Don’t Waste Money on Private Health Fund - Morgan Stanley Report

Are you going to ditch your health fund next year ?

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/is-the-public-hea...

Paywalled article, please google the title “Is the public health system so good you don’t actually need private insurance?”

Thanks tsunamisurfer

Poll Options

  • 31
    Yes
  • 263
    No
  • 331
    I don’t have private health insurance
  • 14
    My employer pays my health insurance

Comments

  • +7 votes

    Hi there

    Unfortunately your link appears to be a member only article, so noone is able to read it :(

    • +64 votes

      Don’t Waste Money on Daily Telegraph - BensonP

      • +18 votes

        Why would you want to pay for fake news? ;)

        • +1 vote

          and have the evil cognoscenti taking over the world with tools like fake news and constant undisclosed surveillance sell your qualified PII and news preferences to anyone who wants to influence your vote

        •  

          Can't you get it free with state library account?

    • +6 votes

      Just copy the link, open up google in incognito mode, paste in the link then open the first search result. Bypasses paywall for most new sites.

  •  

    Recently, I had to rush to the emergency ward at a public hospital. The queue was long, and I waited 2 hours before being attended to. If I had private insurance, would I be able to jump the queue, even in a private hospital? If not, besides covering for hospital admission, what is private insurance for?

    • +90 votes

      Paying for private health doesn't get you to the front of the queue in emergency lol
      I'm going to assume the wait time to be attended to depends on the issue/injury and your situation (while not wanting to downplay any pain or discomfort you were in) must not have been significantly life threatening enough for them to put you as top priority given other patients

      • +17 votes

        I work in hospital this is true

      •  

        does private hospital have a shorter queue?

        • -3 votes

          You don't go to a private hospital for emergency situations. You go to private hospitals for elective surgeries. You cannot use your health fund in government emergency ward. You can opt to be admitted as a private patient but the hospital will overcharge you for EVERYTHING.

        • +2 votes

          @doodo477: not true. getting billed as a private patient in the public hospital is usually gap free as some hospitals pay yr gap n give you free tv

        •  

          @doodo477: If you elect to be in a public hospital as a private patient, do you get any perks that public patients don't? You still have to pay hospital fees or an excess don't you, while public patients pay nothing?

        • +1 vote

          @lostn: As a private patient you have the choice of you're surgeon or doctor. The emergency department will over-charge for everything above the MBS fee. All of the health insurance plans I've read all have it it in bold text they don't cover you as a private patent in a emergency ward. If you head over and read the Health Insurance Ombudsman report its a growing trend for public hospitals to convince patients who present themselves to emergency wards to admit as private patients.

        • +1 vote

          @lostn: You get a gratitude note for helping the hospital save some money which goes to research. Source: myself just a while ago

        •  

          @doodo477: So in a public hospital as a private patient (it would only be for elective surgeries right?) can you skip the queue that normal public patients go through?

      • +2 votes

        remember there is private emergency departments, you just walk straight in a see an emergency doctor.

        •  

          Not many though. Most private hospitals have big "NO EMERGENCY" signs out front.

    • +20 votes

      what is private insurance for?

      Less waiting time for elective surgeries. Better service and usually better facilities. The nurses and doctors treat you like gods at private hospitals and in private rooms in public hospitals. You also get access to a lot of different types of services that would otherwise cost money.

      There are generally less people in emergency departments in private hospitals, so yeah.

      • +15 votes

        Private insurance only pays so much.

        Most private hospitals in Sydney will still take $300-400 from your pocket just from being seen in private ED….. + your private + whatever is not covered

        •  

          Yeah true. There is an upfront cost.

        • +1 vote

          @smuggler: but I think thats once/year/hospital?

        • +2 votes

          @chenrenchun: How often do you have to go to the ED?

        •  

          @chenrenchun:

          you are referring to insurance?
          as far as I know the hospital charge is per visit

      •  

        Less waiting time for elective surgeries.

        what are the benefits for someone or a couple that is healthy?

