Health & Family Thinking of dropping Health Insurance

I feel exactly the same - I don't mind paying a surcharge to use the public system because it's actually really good. It makes me really grateful that I don't live somewhere like the United States, where an insurance company refusing to cover an operation can bankrupt you.

 

My daughter was living in New York and I think she had to pay something like $600? to visit the a doctor. Crazy stuff.
I think its like winning lotto in USA if you manage to get health cover as part of employment package.
No complaints here about our public system in Australia.

MTR

 

I don't necessarily like the system but I don't live in Cuba.
I agree with you regarding cover that entitles people to a new pair of shoes or gym membership etc, that is ridiculous. Well I think that was your point? I think homeopathy is no longer covered by most funds.
Everyone is free to make their own choices based on their circumstances. If I was earning a low or minimum wage or had colleagues I could call on in the medical profession as some do or if I was single then I might think differently.
I have consistently looked at it from a cost vs benefit analysis approach and the cost= tax benefit +items claimed consistently over numerous tax returns. Obviously this might not be the case for a couple or single with no children.
In an emergency it's probably of no benefit, but for potential persistent problems which are a low priority for the health system that is where the benefit is. Elective surgery.
Not everyone lives next to one of the best hospitals in the country.
Where I dont agree with you is in making a decision based on political ideology.

 

We had the situation where our son was desperately mentally ill. Our GP sent us to St Vincent's in Melbourne as that was the medical help he needed. We were refused any help whatsoever. We were told we were not in their area. However, had he had Medical Insurance he could have been admitted. We went through a week of pure hell trying to get help. I never, ever want to go through that again. I now pay for my son's Medical Insurance.

 

But you don't pay an addition surcharge to use the system, you can use it regardless. It reads as though you are saying you pay a surcharge to not participate in the private system. That may make ideological sense, but it certainly doesn't make financial sense.

 

That's exactly what happens when you elect to pay the Medicare surcharge instead of buying junk insurance (like 'hospital only' coverage). If you don't buy the insurance they make you pay anyway through the Medicare surcharge.

It's not ideology - it's about not paying for a service that I don't really want. Howard did his best to try and exclude people with the capacity to pay for private health insurance from the public system, purely because they objected to the idea that everyone should get the same standard of treatment. If anyone is engaged in ideological warfare it's the Torys against the public health system.

The public system is particularly weak with mental health issues - it's worse if you are in the country. One of the reasons I refuse to move back to a rural area is because the services (especially medical services) are sub-standard to what we get in the big city.

 

Ummm... you pay for them as you need them?

By the way, chiropractors are another 'profession' on my quack list ;-).

 

Ben we are in the City. Apparently mental health is allocated by areas. Our area was useless. St Vincents contacted the CAT Team and they took 9 days to get in contact with us. In the meantime we had phoned everywhere and got private help that we paid for. Its been some time now, so lets hope Mental Health support has improved.

 

Oh, that's bad news, I just assumed you were in the country when you said you couldn't get into St Vincents.

The quality of the CAT teams varies enormously - I used to work in a support service dealing with psychotic people who had just been released from prison and sometimes the CAT team wouldn't turn up at all regardless of the circumstances. The police were often much better at helping anyway - they usually have extensive training to help diffuse aggressive people and they can section people if they need to.

The lack of acute mental health services is a disgrace, that's for sure.

 

Surely when one is more expensive than the other, and you opt for the more expensive one (surcharge) which offers no additional service it's ideology.

 

I would go so far as to say that there's a lot of policies out there that are designed to do no more than absorb what would have been the Medicare surcharge for their customers - basically just junk insurance. Those kind of junk policies can end up costing you big $$$ if (for example) you end up seeing doctors who aren't covered in your scheme.

 

Just as I wouldn't pay additional tax voluntarily via a surcharge I can easily avoid, I wouldn't use a health insurance policy that would leave me worse off financially or physically.

 

You should read the fine print (and internet reviews) of the policy that you have and see if there are any nasty surprises in it (or things that you didn't know) - I'd be interested to hear.

We don't all have to have the same opinion - my dad went to a chiropractor for years and if anything I think it made his back condition worse; he got dependent on the treatment for pain relief instead of being able to move on. However it's good that you find it useful AND that it's covered under your policy.

Personally, if I had an ongoing mental health issue (as Chrispy describes above) or chronic condition that required intermittent treatment I would probably try and get private cover if only so you can get help when you need it instead of waiting. The problem is that the insurers tend to specifically deny those kind of conditions/patients cover because they know it will end up costing them -