best health insurance

I have to get health insurance for the family or ill be slugged with an
extra 1% on my medicare.

who is the best insurer when you come off your bike?

Im sure there are some stories out there.

threespeed

 

i'm with IOOF...which is now owned by NIB. Not sure if the same packages are
still available but they have a value plus scheme which basically has all
the bells and whistles BUT only covers you for a max of four days in
private hos...after that the benefit reverts to the public hos equivalent.
Great for those little accidents that kids suffer...broken bones etc...not
so great for long duration stays in hossy. But it is private cover so it
does get you off the waiting lists for elective.
Two examples...knee reconstruction at epworth...out of pocket maybe
<$500...without cover would have been >$5000
and..burst appendix...11 days in priv hos, emergency surgery...out of pocket
<$2000...without cover would have cost well over $10000.

Fruitbat..who never thought he'd need it but is thanking his lucky stars he
had it.

 

Oh yeah...bout 45 per month for a single...double that for couple and no
idea about billy lids.

fruitbat.

 

Mr leathers is good! Depending on what state you're in, TAC or similar kicks
in anyway to cover the costs. At least that's what others tell me....

Stuart T

 

With cover...costs you <$2,000. Without cover....costs you nothing. They
don't refuse to treat appendix-sufferers who don't have private cover, you
silly fruitbat.

 

I actually find it unbelievable that some people out there can be so
brainwashed as to believe that paying for health care and education out of
your own pocket is a reasonable proposition...

 

I reckon the local Casino gives better odds than insurance companies...

Doug Cox.
Work to ride, Ride to work...

 

Doug Cox wrote:

Yup! Trouble is, so far, the governments don't actually force us to
play at the casinoes.....maybe next week?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Yeah, well, the government doesn't force you to get sick, either, does it?

 

Since when does being sick have anything to do with buying health insurance?
My health insurance is an investment which gives me an effective return of
236%.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

"Nev.." wrote

Huh?

Theo

 

You, too, eh?

 

Howard's tax on healthy people to make
buying health insurance the cheaper option. 100
---------------------------------------------- x -----
Cost of cheapest complying hospital cover 1
so Howard's mates who own health insurance
companies can buy new Mercs and Jags.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

Trouble is, are you prepared to wait 2 or 3 or more years to get your knee
reconstruction done publicly, or would you prefer to pay a couple of hundred
and have it done _now_?

My job at the moment is trying to get the elective surgery list at a big
public hospital in Queensland under control. Easier said than done. When I
started we had people waiting for Category 2 elective surgery (treatment
required within 90 days) that were waiting up to 5 years... 31% of Cat 2
pts were waiting longer than they should. We're now down to 9%. Cat 3
patients - well, lets just say never, ever be a Cat 3 patient on a public
hospital waiting list, OK? Odds are you wouldn't even get an outpatient
appointment...

Private health cover is great if/when you need elective surgery. In
emergency cases it doesn't matter - you'll get treated quickly publicly as
well, but you may have some medical students and junior doctors doing a lot
of poking and prodding. You can also elect to be treated as a private
patient in a public hospital - costs a lot less than private hospitals do.
I have private health cover, and I work in a public hospital - that would be
one choice in a non-emergency situation - I know the public hospitals follow
all the rules and regulations regarding the reuse of single-use items...

A catch with medicare though - if your income is over a certain amount (50K
gross I think), the medicare levy rises substantially if you don't have
private cover. And for every year over 30 you are (and lets face it, once
you hit 30 is when things start to show a bit of wear and tear) the cost of
private health cover rises about 2% I believe. So if you started health
cover at age 45 you would be paying 30% more than if you had started before
the cut-off date several years ago. The bloody govt brought this
legislation in specifically to stop people relying on Medicare.

The thousands of involuntary dollars you are paying isn't so you can be
treated, it is so that people on lower incomes can be treated. If you earn
enough to contribute to the higher medicare levy the govt deems you to earn
enough to pay for your private health care.

 

Ok you **** your knee in a soccer game.
option A. wait for weeks to get an operation to repair the damage by a
doctor not of your choice in a public hospital.
option B. Book in an operation with the doctor of your choice in a
private hospital where (personal opinion) the care is very good (though
the nurses and doctors in public hospitals do a sterling job as
witnessed when my grandfather had a stroke). You don't have to fugg
around with queues (no Clem not lanespliting) and you get choice.
I know which one I prefer and have used many times in my soccer career.
(motorcycling is safe in comparison)
As for education don't get me started there!!!!!!!!!



