Comments on news report by Jessica Gardner "Health insurance premiums to rise by up to 10pc a year", 21/07/2015
It is a national disgrace and possibly and particularly for the national regulator who has the right to approve the annual rises. It reflects a serious failure in regulation. Wages and salaries in the past decade and particularly in the last 5 years have not grow much, but each year health insurances increase quite a lot.
It is failure of policy and of insurance regulation. It is a failure of national leadership as reflected by federal health minister and the department of health.
And the worst part of that is the fact that it is forced by government for people to have private health insurance and it is the government health minister who approves the annual increase. For anyone having a sane mind, it is ridiculous that the federal government acts in that way.
The federal health minister should resign or at least those bureaucrats who made the recommendations for the health insurance to increase like that.
Furthermore, while the wages and salaries for ordinary workers and employees have not grown much, federal politicians' have increased a lot almost every year. What is a further disgrace of politicians is the fact that they hide behind the so called tribunal's recommendations, an organisation having virtually no accountability and eager to please national politicians.
It seems the only thing fair is for the politicians pay rise to be inversely linked to the increase in health insurance premium.
Further, their pay should be indexed with the average increase in national wages and salaries to the maximum..
Showing posts with label private health insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label private health insurance. Show all posts
2012-08-02
A better alternative to the NDIS
Comments on Gary Johns "Middle-class welfare must be squeezed to help the disabled" 2/08/2012 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/middle-class-welfare-must-be-squeezed-to-help-the-disabled/story-fn8v83qk-1226440702411
While the NDIS has its merits, I think it would be even better to introduce a national, voluntary and tiered scheme similar in spirit to the proposed NDIS.
Such a scheme should have a standard contribution rates similar to a levy, but whether a person pays or not is voluntary. Besides the standard rates, one can also be allowed to choose a lower rate for a lower level insurance. If a person pays, then he/she and his/her family are covered by such an insurance.
With this voluntary scheme, there is a national register which shows the records of people's "insurance" that will be used for "claims". Low/no income people are also covered, as their taxation records can be matched with to show whether they have paid their voluntary premier or not.
Such a scheme should be better than the current proposed NDIS. It would be a real insurance as opposed to a general taxation/levy, which blurs incentives and responsibilities at may levels including politicians and bureaucrats.
2011-08-24
Deeble is wrong on PHI
Comments on John Deeble “Health insurance rebate changes won't hurt”, 24/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/health-insurance-rebate-changes-wont-hurt/story-e6frg6zo-1226120746949
John Deeble, though architect of Medicare, is using arguments that are out of date and out of appropriate context.
The argument of the "capacity to pay principle" is misleading at best. One should not ignore the fact that the private health insurance has been forced to many people by government and is not their own voluntary choices.
The argument of the "capacity to pay principle" is misleading at best. One should not ignore the fact that the private health insurance has been forced to many people by government and is not their own voluntary choices.
Even taking the point of Deeble's equity argument, there should be at most a ceiling of subsidy to a family, adjusted by the number of people in a household covered by the insurance.
On the contrary, Deeble simply spreads and propagates the government' point of view and argument that is neither equitable nor fair by any reasonable standard.
On the contrary, Deeble simply spreads and propagates the government' point of view and argument that is neither equitable nor fair by any reasonable standard.
His thinking of Medicare principle should have moved on to beyond simple equity measurement and realise and acknowledge the fact that higher income people contribute to a higher share of Medicare contribution per person and in return to receive the same medical services from public hospitals.
The proposed reform by the government masks its out of date ideology and targets many people unfairly just like the payments related to its proposed carbon tax that ignores the fundamental rights of everyone equally to a better environment and is used by the government for income redistribution purpose that is appalling and should not be passed to law.
2010-09-15
Greedy Roxon/Labor trying to be crazy again
Comments on Sid Maher “Health rebate means test battle back on”, 15/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/health-rebate-means-test-battle-back-on/story-e6frg8y6-1225923032398
It is crazy to force people to have private health insurance and means test for the 30% insurance rebate.
It is another form of tax grab by a government which wastes taxpayers' money and try to grab more from them to enable it to waste more.
What a crazy and greedy government it is!
