The Intergenerational Report and Health Budgets
This week, the Treasurer Wayne Swan released the 2010 Intergenerational Report. The Report confirms what we’ve known for sometime: Australia’s population is ageing and the percentage of our population aged over 65 years is projected to grow dramatically over the next 40 years.
The ageing of our population means that a smaller proportion of people in the workforce will need to support a larger group of retirees. A big slice of that support will take the form of health and aged care services.
The Rudd Government, and our governments of the future, will need to manage the Budget very carefully to meet this increase in healthcare demands. Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party have demonstrated they’re just not up to that challenge.
During this Parliamentary session, we expect the Liberal Party will again seek to block the Rudd Government’s attempt to introduce a “means test” for the Private Health Insurance rebate. This measure would remove the rebate from households earning more than $240,000 per year.
If passed, the measure will deliver savings to the Federal Budget of some $9 billion over the next decade or $100 billion over the next 40 years - money we could be investing in more beds, more doctors, more nurses to help meet growing demand and provide a better health system for Australians now and into the future.
It is neither fair nor necessary for wealthy Australians to have their private health insurance subsidised by the taxpayer. Our health system has much more important priorities for funding than helping pay the private health insurance bills of those who need financial help least.
Spending on the current rebate is growing quickly. We need to take responsible action to make the most of finite resources.
The claims by the Opposition that this measure would see a mass exodus of people from private health insurance is simply another example of their reliance on crude scare campaigns based on wild exaggerations.
More Australians hold private health insurance today than when the Rudd Government was elected; and those figures have continued to climb since the Government announced its intention to means test the rebate. We estimate that 99.7% of people will maintain their insurance. The Australian Health and Hospitals Association, the Australian Medical Association, and the 2009 IPSOS survey back our prediction of a very low drop out rate. This means the impact on our public health system would be minimal whilst our savings would be huge.
When he was John Howard’s Health Minister for five years, Tony Abbott ripped $1 billion out of Australia’s public hospitals. He now wants to deprive the Federal Budget of billions of dollars in savings that we desperately need to meet growing healthcare costs - and all to keep a tax break in place for households earning more than $240,000 per year.
No-one seems to have
No-one seems to have mentioned our low birth-rate. Shouldn't this discussion include asking why women are delaying having babies until much later than previous generations?
Anybody?
Cheers, Julieanne
Health care reform is a good
Health care reform is a good proposal from the government. Now, we can't be deprived of maximizing health benefits . The White House has just unveiled the Obama health care plan, and to the surprise of none, the public option has been dropped. (Well, perhaps it should have been – our government has already taken out billions in
I agree with most of what's
I agree with most of what's been said above. However, savings on the budget are only part of the answer. What's also needs to be done is to drastically improve the income levels of retirees and pensioners?
So far, the only debate in the government is about making savings or reduce pressure on the budget rather than seeking alternate incomes. Superannuating is most of the answer rather than just bumping up pension amounts every so often. Income outside the budget is the answer. Every encouragement should be given to increasing super savings rather than taxing for low income earners. Short-term government tax income is a poor choice.
It's good to keep high income-earners away from government provided pensions altogether. They have the capacity to generate their own, low income earners don't. No tax should be payable by low income people on a super income. In fact, there should be the possibility of providing a government subsidy if they take out a Superannuation scheme. A subsidy will add to the total income being invested to generate even more income. Fees by private super companies are a rip-off so it pays to encourage pensioners to join schemes that do not charge high fees through a subsidy scheme.
The real debate should be about how to give rise to alternate incomes for people. There's no point wringing our hands over reducing pressure on budget items that keep on eating up greater amounts of government funds if nothing is done. Super will generate more income outside the budget and also provide's additional investment prospects for the national economy. It's tempting for Treasurers to milk super through taxation, but it wastes opportunities.
The last thing is to discuss better re-training options for those with no skills. In today's world no skills effectively mean no jobs. Unskilled labour is a waster of labour and a drain on benefits. The more people we get re-trained the better chances they have of generating both an income and super as well as reducing the pressure on benefits.
Cut Immigration now, cut the
Cut Immigration now, cut the State Government out of the picture now also, saving plenty of money to put elsewhere that is currently needed......
Gettin rid of middle class
Gettin rid of middle class and upper class welfare is a great start. Let's remeber that one of the important purposes of a Labor Govt is to redistribute wealth to the neediest, not the greediest. Paring down the private health rebate is a good start . If people want private health care, they should pay for it themselves. It's a false argument to say they pay the levy so they should get something back. If they are involved in a serious accident they will be sent to a public hospital - that's what they pay the levy for , at a minimum. I prefer to pay the medicare surcharge to help out the public system, and save money for anything not covered by medicare, rather than give $ to private health companies.