--
KiwiPete's philosophy as quoted
Glad to bring mirth!
Actually truth be known I don't dislike Clem... or Theo or Paulh or even
Nev... well maybe Nev... its just that we don't have a huge amount in common
and tend to all fly off!

 

Don't do a kiwipete on me, Smee...

....what I'm attacking is not the minutiae of the current state of play in
our hospitals, but the very core idea which has made them the inequitable,
inefficient, cynical mess they are; namely, that people falling ill or
getting hurt is something to be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis... can
this be done without what we, at present, would consider to be an excessive
expenditure of money and/or effort? No? OK, then leave it for someone
else...

How insane is it for a society to consider it okay for an essential building
block of its infrastructure not to be the sole and the absolute
responsibility of its government? They're supposed to be there to provide
for society no matter what, not to decide which part of their job
description is to be outsourced due to it being too difficult for them, akin
to dad calling in the plumber to fix a leak in the bathroom because he's not
a plumber himself.

The best side to the con-job is that, by allowing essential services like
healthcare, education, telecommunications and prisons (what next; the
police? Oh, that's right, they already do that with speed camera operators),
governments absolve themselves of accountability without increasing their
vulnerability, while at the same time handing the people they're supposed to
provide for over to the private sector to be exploited for profit.

If the government runs the hospitals, and the hospitals are a shambles, and
too much tax money is being blown on them, the people can get pissed off at
the government and punish it for its underperformance by booting it out of
office.

If the hospitals are run by corporations, and the hospitals are a shambles,
and the insurance premiums being charged for access to the hospitals are too
high, the people can do what... buy shares in Mayne to gain the right to
vote at the AGM to sack the board of directors?

Government has a fundamental incentive to make hospitals and universities
work efficiently. If they waste money, they have to increase taxes, and if
they increase taxes, they piss off the public and lose power. A corporation
in the same position doesn't. It finds its operations are inefficient, it
just shrugs its shoulders and charges more for the service it provides...

But, pipes up the economic rationalist in the front row, if the corporation
does that, people will just vote with their wallets and give their business
to the corporation's competitors... basic market forces at work, surely.

Yeah, right. That might work when a kebab shop charges $5.50 for a kebab,
the one next door charges $5.00, and the dude on the street isn't feeling
that peckish to begin with. What's that dude to do when it comes to health
care and education? Never get sick? Make peace with the fact that he'll
remain stupid for the rest of his life and learn to enjoy it?

When it comes to essential, as opposed to frivolous, services, whoever
provides them has a gun to the society's head. People either pay, or they're
fucked. Corporations know this, and that's why they lobby so hard to be
allowed to build 8-lane tollways, run hospitals, provide third-party
personal injury motor vehicle insurance...

Little wonder I want to put my foot through the tv every time I see Howard
utter the word "choice"... again, and cunts buy it...

 

Not even trying I just answered your question as you put it
As for everything else you wrote I agree wholeheartedly but until that
comes about Ill have to stick with the current system.
(user pays sucks)

--
KiwiPete's philosophy as quoted
Glad to bring mirth!
Actually truth be known I don't dislike Clem... or Theo or Paulh or even
Nev... well maybe Nev... its just that we don't have a huge amount in common
and tend to all fly off!

 

In another place, there's a thread on the terrible consequences of
(in the USA) Gypsie/Traveller patients doing a bunk on their hospital
bills. Shock! Horror! A poor person ducks out on a medical bill!

For me, it's a simple "high-tax high-service" or "low-tax low-service"
government model. The current "high-tax low-service" model doesn't
make any sense at all.

-----sharks

 

Can you explain that to me without ascii?
Last time I worked it out it was cheaper to pay the surcharge.
What did I do wrong?
Clem

 

This is the argument that the health insurance ads all use but they carefully avoid that if you want
"elective" surgery you can still have it if you "elect" to pay for it.
Save your monthly fees and in the extremely unlikely chance that you need a knee reconstruction just pay for
it.
You'll be WAAAAY ahead!
Clem