I think a two-tiered health system is frankly an affront to human dignity. It's not just the idea that the poor in a first world country should suffer second-class medical treatment, and that a doctor should check your wallet before he or she checks your pulse; it's the reality that having a second tier means that the people who make the decisions about the public system - including many voters - don't personally have to rely on it, and thereby have little incentive to make sure it's well-resourced and well-run.
So you'd think I'd be pleased with Labor getting rid of the Medicare surcharge for single people on up to $100,000 a year. After all, it's making the private health insurance companies scream, and that's usually a sign that something's going right.
But I'm not pleased. Because it's actually going to cost the public health system money. What's been scrapped is a source of funding, not a form of expenditure. And that takes money out of the budget, money which should be spent on public hospitals and doctors.
See, there are three ways the Federal government props up the private health system;
- The medicare surcharge - a net source of income for the government, income which can be spent on public health services;
- The Orwellianly*-named "Lifetime Health Cover" (that punishes you for your whole lifetime if you take out private health cover after you're 31) - no specific cost or benefit for the government); and
- The 30% private health rebate, which costs FREAKING BILLIONS of taxpayers' dollars.
So, if you're wanting to wind down the private health system and boost the public one, which of those three would you tackle first?
Might I suggest that, if you had a functioning brain and were being both principled and economically prudent, you'd start by getting rid of the ridiculously expensive 30% rebate, and instead pour those billions into the public hospitals. You'd keep the Medicare surcharge and, if anything, have a second level for people on more than $50,000. To help pay for Medicare and the public system.
Instead, all Labor's done is create more pressure on the public health system whilst simultaneously cutting out a significant part of the funding for it.
That seems counterproductive to me.
PS: While we're on the subject, why does Australia still not have a national dental scheme?
*It's a word now, dammit.