        • +7 votes

          They experience less of a wait if they require elective surgery. Plus they can pick their surgeon.

        • +2 votes

          @Dozingquinn:

          They experience less of a wait if they require elective surgery. Plus they can pick their surgeon.

          so there are no benefits for healthy people.

        • +56 votes

          so there are no benefits for healthy people

          Do you have home insurance?
          do you need it if your house is not on fire?

        • -1 vote

          @TightBottom:

          Do you have home insurance?

          no.

        • +3 votes

          @TightBottom:

          do you need it if your house is not on fire?

          the most important "thing" in our house is the data on thumb drives/micro sd. it can't be insured, only backed up.

        • +2 votes

          What about the actual house structure?

        • +2 votes

          @TightBottom:

          What about the actual house structure?

          we're not to worried about that. property/structure fires in nsw has been declining in the past five years. there is a ~0.00105% chance that our property could be affected by fire.
          https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/gallery/files/pdf/annual_reports...

          the chance of getting injured in a vehicle collision is ~200% compared that.
          http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/dynamic/nsw.... the data for collisions doesn't include collisions where a vehicle "kiss" another in the rear.

          yes, we've comprehensive insurance.

        •  

          @TightBottom: yes, in a flood.

        • +58 votes

          @whooah1979: Can't walk by stats without making a comment:

          On the fire stats, I think you forgot to multiply by 100; it's 0.1%. But that's the statistic for every year, so it's also incorrect to say that it's the chance your property would be affected by fire given its only for a one year time period.

          Also, I'm assuming you're comparing it to comprehensive insurance because you're asserting that's better value and/or more useful. While the likelihood of incident in home insurance is far lower, the payout amount is significantly higher and the cost lower. That is, it's a rarer event with a far more devastating affect on your financial situation, but all of this is factored into the price. People can usually self insure for comprehensive insurance, but few could do the same for home.

          If you're enough of a gambler to ignore home insurance, then you should probably ignore comprehensive as well. The higher price means you're expected to lose more money paying the premiums on comprehensive than home insurance over any period of time, and could better handle the financial loss if something did happen.

          But for what it's worth, as an actuary with a good understanding of the insurance market, I have home insurance and non-comprehensive insurance. The point of insurance is to avoid the risk of rare but costly events, and home insurance does that better.

          You may now proceed to tell me how everything I said is wrong somehow and continue doing whatever you like.

        • +27 votes

          @sparkanum:
          This is a great comment.
          Insurance is meant to distribute risk for catastrophic losses that occur infrequently.
          Building insurance for a fire is a good example.
          Medicare level health insurance is another.

          Private health insurance that covers a fraction of expenses up to a limit is basically the opposite of insurance - it is a payment plan where you pay a set fee each month that results in a discount on your bill. Sometimes, that discount will be more than the payment plan, but rarely of the PHI companies would be out of business.

          I have comprehensive car insurance (it was less than $100 a year more than a 3rd party policy for my old car with high excess) because a stolen car or write off would be a tedious lump sum expense I would rather not have to incur if I am unlucky enough to need it. Similarly, if I had a car under finance, I would likely insure it, as that suggests a high capital cost for the vehicle.

          As it happens, I also have private health insurance, due to being fortunate enough to earn an income that I have penalties if I don't.
          I have never claimed on it (although when I have had extras cover, I have claimed on that), although I suppose I might one day need to. I would be much happier if the government stopped paying a subsidy, directed the saved money to Medicare, and allowed me to drop private insurance without penalty. Should I want the 'benefits' of a fancier room and choice of doctor, I can choose to have them, but subsidising and penalising people to hold this costly luxury insurance is silly.

        • +1 vote

          Wisdom tooth, pregnancy related, spectacles, massages, etc depending on what's covered by your insurance.

          Let's put it this way, accident happens. If you can be so sure of something, can you choose to not get insurance. Just don't complain when the unexpected, happens.

