation of the ‘public’ system to be funded by an increasingly small pool of contributors – usually, those who can’t afford the alternative (or much else).

I don’t think it’s much like that.

Public health care is mainly funded from taxes, not directly by the people using it.

That’s kind of the point: taxes are diverted towards profits and shareholder value when it would be better if those taxes were used to improve services. The administrative and for-profit layers of private health insurance waste public funds.

So the new automatic syphoning tag doesn’t fit the old holding clip on the windscreen.
They must know this, it must be a problem they encounter every day as it’s part of their core dealings with the public.
When PWM rang to order his new tag did they say ,you’ll need a new clip as well because your new tag will be incompatible with your nine year old clip, no they didn’t.
And the media wonder why people walk into offices and go postal or detonate themselves at the counter.

• And the media wonder why people walk into offices and go postal or detonate themselves at the counter.

And the sudden upsurge in people buying plane tickets to dover…

Private Health Care is subsidised and therefore a welfare matter. Why is it not means tested like other welfare payments. Beats me.

• Why is it not means tested like other welfare payments. Beats me.

I think that he rebate is…

bucolic3401 said:

Private Health Care is subsidised and therefore a welfare matter. Why is it not means tested like other welfare payments. Beats me.

It’s a question of whose welfare. As it concerns the welfare of private hospitals, private medical funds, and doctors who own and/or operate those things (and who make donations to political campaigns), then means testing would seem to be just a trifle dégoûtant.

• I think that he rebate is…

And, it appears, so is the levy surcharge…

Australian Government Private Health Insurance Rebate

bucolic3401 said:

Private Health Care is subsidised and therefore a welfare matter. Why is it not means tested like other welfare payments. Beats me.

I don’t understand this question.

Peak Warming Man said:

So the new automatic syphoning tag doesn’t fit the old holding clip on the windscreen.
They must know this, it must be a problem they encounter every day as it’s part of their core dealings with the public.
When PWM rang to order his new tag did they say ,you’ll need a new clip as well because your new tag will be incompatible with your nine year old clip, no they didn’t.
And the media wonder why people walk into offices and go postal or detonate themselves at the counter.

Not sure you’ll be able to claim this on HBF but worth a go eh

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

So the new automatic syphoning tag doesn’t fit the old holding clip on the windscreen.
They must know this, it must be a problem they encounter every day as it’s part of their core dealings with the public.
When PWM rang to order his new tag did they say ,you’ll need a new clip as well because your new tag will be incompatible with your nine year old clip, no they didn’t.
And the media wonder why people walk into offices and go postal or detonate themselves at the counter.

Not sure you’ll be able to claim this on HBF but worth a go eh

hehe.

> Is private health insurance a con?

All insurance is a con. They’re not in business for your benefit.

My parents used to say “The best insurance is money in the bank.” I’ve made more money by not buying insurance than I ever have from bank interest.

mollwollfumble said:

> Is private health insurance a con?

All insurance is a con. They’re not in business for your benefit.

My parents used to say “The best insurance is money in the bank.” I’ve made more money by not buying insurance than I ever have from bank interest.

Plus if the house burns down, you can build it bigger and better with all the extra money you have accrued.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Is private health insurance a con?

All insurance is a con. They’re not in business for your benefit.

My parents used to say “The best insurance is money in the bank.” I’ve made more money by not buying insurance than I ever have from bank interest.

Plus if the house burns down, you can build it bigger and better with all the extra money you have accrued.

Yeah, that’s right. That few hundred dollars you may have spent on insurance quickly builds up over the years. In just twenty of thirty years you’d have built up enough of a nest egg to build a humpty.

mollwollfumble said:

> Is private health insurance a con?

All insurance is a con. They’re not in business for your benefit.

My parents used to say “The best insurance is money in the bank.” I’ve made more money by not buying insurance than I ever have from bank interest.

You don’t have home insurance?

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Is private health insurance a con?

All insurance is a con. They’re not in business for your benefit.

My parents used to say “The best insurance is money in the bank.” I’ve made more money by not buying insurance than I ever have from bank interest.

You don’t have home insurance?

I’m a lapsed skeptic. Didn’t have house insurance until my current house.

Maude Flanders: Uh, well, no. Neddy doesn’t believe in insurance. He considers it a form of gambling.

poikilotherm said:

Maude Flanders: Uh, well, no. Neddy doesn’t believe in insurance. He considers it a form of gambling.

Lot of people self-insure on the same basis, reckoning (and they’re right, in many cases) that they can control the risk enough to come out in front.

Rule 303 said:

poikilotherm said:

Maude Flanders: Uh, well, no. Neddy doesn’t believe in insurance. He considers it a form of gambling.

Lot of people self-insure on the same basis, reckoning (and they’re right, in many cases) that they can control the risk enough to come out in front.

The money is usually still in the shoebox.

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

poikilotherm said:

Maude Flanders: Uh, well, no. Neddy doesn’t believe in insurance. He considers it a form of gambling.

Lot of people self-insure on the same basis, reckoning (and they’re right, in many cases) that they can control the risk enough to come out in front.

The money is usually still in the shoebox.

That’d be dumb – you realise shoebox money is worth less and less each year due to inflation right?

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

Lot of people self-insure on the same basis, reckoning (and they’re right, in many cases) that they can control the risk enough to come out in front.

The money is usually still in the shoebox.

