Comments on: Medicare should be like HECS

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:18:00 +0000

Ross Gittens likes my idea so much he borrowed it:-

http://business.smh.com.au/business/health-credit-card-fits-the-bill-20090721-dryy.html?page=-1

By: I don’t want private health insurance « Thoughts on Freedom

I don’t want private health insurance « Thoughts on Freedom — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:55:44 +0000

[...] If we must mandate a method of payment for healthcare under a system with less public sector provision then we should use some methodology similar to HECS. And yes I know that I’m guilty of repetition having essentially said this all before. [...]

By: ADM

ADM — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:25 +0000

Terje, it may not have been clear in the previous post – at this point in history, I agree.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:00:20 +0000

Dear ADM, At one time, Sweden was held up as a shining light of a workingman’s utopia. For most of that time, their welfare state was not funded by the Government, and was not open-ended. Then (perhaps some nice hippies gave them something dodgy to smoke) they altered the system that had worked so well, and had been self-funding. Since swedes were not now paying for their own insurance, they turned the system into a typical European dole scheme. Now they want to change it, but don’t know how!
The moral of the story is- all insurance schemes should be self-funding, and have no financial imput from the Govmint.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:59:41 +0000

ADM – I do not share your optimism that libertarianism is the most likely offspring of financial ruin. Not even a little bit.

By: ADM

ADM — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:19:39 +0000

Hi Mark

I have no idea on whether it may or may not be cheaper, I really haven’t put that amount of thought into the matter as yet… To be honest, I would probably need to see more research done before the extra time spent thinking about this becomes worth my while.

Re your “weaned off welfare” comment – I am not convinced! If we were to crumble under economic mismanagement, then the opportunity to create a minimalist society from scratch might ultimately allow us to reach that society sooner than a gradual weaning process.

Of course, I concede that it might also allow other, not so like-minded folk with the opportunity to create a fully interventionist kind of society…

*Insert the Imperial March here*

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:57:13 +0000

ADM – It’s a shame you haven’t written here earlier.

I share the same concerns as you do. But one upside is that the present system is so inefficient in subsidising losses, as opposed to funding optional insurance and other costs, this may well be cheaper…and ultimately user pays.

I’d rather see us weened off churn and welfare than have us crumble under economic mismanagement.

By: ADM

ADM — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:57:33 +0000

Afternoon all,

My first post here and the excitement is killing me…

The key issue here, for mine, is the taxation burden under this new scenario. If current income tax is reduced by an amount (more or less) proportionate to my share of maintaining Medicare, I will jumpt at the chance.

Otherwise, I am happy to let everybody exploit their Medicare benefits and (eventually) watch the whole welfare system crumble down under it’s own weight!

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:51:19 +0000

In terms of selling such a reform the politics would be easier if you skip option 1. Of course unless you limit HECS style deferment so it only covers the medicare scheduled fee (ie not the gap) then you would risk a budget blowout. I’d suggest that retaining the schedule may be easier than integrating a voucher scheme. Presumably a voucher scheme would be very genereous for the naturally health individual and rather spartan for the naturally unhealthy individual. The other option, although crude, would be to retain the existing principle of free medical care for children and those over 65. That way you would have a market setting prices for the bulk of the population and a benchmark for setting the schedule for the government sponsored remainder.

I’d agree that any debt remaining after death should be paid for from the estate, although I also see a risk that this may create some perverse incentives for the relatives.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:06:10 +0000

Terje,

What about the following changes?

1. A voucher system for those who cannot possibly repay the potentially unlimited costs?

2. If we change to a consumption tax, still use a HECS system to garnishee wages

3. As an alternative to 1., using 2. to garnishee estates on death.

4. As others have suggested, tapping superannuation etc.