I was reading something unrelated to NN, yet it summed up why... or at least one of the reasons why, I am so skeptical of it

Many people seem to point to Australia as having a great healthcare system because of the mix between private and public

Just like the UK 👌🏿

thus assuming it has a good balance between 'the big three' (that you supposedly can only have two of), being affordability, quality and accessibility

howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrr

what they don't tell you

Is that the government has bulldozed it's way into private health insurers and how they can provide them to their own customers

Let me find the relevant page on the Gov's DOH website

a'ight.

"Lifetime Health Cover is a Government initiative which was introduced on 1 July 2000, and designed to encourage people to take out hospital insurance earlier in life, and to maintain their cover over their lifetime."

sounds good, right? Get people off of public healthcare and into the private sector, save taxpayer dollars

"What is Lifetime Health Cover?
Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) is a financial loading that can be payable in addition to the base rate premium for your private health insurance hospital cover."

But how does it compel people to get private health?

"How do I avoid paying an **LHC loading**?
To avoid paying a LHC loading, you need to purchase hospital cover by 1 July **following your 31st birthday**. If you purchase hospital cover **after** this date you may be required to **pay a LHC loading** – **2% for each year you are over 30**. The loading is **removed after 10 years** of continuous hospital insurance cover."

wait, *what*?

"For instance, if you **wait until you are 40**, you could be paying an **extra 20% on the cost of your hospital cover**. If you wait until you are **50**, you could pay **40% more**. And so on, up to a maximum of 70% more."

This is for the **next ten years**, btw

but what does this have to do with NN?

"In Australia, **private health insurance is not ‘risk-rated’ like most forms of insurance**. Private health insurers **cannot refuse to insure any person**, and **must charge everyone the same premium for the same level of cover**, despite their risk profile and **likelihood of using health services.**"

Look after yourself?

Eat healthy?

Sleep well?

Don't smoke?

Don't drink?

fuck you, pay the same as the guy who does

What the actual fuck?

That’s retarded

Even if the company would be willing to offer you a better, more appealing deal

they cannot

*E Q U A L I T Y*

Why should you charge the guy who **ABUSES** his body the same as a guy who takes care of himself?

Thanks @Reaps

That just proves liberal college students don’t know jack shit when they open their mouths here

MUH AUSTRALIAN HEALTHCARE

I suppose the argument is "what if there's only one health company that will cover you? Then they'd have a monopoly and charge whatever they want!"

If the government is swooping in and forcing all companies to fix their prices at a set rate, how is that any better than the monopoly?

So because they can’t charge the abuser more because of his risk, they just charge everybody more right ?

Well, that would make business sense

To cover the cost n shieet

Help pay for Peter's broken body with healthy Paul's money

Christ this shit sounds very Soviet