If the government is to means test for that rebate, it should remove the health insurance surcharge altogether.
The government-forced impost of the private health insurance on middle and high income earners and the partial rebate, when introduced in the first place by the former Howard government, were a policy package.
It was already an unnecessary impost on those people because they already pay much higher taxes and that policy just conceals the hidden further higher effective taxes on them.
Now Labor wants to try it again to impose further burdens on them!
I haven't read the Henry taxation review report and don't know if this hidden tax was included in that review or not.
It is crazy to force people to have private health insurance and means test for the 30% insurance rebate.
It is another form of tax grab by a government which wastes taxpayers' money and try to grab more from them to enable it to waste more.
What a crazy and greedy government it is!
If the government is to means test for that rebate, it should remove the health insurance surcharge altogether.
The government-forced impost of the private health insurance on middle and high income earners and the partial rebate, when introduced in the first place by the former Howard government, were a policy package.
It was already an unnecessary impost on those people because they already pay much higher taxes and that policy just conceals the hidden further higher effective taxes on them.
Now Labor wants to try it again to impose further burdens on them!
I haven't read the Henry taxation review report and don't know if this hidden tax was included in that review or not.
2010-02-19
Health insurance in Australia - a second best solution
Comments on David Uren “Minister shows her unhealthy obsession”, 19/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/minister-shows-her-unhealthy-obsession/story-e6frgd0x-1225831948276
While I am not a fan of health minister Nicola Roxon's direct government regulatory approach to managing the health insurance companies, there are a couple of points in Australia that need to be considered.
One is the issue of the impact of government quasi compulsory insurance (otherwise punished by special levy for income exceeding a level).
The other is the non-competitive nature of the health insurance industry here.
These two issues distort the health insurance industry and consumer choices.
I think a potential solution to these twine issues, that is, to have a default government insurance non profitable organisation to provide a choice for people and to provide a pressure for competitor to private health insurers, so to limit their non competitive behaviours.
Thus, in the presence of government regulatory distortions in the first place, the government should provide a second best solution, as opposed to a heavily regulated approach as it has been for a long time.
While I am not a fan of health minister Nicola Roxon's direct government regulatory approach to managing the health insurance companies, there are a couple of points in Australia that need to be considered.
One is the issue of the impact of government quasi compulsory insurance (otherwise punished by special levy for income exceeding a level).
The other is the non-competitive nature of the health insurance industry here.
These two issues distort the health insurance industry and consumer choices.
I think a potential solution to these twine issues, that is, to have a default government insurance non profitable organisation to provide a choice for people and to provide a pressure for competitor to private health insurers, so to limit their non competitive behaviours.
Thus, in the presence of government regulatory distortions in the first place, the government should provide a second best solution, as opposed to a heavily regulated approach as it has been for a long time.
2009-09-10
A good move by the senate to reject the health bill
The following ABS report says that the senate has rejected the government's bill to change the private health insurance scheme and the medicare levy. That is good news.
The government has a mean spirit against middle and high income people and deny people's equal rights to public hospitals. It is a bad policy based on old dated Labour ideology. It should be defeated and it was.
See the report: "Senate rejects private health changes", 9/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/09/2681382.htm?section=justin
The government has a mean spirit against middle and high income people and deny people's equal rights to public hospitals. It is a bad policy based on old dated Labour ideology. It should be defeated and it was.
See the report: "Senate rejects private health changes", 9/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/09/2681382.htm?section=justin
2009-05-15
Turnbull scored a strong point in budget reply
At last night's budget reply, the opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull employed smart strategies in painting the Rudd/Swan government as inexperienced and incompetent in managing the economy and budget. He exposed the government’s weakness in these areas by opposing a key savings measure in the Rudd/Swan budget of means testing for government’s 30% rebate for private health insurance. Instead, he proposed to increase the tax on cigarettes to collect the same amount of revenue that would be saved by the budget’s means testing private health insurance.
Turnbull argued: "As private health insurance costs go up, more pressure is put on public hospitals." He accused Labor of "hating" private health insurance: “Labor hates private health insurance.” “Labor hates it because it encourages self-reliance and because it offers choice.” On the other hand, "Tobacco is the single most preventable cause of ill-health and death in Australia," Mr Turnbull said.