        • +2 votes

          @whooah1979:
          No one knows exactly the words "healthy people. ". Today you may look healthy , tomorrow you may not ,especially if you are over 50.

        • +53 votes

          I was "healthy" until a small tumour appeared in my brain.

          The headaches were unbearable and the tumour could have made me blind but the condition wasn't deemed life threatening. So I was going to be put in a waiting list that was at least 9 months long.

          In the meantime I would have had to live in a bed taking opiates.

          Up until we mentioned that we had private health insurance.

          I got a procedure done within 4 weeks at St Vincent private. Yes I was still out of pocket for a few thousand dollars, but I had three specialist seeing me.

          After I was discharged something went wrong with my sodium levels and I ended up in intensive care again, the ambulance to the local hospital and then to St Vincent were all covered as well as the two days of intensive care and the extra hospital stay.

          It is a terrible thing to say but private hospitals have nicer rooms and are better staffed as well.

          Just before this happened I was thinking about ditching the private health insurance because we were healthy.

        • +3 votes

          @whooah1979: I bet you have 2 cars and no third party insurance either.

        • +4 votes

          @mskeggs: I cannot agree that building insurance for a fire is analogous to Medicare level health insurance.

          Medicare provides a level of insurance for practically every medical episode that comes along … from the catastrophic to those seeking a medical certificate for a hangover.

        • +6 votes

          @munecito:
          "It is a terrible thing to say but private hospitals have nicer rooms and are better staffed as well."

          I can't agree - I've had the experience of multiple colonoscopies via the public system, and two via a private clinic; in the former the operating theatre was bigger, better equipped, cleaner, and there was more staff on hand. Last week I had the experience of ambulance -> emergency -> resuscitation room -> cubicle and critical care unit for three days (suspected heart attack, turned out to be 'only' hear inflammation) via the public system and I couldn't have asked for anything better by way of care, doctors, nurses, tests and treatment. Maybe I got lucky, but in my experience (and I have some tales by way of comparison in a EU-based system) Australia's public system is pretty good.

          Hope you are on the mend there too!

        • +2 votes

          @mskeggs: "Private health insurance that covers a fraction of expenses up to a limit is basically the opposite of insurance - it is a payment plan where you pay a set fee each month that results in a discount on your bill. Sometimes, that discount will be more than the payment plan, but rarely of the PHI companies would be out of business."

          That is true for extras cover, but not hospital. Given hospital is community rated, if you are in a higher risk bracket - eg. older, sicker, have a history of family illness etc, then if you can afford it hospital cover is a no-brainer. You are being subsidised by lower risk members of the population.

          As you suggest, extras cover is different altogether. It's more of a payment plan or a deep discount rather than true insurance. The reason health insurers promote it so heavily is a reflection of how profitable it is for them.

        • +10 votes

          @whooah1979:

          so there are no benefits for healthy people.

          You seem to not understand the concept of insurance.

        • +4 votes

          @cameldownunder:

          @whooah1979: I bet you have 2 cars and no third party insurance either.

          No benefits for people who don't get into car accidents. Duh.

        •  

          @TightBottom:

          But in this case the public system provides coverage?

        • +2 votes

          @whooah1979: Honestly - please reassess covering your home
          For most people the loss of the primary residence is a financial blow that they would NEVER recover from
          Skip Contents if you must, Shop around for cheap premium (except Budget and Commbank) and take a high excess (but be sure you get an appropriate saving)
          The insurer assists you to clean up and rebuild
          Even a lesser claim like storm damage, leaking pipe or theft can mean that the insurance pays for itself whilst still keeping you safe from that catastrophic fire etc

          Insurance is not cheap but it's worth it for the piece of mind
          I hope no one ever needs it but if someone doesn't have insurance I won't be chipping in for them as charity

        •  

          @munecito:

          no offence, you either didnt need it straight away, OR you should have got a second opinion. perhaps even from a private doctor out of pocket.

        • +1 vote

          @Noblejoker: Heh, I was joking further up, but I guess @whooah1979 really actually doesn't understand the concept of insurance.

