Bulk billing is dead. Not a good time to be in Australia if you are sick

[weaver]

True, but I trust that if I look after myself I won't get cancer.

Many types of cancer don't really care whether you have looked after yourself or not. your work environment could influence your susceptibility to cancer as could living near some factories, electric pylons..... the list is endless. it's too simplistic to imaging you won't get cancer.

[AJ]

 

i know for a fact that if I was earning $180,000 myself and my kids would definitely be living the life of riley as that's a damn site more than I earn and can ever dream of earning!

 

Try taking 45% tax off that, then pay out private health insurance and then its not as much as you think.Anyway think we should let this thread get back to what its supposed to be about

[fish.01]

Some chronically ill people might really struggle with this. Obviously visits to the GP will cost $7, drawing blood will cost $7, each type of X-ray ordered will cost $7, getting the results will cost $7, each medicine will cost an extra $5...each family member has to pay and none of this counts towards the medical safety net. Only children and pensioners are capped at 10 outlays. It seems non bulk billing GP's will also charge $5 extra.

 

The other concern is that for some bulk billing GP's to collect the $7, pay the govt $5 and keep $2 themselves, they may have to charge the full amount upfront...this will allow current systems to function and the govt to count each $7 visit for youth/pensioners. The patient may then have to wait a day for the money to come back to them. Some can't afford to have money tied up waiting to come back to them and will avoid going, specially when pathology may do the same thing. Some bulk billing GP's have estimated it will cost them $11 in admin to collect that $2.

[Katie22]

 

Try taking 45% tax off that, then pay out private health insurance and then its not as much as you think.Anyway think we should let this thread get back to what its supposed to be about

 

Very true, certainly not criticising you personally but at the end of the day the government want to save money, that money has to come from somewhere. A large proportion is going to come from the lower and lower middle income earners who will be far worse off. Is that where it should stop?

 

Thankfully though I've just read that people with chronic illnesses who have health care plans will be exempt from the co-payments which is something I suppose.

 

Did anyone see Mr Hockey on question time last night, what an arrogant man.

[fish.01]

 

Try taking 45% tax off that, then pay out private health insurance and then its not as much as you think.Anyway think we should let this thread get back to what its supposed to be about

 

You lose around 30% of $180,000 in tax. Just saying

[fish.01]

 

Very true, certainly not criticising you personally but at the end of the day the government want to save money, that money has to come from somewhere. A large proportion is going to come from the lower and lower middle income earners who will be far worse off. Is that where it should stop?

 

Thankfully though I've just read that people with chronic illnesses who have health care plans will be exempt from the co-payments which is something I suppose.

 

Did anyone see Mr Hockey on question time last night, what an arrogant man.

 

No they won't unfortunatly...what Mr Hockey said on Q&A was in practice incorrect according to GP's. Only a small percentage of a chronically ill persons visits would be classed as "health care plan" visits. Some GP's are very concerned about how this will affect some of their patients.

Edited May 20, 2014 by fish.01

[AJ]

 

You lose around 30% of $180,000 in tax. Just saying

Yup and if you go $1 over $180,000 which is highly likely with o/time etc it goes up to 45% - Just saying

 

[fish.01]

Yup and if you go $1 over $180,000 which is highly likely with o/time etc it goes up to 45% - Just saying

 

Only for that $ you go over though. The first $180,000 is still at 30% obviously.

[AJ]

Only for that $ you go over though. The first $180,000 is still at 30% obviously.

$180,001 and over

45%

$54,547 plus 45¢ for each $1 over $180,000

 

and its actually 37% up to $180,000

 

 

Edited May 20, 2014 by AJ

[fish.01]

$180,001 and over

45%

$54,547 plus 45¢ for each $1 over $180,000

 

and its actually 37% up to $180,000

 

 

 

 

 

Fish said: "You lose around 30% of $180,000 in tax"....$54,547 tax paid is 30% of $180,000. 37% is just the marginal tax rate not the total tax paid.

 

So for the first $180,000 you pay roughly 30% of that in tax (i.e. $54,547)

For every dollar over that you pay 45% of just those dollars over and above $180,000.

 

e.g. Income $190,000

 

Tax on first $180,000 = $54,547

Tax on next $10,000 = $4,500

 

Total tax $59,047 which is 32% of your $190,000 income paid in tax.

Edited May 20, 2014 by fish.01

[Katie22]

No they won't unfortunatly...what Mr Hockey said on Q&A was in practice incorrect according to GP's. Only a small percentage of a chronically ill persons visits would be classed as "health care plan" visits. Some GP's are very concerned about how this will affect some of their patients.