As for the whole scaremongering about the impending demographic nightmare; read Ross Gitten's articles in the SMH As he says, it's a furphy- govts just need to raise taxes., and by very little at that. We are one of the lowest taxing countries in the OECD. I've been paying taxes all my workng life and I expected them to cover a liveable pension, no one told me otherwise in the first twenty years I was working. Because of my age bracket (late 40's) and low wages for many years in the community sector, my super is low. I expect to be supported in my old age, not guilt -tripped into working until I drop dead. I absolutely hate this over-emphasis on working forever- I think we need to reclaim our right to have an enjoyable retirement at an age where you can still do things. When I started work I expected to work until I was 60- now it's 67-outrageous!
While it's true that people
While it's true that people on high incomes don't need health rebates like those on lower incomes, it's also true that the high income earners have contributed most to the system. It's a bit of a slap in their faces not to get something back. The amount could be reduced, but to cut out the whole rebate would be unfair, given their contribution.
The government needs to look at other ways in which it can reduce the need for increased income too eg, by trimming or eliminating existing programs or working more efficiently.
Think how much we'd save if we got rid of excessive government in Australia eg, eliminated State Governments.
We should look outside the box.
I certainly agree that the
I certainly agree that the private health insurance rebate should be means tested. That money could be better invested in our health system. With the costs of health care increasing to the point where it will account for entire state budgets every dollar is precious and cannot be wasted by providing rebates to people that do not need them.
Lets all realise that the
Lets all realise that the report is covering every born before 1985. Yes it is a problem that needs longterm solution. but also lets realise that most citizens born after 1970 will have largely funbed most of their retirement by having a full lifetime of superannuation contributions. With this generation there will need to be an added incentive to turn that superanuation nest egg into a continueing lifetime pension with a smaller lumpsum amount available. this can be done by a carrot and stick approach. For example by taxing lumpsum amounts over what is owed by the recipient in relation to household debt could be the stick. The carrot would be ensuring all lifetime pension (superannuation) recipients have much greater benefits in relation to health, car rego etc.
Sadly most of us baby boomers will have to rely on the age pension. For example I receive a DRFDB superannuation pension but my wife has only worked in casual work since her return to the workforce in 1988 so has only acrrued some 16000 in superannuation.
yes the pressure on society is there but the biggest burden will be supporting mainly those born before 1970
"The claims by the Opposition
"The claims by the Opposition that this measure would see a mass exodus of people from private health insurance is simply another example of their reliance on crude scare campaigns based on wild exaggerations. "
I think I'll just say that if you don't think that Australians who have Private Health insurance should have a rebate, then fine. But if I pay for private health insurance, why should I also pay the medicare levy? Why should Ipay both? and that is the reason why people will leave Private Health.
because one pays for
because one pays for hospital and doctors the others for extras.
Private" is Dental, X ray, Physiotherapy, eyes, re glasses.
some pharmaceuticals over 30 dollars.
Also some extra hospital charges re surgery.
I want to see the means testing of the rebate ( which the liberals would not pass in the senate) because this will give the government enough cash o then
put Dental in to medicare Dentists charge outrageously.
last two filling i had a only received a 10th of the cost back from my fund.
I also have Private health
I also have Private health cover and I don't mind paying the Medicare Levy one bit. If I have a serious accident, I bet I'll end up in a public emergency ward. I also think it beneficial to have a good and robust health system, that despite its faults, is accessible by all.
The thing that does worry me
The thing that does worry me is dental, to continue to enjoy ones life and be in good health, we need good teeth. I have been told by my dentist i need caps etc
or my teeth will not be in good working order over the next 10 years. these are of course very expensive 1700 dollars per cap. Which is out of our reach the private cover pays very little of this.
The soon dental comes under medicare the better even if you would consider it for older people.
As the dentist said this is the first generation who will have teeth filled etc in to perhaps their 80's.
The fact that the government
The fact that the government realises the issues facing australia in terms of healthcare over the next 50 years is a breath of fresh air.
We need to realise that the size of our ageing population is only going to get larger and we need to plan ahead to fund the hospital systems, in order to cope with the increasing demand.
Means-testing the private health insurance rebate is logical and should have been put in place when the rebate was introduced. Taxpayers DO NOT need to be funding private health insurance for households that earn over $240,000 per annum. Admittedly we need private health insurance to help fund the public system but those that can easily afford it SHOULD pay. Its a great policy!
The Intergeneratonal report
The Intergeneratonal report is about a concerning problem to do with population expansion. I havent read the whole report yet, or looked through in detail but I think the figures were that basically for ever 5 persons they will be supporting 2 older people.This'll obviously put pressure on our living standards and those working as well as our economy in the years to come.
Share With
Hot Topics
Abbott Business Climate Change CPRS Defence Economy Education Employment Environment Families Health Health Reform Housing Indigenous Industry Infrastructure Innovation Jobs Kevin Rudd NHHN Reform Research Rudd Government Schools Skills Tax Trade Veterans Water Women