          But no worries, some bleeding-heart will chip in if their house ever burns down, never mind that everyone else did the responsible thing and paid for insurance for years and years.

        • +2 votes

          @mskeggs:

          Should I want the 'benefits' of a fancier room and choice of doctor, I can choose to have them, but subsidising and penalising people to hold this costly luxury insurance is silly.

          The problem is that public healthcare in a democratic/capitalist society is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma unless you go full socialist.

          The government knows that it can't possibly turn away people from public hospitals when they need emergency or essential care.

          The government also knows that preventative care is far less expensive (and better for both individuals and society) than treatment at ER.

          But the government cannot provide preventative and elective healthcare for free because that would be a budgetary black hole.

          And lastly, the government knows that most people are short-sighted and since preventative care is elective and paid out of pocket, but essential and emergency care is free, there exist perverse incentives to NOT seek healthcare (and so incur costs) until they become emergencies.

          Ergo the government incentivises people by making it so that either they pay for private health insurance that will provide preventative healthcare for no extra cost, or they will have to pay the same amount anyway for nothing in return.

        • +1 vote

          @0blivion: Go and whinge in public, and open a CrowdFunding. Who needs insurance
          As seen by so many reports of people getting injured abroad, without insurance.

        • +2 votes

          @Seraphin7:
          Fair point, I was approaching the issue from the other direction.
          I also agree we should be improving Medicare, not sending literally billions of dollars off to subsidise private health.

        •  

          @TightBottom:

          Do you have 2 Home Insurance Policies is what you mean… Cauce that's the only way your analogy is relevant to Health Cover in Australia.
          We all have Health Insurance through the Public Medical system. If you have Private Cover it is a secondary Insurance to the Public cover.

        • +3 votes

          I regret having a joint private health policy with my partner. $400 excess per person on our policy. I got surgery done on a broken finger and had to pay the joint $800 excess as we're on the same policy. On top of that the consulting fees were non-refundable. There's no private health rebate on x-rays done in the private hospital (medicare covers a small portion). Medicare covered 1/2 the surgery fee, but private health didn't cover any of the surgery as I wasn't an "in-patient". The only thing private health did cover was some of the anaesthetist's bill, and about 60-70% of each physio appointment.

          The moment the private hospital hand physio told me that the finger was broken and needed surgery I should've walked out of North Shore Private and into Royal North Shore Public A&E. I would've seen the same surgeon, but on a different day. Would've cost $0. Who cares about a private room with an 11" TV 3 meters away when you're in for a short time? Lesson learned. Never again will I make the mistake of getting ushered through the private system if public is an option. I should've known better. They're also meant to outline your options - they definitely didn't.

          I do see the benefit of private health insurance when it comes to claiming dental treatments because dental treatment in this country is ludicrously expensive. At the minimum I will switch policy so my hospital excess is disconnected from my partner's hospital excess. My first experience of using Private Health has left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm leaning towards cancelling private health insurance altogether.

          My injury was minor in the grand scheme of things. I feel sorry for the folk that develop serious medical conditions and have been paying their private health premiums for decades. Too often people rack up huge medical bills for having the "audacity" to use it when they need it most. In my opinion it's an absolute rort.

        •  

          @scubacoles:

          Do you have 2 Home Insurance Policies is what you mean… Cauce that's the only way your analogy is relevant to Health Cover in Australia.

          Actually, yes.

          2 Home policies, one is for my house, one is for my home contents.

          You can argue they insure different things. But public and private health insurance insure different things as well.

          If you need dental treatment, pregnancy, optical treatment, chiros, physios, massages, these are not covered (or only to a certain extent on public insurance) but mostly are covered in your private insurance.

        • +1 vote

          @Symbiotic:

          You might need to change PHI… I have rarely heard of that excesses are paid by per person rata and where you have to pay for 2 people's excess if only 1 person is being treated is simply insane and unheard of..

          Might want to shop around for a new and better one.

          Most PHI I know have excesses on per incident/treatment..

