Message from @Reaps
Discord ID: 388709886126718976
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?
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
Price fixing