Turnbull challenged Rudd: "So there's a tough choice for a weak Prime Minister: raise $1.9billion by making health more expensive and putting more pressure on the public hospital system, or by adding about 3c more to the price of a cigarette and taking pressure off the public health system."
It was a clever strategy for a number of reasons. First, although both measures are related to “health”, increasing the tax on cigarettes is much more superior than means-testing private health insurance. As Turnbull pointed out, cigarettes cause health problems, so a higher tax on them will reduce consumption of them and reduce their adverse impact on health. Means testing private health insurance will reduce the number of people to buy health insurance and in turn to further increase pressure on public hospitals that already have long waiting lists.
Second, the budget measure is a broken election promise by the Rudd government. Rudd had ruled out any change to the private health insurance rebate during the 2007 election campaign. As Turnbull put it eloquently: "Never was an election promise given more emphatically and then broken so brazenly." Facing huge budget deficits and desperately to find some ways to make them look a little better, Rudd/Swan put their election promise aside and tried to save some revenue. It backfired and has shown how incompetent or silly in making that decision when there is at least a better way to achieve the same revenue amount: Rudd/Swan government’s dark backside exposed.
Third, Turnbull appeared to use this change as an example only. It implied that a much better budgetary package could be put together by the coalition, had they been in government to make it. This, in conjunction with portrait the Rudd/Swan government as shopaholic and reckless in spending taxpayers’ money to produce unnecessarily large and record breaking budget deficits and accumulating unprecedented levels of government debt, attacked the weakest side of the government. Turnbull said: “today, Australians see our national balance sheet drowning in red ink.” "They see our nation’s future mortgaged for as far as the eye can see.”
Four, by focusing on just one measure, Turnbull has given few targets and little room for the government to attack him and his coalition, while poking a hole in the Rudd/Swan budget 2009. It was a clever move at a time he himself is badly in need of showing strong leadership credentials.
Turnbull argued: "As private health insurance costs go up, more pressure is put on public hospitals." He accused Labor of "hating" private health insurance: “Labor hates private health insurance.” “Labor hates it because it encourages self-reliance and because it offers choice.” On the other hand, "Tobacco is the single most preventable cause of ill-health and death in Australia," Mr Turnbull said.
Turnbull challenged Rudd: "So there's a tough choice for a weak Prime Minister: raise $1.9billion by making health more expensive and putting more pressure on the public hospital system, or by adding about 3c more to the price of a cigarette and taking pressure off the public health system."
It was a clever strategy for a number of reasons. First, although both measures are related to “health”, increasing the tax on cigarettes is much more superior than means-testing private health insurance. As Turnbull pointed out, cigarettes cause health problems, so a higher tax on them will reduce consumption of them and reduce their adverse impact on health. Means testing private health insurance will reduce the number of people to buy health insurance and in turn to further increase pressure on public hospitals that already have long waiting lists.
Second, the budget measure is a broken election promise by the Rudd government. Rudd had ruled out any change to the private health insurance rebate during the 2007 election campaign. As Turnbull put it eloquently: "Never was an election promise given more emphatically and then broken so brazenly." Facing huge budget deficits and desperately to find some ways to make them look a little better, Rudd/Swan put their election promise aside and tried to save some revenue. It backfired and has shown how incompetent or silly in making that decision when there is at least a better way to achieve the same revenue amount: Rudd/Swan government’s dark backside exposed.
Third, Turnbull appeared to use this change as an example only. It implied that a much better budgetary package could be put together by the coalition, had they been in government to make it. This, in conjunction with portrait the Rudd/Swan government as shopaholic and reckless in spending taxpayers’ money to produce unnecessarily large and record breaking budget deficits and accumulating unprecedented levels of government debt, attacked the weakest side of the government. Turnbull said: “today, Australians see our national balance sheet drowning in red ink.” "They see our nation’s future mortgaged for as far as the eye can see.”
Four, by focusing on just one measure, Turnbull has given few targets and little room for the government to attack him and his coalition, while poking a hole in the Rudd/Swan budget 2009. It was a clever move at a time he himself is badly in need of showing strong leadership credentials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