        •  

          @ssyl9:
          Public Vs Private Hospital Cover is the topic.
          Private Hospital is a second level of insurance over the Public Insurance we already have.

          Your list is covered by Extras cover (ie a third Insurance Policy), not Hospital Cover, with the exception of Pregnancy, but that is most definitely fully covered by the Public system.

        •  

          @ssyl9: Yes I think you’re right. Seems very odd. When I quizzed them about it on the phone they said “if your partner has to go into a private health hospital there won’t be any further charges this financial year” . What a selling point. That’s with Defence Health. To be honest I think I’ll just bin it and bank that cash for any future medical emergencies.

        •  

          @whooah1979: do you rent?

        • -1 vote

          @scubacoles:

          Anyone that has been in a public and private hospital can truly see the difference of what you get.

          While I agree there is simply no point to get PHI solely for hospital cover or get PHI if you don't have the spare dollars, Comparing public hospital treatment and private hospital treatment is like comparing a free lunch in the community church to a dinner in a good restaurant.

          The horror stories I witnessed for giving birth in public hospitals (only few cases, there are good cases as well) makes me ensure my wife is well insured to be in private cover if she gets pregnant.

        • +1 vote

          @ssyl9:

          You keep moving the goal posts… My point is that you still "get a lunch".

          TightBottom's comment;

          Do you have home insurance?
          do you need it if your house is not on fire?

          indicated you wouldn't "get a lunch". I was pointing out that the analogy is not remotely accurate.

          PS: 2 fantastic Public Hospital birth and Anti-natal experiences here. And neither were straightforward..
          The only difference I saw from friends and family Public experiences was that they got carpet on the floor, a couple of nights in a hotel and a bunch of hefty invoices (on top of the hefty Premiums).

        •  

          @whooah1979:

          If you're the sort of healthy person who not only never gets sick but also never suffers an injury through sport, accident etc then there probably isn't.

        •  

          My partner and I spent 5 days in a private suite for the birth of our first daughter, over the weekend. Fully catered, queen bed, round the clock assistance, doctors appointments and pathology tests.

          $220 out of pocket.

        •  

          @TightBottom: Make the analogy accurate at least: Your house get insurance provided by the government, it just takes a while for your house to be compensated if it does burn down. If you get private home insurance and your house burns down you get told you weren't covered because theres a clause that says you had to be a member for 12 months before being covered. You end up waiting for the government insurance anyway.

        •  

          @scubacoles: That's incorrect. That's like saying - we have a public welfare system so none of us should buy income protection.

          One is a welfare net - the other is insurance.

        •  

          @0blivion:

          The Welfare system is a form of Insurance just as Medicare is a form of Insurance. What makes you think otherwise?

          And I never stated nor will I ever state that nobody should buy insurance of any sort.
          Buying insurance is an evaluation of Risk against Loss. That equation is different for everyone.

          If you have PHI, it matters not to me. Good on you!

        •  

          @scubacoles:

          The Welfare system is a form of Insurance just as Medicare is a form of Insurance. What makes you think otherwise?

          The onus is really on you to show why Welfare is a form of insurance. It's not, welfare is welfare.

          They serve different purposes: Insurance is to spread risk and make sure you do NOT lose out from certain events. Welfare is a minimal safety net that provides a floor of living standards.

          In your analogy, public transport would be a form of car insurance.

        •  

          @scubacoles:

          Again, I was replying to your:

          Do you have 2 Home Insurance Policies is what you mean… Cauce that's the only way your analogy is relevant to Health Cover in Australia.

          Which is a yes. Home/Home contents insurance.

          For the example:

          public health cover = Home insurance

          Private = Home contents insurance

          Of course you still "get a lunch" with only home insurance, but you lose your contents.

          Of course you can get by with only public health insurance but you lose some of the benefits (better service, more preventative treatments etc)

          Good for you and your good public heath experience. I too have friends that have fantastic experiences from the public sector. But I also have heard of many bad experiences, where I rarely or even never heard of bad experiences in private hospitals. However this is only my personal experience.

