Necessity of Private Health Insurance?

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the money/budgeting section or health thread.

DH and I are reviewing our finances and have decided that we need to 'trim' our budget. This is probably a rather complex question, but I am just wondering what other people's views are on the necessity of private health insurance? We have had a basic level of private health cover for the past few years which includes some extras for chiro, naturopathy etc, but are starting to wonder just how necessary it is?
Some facts I've been considering are;
We chose midwifery-led care for both our boys births via the public system and don't plan to deviate from this for any future births.
Private health can only ensure you may receive faster service for non-life threatening illness or injury. Therefore, if something serious such as a car accident or cancer rears its ugly head, the public health system foots the bill for treatment anyway...
DH and I (and kids) live a very healthy lifestyle - don't smoke, drink sparingly, eat natural organic foods, use chemical-free products, keep fit etc etc, so statistically speaking our risk rate is low. However these lifestyle choices are only more likely to prevent illness that the public system takes care of anyway. They will not prevent a non-life threatening injury that health insurance would cover (ie - knee operation).
I know our western society endorses the view that it is irresponsible to not have private health cover, but to date I cannot really say that we have felt the benefits, at least not in relation to the hundred or so $$ that we are forking out each month.

If anyone is happy to argue the whys and why-nots for having private health cover, and what you have chosen to do, I would be glad to hear it.

Cheers!

Depending on income it can reduce your tax if you are in a certain bracket that pays more levy on medicare.

:

---

Depending on income it can reduce your tax if you are in a certain bracket that pays more levy on medicare.

---

This is a good reason!

Now we are coming to realise why it is a good idea to have it besides the luxury of birthing in a private hospital. 4 little mouths full of teeth that will need checkups and possibly orthadontic work if they take after their father are making extras cover very appealing right now lol.

Another reason to think about keeping it is that while you are fit, you could stand in a pothole or fall off your bike and you might need "elective" surgery for a resulting injury. Someone I recently met decided to self fund her knee reconstruction because she didn't want to wait for 18 months on the public waiting list and it cost her $8k! She has PHI now ;)

It really comes down to personal preference. I for one wouldn't be without it, to us it is as essential as car and house insurance.. But there are plenty of others who will argue that it isn't necessary.

At the moment (except for having both babies privately), we haven't used the equivalent to what we have paid, but both DH and I have not paid to go to the dentist twice a year for the last 4 years, I paid $20 for 2 pairs of glasses a few months ago. I have wisdom teeth that need to be removed, but I am able to wait till it suits me, and my family to help with the kids if I require it. (they aren't causing any pain, but are there). So for us, I would say it comes down to freedom of doing things when it suits us vs having to wait, and then maybe being called up when it doesn't suit.

we've been tossing up the same question due to the additional costs involved in being in PHI. Not only are we paying for the insurance, but we still have to pay quite large private fees anyway. Before we had PHI, my DS1 needed to have a small operation. I was told by the specialist that I could go on a waiting list, or I could simply pay the fees involved directly to the doctors at the childrens hospital. I took the option of paying for the operation to be done immediately and the cost was around $1500 for the theatre, anesethesist (sp?), pediatric surgeon & medications and followup visits afterwards. So not having PHI does not mean you CANT get treated immediately for elective surgery....the option is there to pay for it if you dont want to go on waiting list which is pretty much what we are doing with PHI anyway.

We've decided that after this baby (we are not having any more), we will be ditching the hospital cover and keeping the extras cover with our health fund. Teeth, glasses, podiatry etc can be really costly on their own yet these are the things that we seem to use the most (so far) so i feel confident being covered for them and we are willing to pay for non emergencies....and if there is an emergency the public system is there to fall back on.

Maybe get a Mod to link the two threads JB :) Not sure if multiple threads are allowed. I'd probably keep it in finances and budgeting.

We got rid of our hospital insurance last year and now have extras only. I think PHI is definitely worth it for the extras, we can always go to the dentist, physio etc without hesitation and of course ambulance cover but for us hospital was a complete waste of money. DH and I are both young and healthy and DS is a very healthy child.... in the case of an emergency we would be happy to use the public system. Our next baby when ever that may be will probably be born at home and the chances of us needing an elective procedure in hospital is pretty slim so we took the gamble and turfed it.

I thought you had to pay the Medicare levy if you only had the "extras" and not the hospital coverage... seems a very expensive way of doing things... paying the Levy and the premiums for Extras... I could be wrong though...

:

---

I thought you had to pay the Medicare levy if you only had the "extras" and not the hospital coverage... seems a very expensive way of doing things... paying the Levy and the premiums for Extras... I could be wrong though...

---

We will have to pay part of the levy if we only have extras. We should be eligible for a reduction based on our combined taxable income. The levy is usually 1.5% of your taxable income if you are a single person, but it reduces with a spouse and dependents.

We had it before I had dd and she was a premmie with hip dysplasia she needed a lot if after care and the braces were expensive so we got a lot back on extras. She didn't need an op but at one stage they thought she would. So I have kept the phi up, I have used it a lot being preg 3 times in the last 4 years on all sorts of things physio, masssage and naturopath etc.

My sister and I regularly have this argument. I am for PHI and she is all for the public system. The arguments are very similar to what I have read here. One point that she raises is, she can put the $$'s onto her mortgage and then draw it back if she needs something the public system won't cover (elective, etc). This means she is making the money work for her. Whereas I 'lose' the money to the insurance company and only get it back if there is something wrong with me.

My retort is simply this. If my daughter suddenly required emergency surgery, the public system will cover it. But then there is recovery and rehabilitation and future appointments/drugs/specialists etc. My PHI will cover that right now and if I have only paid in, say, $10,000 over the years, and the bills come to $20,000, the insurance company pays the rest. Then, if I have a medical problem straight after that, the insurance company will pay for that too. I'm not out of pocket.

I like to think of PHI in the same way as house insurance. And in 50 years, am I really going to look back and be disappointed that I paid all that money for PHI and was never sick enough to use it?