Why so few incentives to insure?
Please is there someone out there who can explain to me why the people who try and support themselves and their family are more and more being punished for it. my husband and I have paid top cover for ourselves and four sons since we were 18. We are now in our sixties and still paying approx $4300 per year to keep both of us covered. This week my husband has had to have his fifth operation on his leg he injured four years ago. Firstly we were asked by the surgeon to pay $3000 up front for his services and told an adjusted receipt would follow after the surgery for us to claim. From this we are going to be at least $1800 out of pocket. Next the anesthetist wanted $1000 up front and probably be about $600 out of pocket and then excess to the hospital of $565 no rebate applicable.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Can anybody tell me what we get for paying insurance when if I wasn't covered it would not have cost us a cent. Yes he would have been put on a waiting list but just tell me how this system is fair. I know we need more people to be privately covered but where is the incentive to do so.
Jane Nunn , Alfredton
The latest attempt to deflect the truth on Manus
New Guinea MP Ronnie Knight's refuting of Peter Dutton's false claim of asylum seeker misconduct on Manus Island leading to an attack from locals and members of the Navy, leaves me wondering.
Was the lie to draw attention away from the latest damning Senate Report "Serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre" ? The government has finally admitted to the fact that after the rule about people who arrived on boats "never, never, never" being settled in Australia, a portion of those who arrived on the same boats as those sent to Nauru and Manus HAVE been settled in Australia.
These are the lucky people who were never transferred to offshore processing centres, and were gifted a life in Australia by Scott Morrison, when clearing Christmas Island. DIBP provided this proof publicly on Friday afternoon. It's found in the last link here, in questions asked by Greens Senator Nick McKim, in Document 15 and on page 3 - http://www.aph.gov.au/…/NauruandManusR…/Additional_Documents
1414 people who arrived after the July 19 2013 cut off point now live in Australia on Bridging visas. A third of those who arrived from this date - 1596 were sent to Nauru and 1523 to Manus. Same boats. Same rule. Different, random chance at freedom, safety, and a future. For what purpose were the refugees on Nauru and Manus punished and dehumanised now that the fiction of "stopping the boats" and "if you come by boat you'll never live in Australia?"
You can read the full report, and the 12 recommendations here:http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/NauruandManusRPCs/Report
Cath McDonald, Buninyong
Slippery slope a lot more than a fearful phrase
Last week, Victoria's bishops issued a pastoral letter to the Catholics of Victoria about Euthanasia. They remind us that those places where euthanasia has been legalised have subsequently broadened, step by step, the categories of people eligible to be killed. For example, in Belgium, euthanasia is now legal for children as well as adults. In the Netherlands, people aged over 70 who feel "tired of life" are now eligible. In Belgium, euthanasia may now be legally done on psychological grounds. The "slippery slope" is not a theoretical thing - it's a reality, killing off vulnerable persons every day.
Arnold Jago, Nichols Point