 

You've got me angry again!

[sueandave]

I see you are trying to tar all the "poor" with the same brush then parley. I know a few people you might class as poor and in the lower socio economic group. They are just the same as the rest of my friends and trying to make ends meet. NOT down the bookies or in the pub all day trying to drown their sorrows. They don't smoke either.

 

That's the governments take on things, all the poor have brought it on themselves by spending their money on ciggies, plasmas, mobile phones, booze, whilst neglecting their kids and expecting the high paid earners to pick up the bill in their taxes.

 

That's what they like everyone to think. Keep the middle class moaning about the lower class and they'll forget about what the well off are getting away with.

 

ah yes I have posted about your last sentence previously, divide & conquer.

[Rupert]

When you are going to make comments like this

 

In the meantime the higher socio economic group will be tucking into their free lunches and champagne.

 

You really have no room to accuse anyone else of tarring a certain group with one brush as below.

 

I see you are trying to tar all the "poor" with the same brush then parley. I know a few people you might class as poor and in the lower socio economic group. They are just the same as the rest of my friends and trying to make ends meet. NOT down the bookies or in the pub all day trying to drown their sorrows. They don't smoke either.

 

That's the governments take on things, all the poor have brought it on themselves by spending their money on ciggies, plasmas, mobile phones, booze, whilst neglecting their kids and expecting the high paid earners to pick up the bill in their taxes.

 

That's what they like everyone to think. Keep the middle class moaning about the lower class and they'll forget about what the well off are getting away with.

 

I for one have no idea what free lunches and champagne you could be referring to.

[Xenon4017]

I think the champagne comment was more tongue in cheek.

 

During most threads, everyone wheels out their favorite example, regardless of whether there is any evidence to show if their sample is really based on a caricature or not.

 

Even at 7$ a pop multiplied by x visits, you're still getting far more value from a doctor than any other "trade".

[Guest The Pom Queen]

True, but I trust that if I look after myself I won't get cancer.

 

How ridiculous, if you know how to stop people getting cancer please share it with the world.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

It might not be someones fault that they are poor, but poor and with fat kids; something's wrong.

 

Well I wouldn't worry about that as the way this government are going the poor kids and the elderly will starve to death, so their weight won't be a problem for you much longer.

[GiveAGirlShoes]

 

Why is this charging scheme OK for water, but isn't OK for Medicare? I can go for months without Medicare, but I won't last to the end of the week without water.

 

 

 

If you're chronically ill you probably can't go months without medicare (or water) so anything that could make the service less accessible to people surely has the potential to contribute to more end stage associated pathologies which can't be good ?

 

For example diabetic complications (personal experience so I might be a little subjective).

People don't always deserve to be ill or to live with lifelong diseases.

 

Diabetes (type 1) does not care if you are rich or poor. I'm sure I would be fine, albeit I detest spending money full stop lol. However it could deter some people from having regular checks that could be preventative of blindness, kidney failure etc.

 

All of this is free in the UK and some people still don't use it which is frustrating, but it's a shame if those who want help are put off for finacial reasons.

 

Just sayin xxxxx

[Xenon4017]

Well I wouldn't worry about that as the way this government are going the poor kids and the elderly will starve to death, so their weight won't be a problem for you much longer.

 

Any yet the stats don't show this. As people get poorer, they get fatter. In Australia at least. It's very true that in other countries the poor literally starve to death, and it's shameful. But here it seems that the poor eat themselves to death.

 

Any chance of addressing the point? It might involve more than a one line answer.

[Xenon4017]

If you're chronically ill you probably can't go months without medicare (or water) ....

 

Why did you quote me when your post had nothing to do with my comment, which was:

 

>>Why is this charging scheme OK for water, but isn't OK for Medicare? I can go for months without Medicare, but I won't last to the end of the week without water.

 

If you're acutely thirsty, you can't go 4 hours without water, bla bla bla.

 

Try to follow along. We have 2 absolutely essential services required for us to survive and thrive. One is based on a pay-as-you-consume model. One is based on a free-at-the-point-of-consumption model. Which model is the correct one in a "fair and just society"?

 

Either you have to conclude that paying for water is unjust, or that paying for Medicare is justifiable. Or, if you're able, construct a logical argument why the status quo should be preserved. But don't simply quote a post then ignore the content, as if doing so somehow rebuffs the argument.

