here goes!
I don't have private health insurance, nor do I plan on getting any unless it becomes compulsory.
My family's experiences (Mum, Dad & Bro) have been really good with Doctor and hospital visits.
On the other hand I have countless numbers of friends and family who, while they pay through the nose for private insurance, always have to fork out more whether it's having a baby or any of those other ancilliary benefits. I find that their attitudes to treatment is based on how mant benefits they have remaining for that year.
If I need treatment I go and get it when I need it- optical, dental, RE, Naturopath, whatever! The money that I spend on this, to me is about the same as forking out for insurance. At least my way I can save it and earn some interest.
Quote:
|
So what do you reckon about the plan to not allow higher income earners access to medicare
|
I haven't read much about this either, so don't know all the facts, but my initial thoughts are that I disagree. Everyone should be entitled to Medicare access, regardless of how much you earn. When you here about all these stories of rich fat cats, it's targetted at such a tiny protion of the population. I think it just takes the focus away from helping those in need. For some reason the media perpetuates the division bw the haves and have nots. Sure, charge "higher" income earners more tax but then don't blow it by sending politicians on overseas jaunts. Give it to people who *need* it.
In theory I would not be opposed to an increase in the Medicare levy to cover these instances.
My main gripe with something like this is the Tax Office definitions of a high income earner. They should raise the threshold as there are so many families out there whose piddly annual increases unfortunately make them the target of bracket creeping.
Written and authorised by the Vote Mez for Prez party.
(PS. yes, I do realise we have a PM and not a President, but that's another rant for another time.)