Opinion

Health cover injustice

I had a shock as I prepared to write my column in The Herald yesterday. I was planning to question when or whether the inexorable increase in health insurance premiums would put reasonable cover beyond the reach of most people, and you'll realise that I had in mind the announcement this week of premium increases of almost 6 per cent. So I phoned my family's insurer of about three decades, NIB, to find out how much we paid, and I should explain that I didn't know because my wife handles our finances. It was a shock - $277.24 a month! Increasing on April 1 to $288! And that's with the government's 30 per cent rebate.

We pay for top family cover, and I suppose when we had five dependent children the premium was good value even if it was an impost on one wage. But now, with one dependent child?

There is no way my wife and I will be able to maintain that sort of cover in retirement, and while we're a few years off that happy state I'm interested now in reducing the outgoings. We could move to Mid Plus cover, the helpful young fellow at NIB suggested, to save about $100 a month, but, he warned, we'd lose joint replacement. That didn't help - we'd lose joint replacement when we needed that cover most!

I've long realised that there is an injustice in longtime health fund members forced by the limited income of retirement to abandon their cover when they need it most, but I suppose my inquiries yesterday brought that home in a personal way. And at the rate health insurance premiums are increasing it is possible that my wife and I won't be able to afford even mid-level cover in retirement.

The Federal Government has its Lifetime Health Cover program encouraging young people to take private cover themselves for life, and it seems unfair to me that it does nothing to help retiring people maintain their cover for the rest of their life. Is there an injustice here, an unfair lack of consideration for longtime membership? Or is it just a matter of survival of the richest?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 24/02/2010 5:05:00 PM | Comments (26)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

The entire health system is a joke - medicare CLEARLY cannot cope, and will only fail in a more epic fashion in the future. No politician has the guts to tell the Australian people the truth - we cannot afford "universal" GOOD health cover. Medicare should be stripped back to function as a safety net, while everyone of means PAYS for their own health care - just like they PAY for food, clothing and shelter. Why should some taxpayer on half my income pay for me to see a GP? This is insane. People should be able to insure in FULL against all health costs, with no taxpayer support (and no medicare levy). Open up the health system to real competition by smashing the monopoly of the various colleges, remove restrictive trade practices and the limits on training positions that choke supply, and get the Government out of the business of health. The socialist fantasy of "free universal health care" is a sick joke that was never going to deliver - and people who voted for this rubbish have only themselves to blame when they spend 18 hours on an ambulance gurney waiting to be seen at an emergency ward.

Posted by Scott Hillard, 25/02/2010 9:13:29 AM, on The Herald

$283 x 12 = $3,396 per year x 10 years with compound 5% interest = $38,820. Go get some new glasses, teeth checked and then ditch the health insurance. Anything major happens to you your first port of call is the public system. The money saved can be your own health insurance scheme. If you salary sacrifice and have a good accountant as a couple you can earn $140,000 a year without paying the extra 1% medicare levy. It's a thought.

Posted by Buell, 25/02/2010 9:29:28 AM, on The Herald

Scott is spot on when it comes to training of health professionals. The AMA is complicit in the scam that limits training places for new health professionals, and does so not out of some sense of duty to ensure maximum standards, but out of a desire to maintain the minimal supply in a high demand environment. This is only going to get worse as the population ages.

Posted by fista, 25/02/2010 9:44:15 AM, on The Herald

Scoot H and fista are on the money. With due repect, the medicos have had a closed shop for far too long, and are now killing the goosa that has laid their golden egg. The community is saying 'enough'. Eliminate the restrictive practices in the 'Royal Colleges of (insert specialisation here), and let the community pay what it's really worth 9much less, thanks very much). And Jeff, the answer is yes. It's survival of the richest (or the smartest richest). Harsh, but true.

Posted by Abundance, 25/02/2010 10:02:44 AM, on The Herald

Did you disclose that you are temporary undisabled Australian. One who shares the road with uncompromising cars, protected with only a flimsy excuse for two legs (two wheels). Then but a bit of foam protecting your (offensive to some at times) brain? So the cost of future artificial limbs needs to be factored into your insurance as well ? The unfair alternative is the rest of us that have airbags, seatbelts and a cabin to protect will subsidise your high risk lifestyle. Bring on the "are you a bike rider on public roads question" to the health insurance application - forget the dna test for the moment?

Posted by poeticjustice, 25/02/2010 10:32:31 AM, on The Herald

Ah, but what about a healthy heart, well balanced blood, free-moving joints, ideal weight, good bone density, quick recovery after exertion and a sunny outlook?

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 25/02/2010 10:46:04 AM

If the insurers got rid of the frills it would reduce costs,i dont want gym membership or running shoes or sun glasses i can get that myself just be there to pay ALL the expenses if and when i do happen to fall ill.Not hard.

Posted by horse, 25/02/2010 11:14:59 AM, on The Herald

Scott is 100% right. Free universal health care is, if implemented to the communities standards is not only unaffordable, but unattainable. Scott and Fista are exacctly right regarding training places. At the end of the day, i beieve the elderly should get free health care, but everyone else should be paying for their own.

Posted by Nafe, 25/02/2010 11:15:13 AM, on The Herald

It's all the fatties in Newie getting their gastic bands ramping up the costs [see today's Herald article]. How about eating only 9 serves of pie & chips a day instead of 10? "Oh it's not my fault," says Fatty though bites of seventh pie for the morning, "I can't help being a fat lazy sod." Fatties - they are EVERYWHERE! Just EVERYWHERE!

Posted by Cricket, 25/02/2010 11:27:34 AM, on The Herald

All postive ticks and those without the attributes mentioned get penalised. You, of course will be able to adjust quickly should you ever suffer the misfortune of the loss of a limb. You may even get a discount if you are able do with a "bare bones " prosthetic? ( I can imagine your remarks to those that may be offended) True equity in a market driven world depends on all factors positive and negative being considered. Properly applying such a system should mean that people just cant afford to live unhealthy lifstyles? Of course that raises serious questions about those that have no control over their health predisposition. That may then rely on the charity,goodwill and morality of a caring society? ( removing unhealthy consumerable products from the market may help with that?) -what a minefield?

Posted by poeticjustice, 25/02/2010 11:54:34 AM, on The Herald

Old people don't need free health care - they are the ones costing us the most! They have to see "Doctor" every second day so they can stretch their miserable existence out a few more years and worry about their children who don't call them who were the ones who put them in the retirement village. And don't start me on war widows...

Posted by Generation K, 25/02/2010 11:58:11 AM, on The Herald

1 | 2 | 3 | next >