That’d be dumb – you realise shoebox money is worth less and less each year due to inflation right?

But in a few hundred years it’ll be worth a pretty penny.

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

Lot of people self-insure on the same basis, reckoning (and they’re right, in many cases) that they can control the risk enough to come out in front.

The money is usually still in the shoebox.

That’d be dumb – you realise shoebox money is worth less and less each year due to inflation right?

Yes but it doesn’t cost any money to keep it there. Banks don’t give interest any more. Only costs.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

The money is usually still in the shoebox.

That’d be dumb – you realise shoebox money is worth less and less each year due to inflation right?

Yes but it doesn’t cost any money to keep it there. Banks don’t give interest any more. Only costs.

your doing it wrong…

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

That’d be dumb – you realise shoebox money is worth less and less each year due to inflation right?

Yes but it doesn’t cost any money to keep it there. Banks don’t give interest any more. Only costs.

your doing it wrong…

There’s not much one can do with only a fistful of dollars. One needs to have serious money to think about it seriously.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

The money is usually still in the shoebox.

That’d be dumb – you realise shoebox money is worth less and less each year due to inflation right?

Yes but it doesn’t cost any money to keep it there. Banks don’t give interest any more. Only costs.

That’s weird. I get interest. And they doubled it last year after I threatened to go bank elsewhere.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

Yes but it doesn’t cost any money to keep it there. Banks don’t give interest any more. Only costs.

your doing it wrong…

There’s not much one can do with only a fistful of dollars. One needs to have serious money to think about it seriously.

You can get interest and no account costs on any long term cash investment (where “long term” is a few months). Not a lot, but > zero.

The Rev Dodgson said:

You can get interest and no account costs on any long term cash investment (where “long term” is a few months). Not a lot, but > zero.

True; you can also get everyday bank accounts that pay interest and no fees. But you still can’t get interest that exceeds — or even equals — inflation.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You can get interest and no account costs on any long term cash investment (where “long term” is a few months). Not a lot, but > zero.

True; you can also get everyday bank accounts that pay interest and no fees. But you still can’t get interest that exceeds — or even equals — inflation.

That requires risk, like insurance…

I have a nice letter from Budget car insurance, they miss me terribly and would like me to contact them.

I could have saved a fortune by not insuring the car but then you don’t know the future. I guess the optimal might be only insuring it for the first 10 years for a new car? First four years are usually new for old replacement, then you get six years of value for money if you have to get another car, about on par with trade-in, after that may as well switch to just third party.

AwesomeO said:

I have a nice letter from Budget car insurance, they miss me terribly and would like me to contact them.

I could have saved a fortune by not insuring the car but then you don’t know the future. I guess the optimal might be only insuring it for the first 10 years for a new car? First four years are usually new for old replacement, then you get six years of value for money if you have to get another car, about on par with trade-in, after that may as well switch to just third party.

Dunno about Victoria but they prefer the car to be insured to get registered in NSW.
The third party is part of that.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

I have a nice letter from Budget car insurance, they miss me terribly and would like me to contact them.

I could have saved a fortune by not insuring the car but then you don’t know the future. I guess the optimal might be only insuring it for the first 10 years for a new car? First four years are usually new for old replacement, then you get six years of value for money if you have to get another car, about on par with trade-in, after that may as well switch to just third party.

Dunno about Victoria but they prefer the car to be insured to get registered in NSW.
The third party is part of that.

You don’t need to have your car insured to be registered, nothing to do with preferences, insurance third party you pay for is third party property, different to the rego component of third party person.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

I have a nice letter from Budget car insurance, they miss me terribly and would like me to contact them.

I could have saved a fortune by not insuring the car but then you don’t know the future. I guess the optimal might be only insuring it for the first 10 years for a new car? First four years are usually new for old replacement, then you get six years of value for money if you have to get another car, about on par with trade-in, after that may as well switch to just third party.

Dunno about Victoria but they prefer the car to be insured to get registered in NSW.
The third party is part of that.

You don’t need to have your car insured to be registered, nothing to do with preferences, insurance third party you pay for is third party property, different to the rego component of third party person.

Makes sense. I know people used to only get third party insurance for older cars.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

I have a nice letter from Budget car insurance, they miss me terribly and would like me to contact them.

I could have saved a fortune by not insuring the car but then you don’t know the future. I guess the optimal might be only insuring it for the first 10 years for a new car? First four years are usually new for old replacement, then you get six years of value for money if you have to get another car, about on par with trade-in, after that may as well switch to just third party.

Dunno about Victoria but they prefer the car to be insured to get registered in NSW.
The third party is part of that.

You don’t need to have your car insured to be registered, nothing to do with preferences, insurance third party you pay for is third party property, different to the rego component of third party person.

yeah, in SA the compulsary third party paid with rego is bodily injury only.
In Tas they include ambulance insurance in the rego, but that works differently

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

Dunno about Victoria but they prefer the car to be insured to get registered in NSW.
The third party is part of that.

You don’t need to have your car insured to be registered, nothing to do with preferences, insurance third party you pay for is third party property, different to the rego component of third party person.

Makes sense. I know people used to only get third party insurance for older cars.

Yes, if you put your old dunger into the back of a merc, third party property looks after the merc, when you meet the guy later in court wearing a neck brace third party rego looks after compensation and injury costs. In both you have to be lawful or costs will end up with you.