Family being very negative

[MacGyver]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Unless you will pay medicare levy surcharge without it (single 90k or couple over 180k earnings) and it makes sense.

Even if you have to pay the Medicare levy surcharge, there’s an argument that it’s worth it. Perhaps the money is better spent funding the public health system to benefit all, than putting it in the pocket of a private insurance company to benefit a few (for a poor insurance product).

[Parley]

9 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Even if you have to pay the Medicare levy surcharge, there’s an argument that it’s worth it. Perhaps the money is better spent funding the public health system to benefit all, than putting it in the pocket of a private insurance company to benefit a few (for a poor insurance product).

That is like saying you should give away all your salary to the poor rather than selfishly spending it on yourself.

 

[Jon the Hat]

16 minutes ago, Parley said:

That is like saying you should give away all your salary to the poor rather than selfishly spending it on yourself.

 

It certainly makes the assumption that the government is well placed to spend your money!

[MacGyver]

8 hours ago, Parley said:

That is like saying you should give away all your salary to the poor rather than selfishly spending it on yourself.

 

No, it’s like saying you should buy a homeless person one meal rather than stuffing McDonald’s in your face for the third time that day.

Medicare provides an excellent service. Base level private healthcare, solely to  avoid the Medicare surcharge levy, seems to be pretty useless. So there is an argument (which you might disagree with) that it may be better spent on the Medicare surcharge levy.

 

[Parley]

51 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

No, it’s like saying you should buy a homeless person one meal rather than stuffing McDonald’s in your face for the third time that day.

Medicare provides an excellent service. Base level private healthcare, solely to  avoid the Medicare surcharge levy, seems to be pretty useless. So there is an argument (which you might disagree with) that it may be better spent on the Medicare surcharge levy.

 

You are obviously a socialist.

Taxation doesn't work that way though. In reality it doesn't  go into separate buckets eg this bit is for medicare/public health.

It all just goes into general revenue.

[Bulya]

33 minutes ago, Parley said:

You are obviously a socialist.

Taxation doesn't work that way though. In reality it doesn't  go into separate buckets eg this bit is for medicare/public health.

It all just goes into general revenue.

It doesn’t go ‘into’ anything.  Govt finance isn’t run like a household budget!

[DIG85]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

Base level private healthcare, solely to  avoid the Medicare surcharge levy, seems to be pretty useless. So there is an argument (which you might disagree with) that it may be better spent on the Medicare surcharge levy.

 

I don't follow your reasoning here. If the annual premium for base level private healthcare (BLPH), taken out solely to avoid the MSL, is lower than the MLS that would have otherwise have been payable, then you have saved money, and the BLPH is therefore worth it it, regardless of the quality of the BLPH. By avoiding the MSL, you do not restrict your access to the Medicare system in any way.

Whether it is good public policy to effectively encourage the transfer of taxation revenue to the coffers of private health insurers, is another matter.

Edited April 20, 2022 by DIG85

[Parley]

1 hour ago, Bulya said:

It doesn’t go ‘into’ anything.  Govt finance isn’t run like a household budget!

That is what i said.

Macgvyer seems to think if he pays the medicare surcharge it will end up in the public health system.

Doesn't work like that.

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, Parley said:

That is what i said.

Macgvyer seems to think if he pays the medicare surcharge it will end up in the public health system.

Doesn't work like that.

I’m content to pay into the public purse, at a small personal loss. I’m not trying to convince you to do the same. 

[MacGyver]

4 hours ago, DIG85 said:

I don't follow your reasoning here. If the annual premium for base level private healthcare (BLPH), taken out solely to avoid the MSL, is lower than the MLS that would have otherwise have been payable, then you have saved money, and the BLPH is therefore worth it it, regardless of the quality of the BLPH. By avoiding the MSL, you do not restrict your access to the Medicare system in any way.

Whether it is good public policy to effectively encourage the transfer of taxation revenue to the coffers of private health insurers, is another matter.

If it’s lower than the MSL then yes you would save some money.

But if the cover is garbage I’d personally rather make a small loss and contribute to public finances, than to a private company. I appreciate others will take a different view on where to send their hard earned money, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their approach. 

[MacGyver]

5 hours ago, Parley said:

You are obviously a socialist.

I’m some views yes, in others no. Labels and boxes aren’t helpful. Life isn’t black and white.