[Parley]

How ridiculous, if you know how to stop people getting cancer please share it with the world.

 

Ok Pom Queen, my recipe for not getting cancer is as follows:

 

1. Don't Smoke

2. Don't take illicit drugs

3. Partake in alcohol only moderately

4. Eat a balanced low fat diet

5. Avoid adding salt to any food

6. Minimise sugar intake

7. Exercise regularly.

8. Don't hang around in environments that have known carcinogens - avoid petrol fumes, paint fumes any other fumes

9. Protect yourself from the Aussie Sun appropriatly.

 

I think doing these will protect me from cancer.

I'm nearly 50 and no cancer yet so time will tell, but if you go against these you are probably a lot more likely to get cancer than me.

[Tina2]

Tina, you know that is a lie.

When any changes are mooted to pension age or super preservation age they are around 20 years into the future.

They never impact people about to retire so please don't pretend they do.

Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey has flagged possible changes to superannuation rules before the next election.

In last week's budget the Government confirmed the retirement age would be lifted to 70 by the year 2035.

During an appearance on the ABC's Q&A program last night, Mr Hockey told the audience he was now looking at areas such as superannuation to better prepare Australians for the change.

Mr Hockey told host Tony Jones that the Government would have "more to say about retirement incomes further down the track".

"In this term?" Jones asked.

"Well, I suspect it will be in this term," Mr Hockey replied.

 

Jones:

So it's on the cards that we could see, in this term, a change to the year - the age - at which you can access your super?

Hockey:

Well, I think it's something that we need to have a proper process to discuss with all the affected stakeholders.

Jones:

But it sounds like it's in your mind.

Hockey:

It is on my mind and it's on Tony Abbott's mind. We're thinking about how we're going to make sure that the quality of life for Australians into the future is sustainable.

 

 

[Parley]

Yes Tina, but the point is it would come into force in something like 20 years time, not those about to retire.

 

Anyway Tony Abbott has said it won't happen at all.

 

 

Personally speaking, I wan't to keep my money in Super as long as possible.

It is a concessionally taxed environment, earnings are only taxed at 15% in the fund, so if you have a large amount in Super it is best to leave it there.

That is what I will do.

[Tina2]

Yes Tina, but the point is it would come into force in something like 20 years time, not those about to retire.

 

Anyway Tony Abbott has said it won't happen at all.

 

 

Personally speaking, I wan't to keep my money in Super as long as possible.

It is a concessionally taxed environment, earnings are only taxed at 15% in the fund, so if you have a large amount in Super it is best to leave it there.

That is what I will do.

And you actually believe them after all the lies they have told ? Sorry dont trust Abbott or Hockey.

 

My concern is WHEN the changes will take place. If as you say in 20 years fair enough people now will have time to plan and make arrangements for there future based on that knowledge but a lot of people are concerned the rule change will be sooner rather than later. Another concern is , is Hockeys plan to - lock up super so it can only be drawn down as a pension? If that is the case what of the people who only live to there early 70? and so only use a fraction of there super, then what ? It cant be left to family only rolled over in to other family members super ? So super grows in to a huge fund paid for by workers that they can never actually access while the government makes bucket loads of interest. Non so blind as those that can not see.

[caramac]

Ok Pom Queen, my recipe for not getting cancer is as follows:

 

1. Don't Smoke

2. Don't take illicit drugs

3. Partake in alcohol only moderately

4. Eat a balanced low fat diet

5. Avoid adding salt to any food

6. Minimise sugar intake

7. Exercise regularly.

8. Don't hang around in environments that have known carcinogens - avoid petrol fumes, paint fumes any other fumes

9. Protect yourself from the Aussie Sun appropriatly.

 

I think doing these will protect me from cancer.

I'm nearly 50 and no cancer yet so time will tell, but if you go against these you are probably a lot more likely to get cancer than me.

 

 

Excellent! I'll send this list to my friend whose son died, aged 5, last November. I'm sure she'll be delighted to know how she could have avoided her son's illness.

 

You can do your best, but if you're going to get cancer (and it's not just one disease), you're going to get it. Some of them have a genetic element. Not much you can do about that except for screening. Which, guess what? Will cost money.

[Parley]

Tina, I think you're making all that up.

None of that has ever been suggested.

 

Best to wait and see rather than guessing a whole lot of doomsday scenarios.

 

But you can be sure they won't make surprise changes effecting people close to retirement.

Like the pension age change coming in 2035 it recognises the reality of people living longer and leaves plenty of time for planning.