        •  

          @0blivion:
          Here's the definition of Insurance
          https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3AInsurance&oq=def...

          a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

          What does Welfare do but exactly that?

          The only difference between Welfare and Income Protection or Medicare and PHI is that we pay Premiums to the Government in the form of taxation versus Premiums to a corporation, and the level of cover provided.

          Car Insurance is designed to protect you from the the costs of repair to your or other's cars in the event of a crash.
          Public Transport does not cover you against the costs of repair to your vehicle and therefore is not analagous to Car Insurance.

        • +1 vote

          @munecito: I think your GP should have pushed harder to get you up the waiting list - the symptoms you have mentioned are not aligned with a 9 month waiting list. If your only option was really "living in a bed taking opiates" there is absolutely no way in any Australian public health system that you would have waited 9 months.

          For instance, this often occurring example: a gall bladder patient may be put on a 9-18 month waiting list. But if they start experiencing issues with mobility, work, day-to-day functionality or some other critical issues, they will be seen as soon as days/weeks publicly. Its all managed in a common sense way, so long as they are reporting their up-to-date symptoms to their GP and the GP is following the normal procedures.

          My mum was put on a 12 month list for a condition and within a week was experiencing enough pain walking down the 2 flights of stairs from her unit that she stopped leaving. You can't like like that, so we went back to the GP and was operated on 3 weeks later. Very similar story with a friend who couldn't get through more than a few hours of work without debilitating pain.

          It's not a perfect system, but it seems to work well in most cases, if you have a decent GP.

        •  

          @mskeggs: When they make Private health insurance real insurance eg.. Pay for the gap, and the whole procedure then I will consider it.

        •  

          @0blivion:

          While your reasoning is sound, your conclusion is not.
          The cost to subsidise 30% of every PHI bill in order to give a thimble full of preventative healthcare to people who would be very likely to pay for it anyway, were it not subsidised, is not reasonable.
          It costs thousands of millions of dollars to subsidise PHI each year.
          We could divert that money to improving Medicare preventative medicine, for example, and deliver staggeringly better outcomes, without having to subsidise the profits of private hospitals and insurers.

          Public healthcare does not require full socialism. Quality healthcare is already routinely delivered to almost everybody in Australia. Some extra funding would be welcome to improve it further.
          Welfare to the wealthy in the form of PHI subsidies is poor value and ethically dubious.

        •  

          @swen83: Your PHI only cost $220?

        •  

          Hospital only cover
          Extras only cover
          Both

          https://membersown.com.au/couples-health-insurance.html

        • +1 vote

          @whooah1979: Imagine if you slipped a disc in your back. It's pushing on your sciatic nerve leaving you in debilitating constant pain. You have a 9 month wait for surgery without health insurance. You might only have a couple of weeks wait with it.

        •  

          @Soluble: no, our out of pocket expenses were 220. Total cost of visit and tests was just under 7k, our annual cover is about 4.5. This is before considering dental, optical and assorted extra's we've used.

          But at the end of the day, my primary drive to get private health was a terrible experience I had in the public system when I broke my ankle. If I can afford private for my family, I will always have it.

      • +4 votes

        My experience with private hospital service hasn't been great like you suggested unfortunately. Private hospital does not equal superior service to public

      • +2 votes

        As a doctor, outside of elective surgeries, I would never use a private hospital. I've worked in them, they are horrible places for patients that need acute care.

      •  

        to make u feel more important than the plebs in this materialistic shallow existence.

      •  

        If you have a serious medical problem private cover will get you a single room in a public hospital if one is available. (Worth it imo if you are spending weeks per year in a hospital).

        Interestingly, if you have an accident and are awarded compensation or if you claim medical bills on other insurance you might have then……usually the private health provider can claim that compensation or insurance paid from either you or the compensators/insurers.

    •  

      Having private cover doesn't change your triage category. If they're busy as well you'd be waiting just as long. Also your private cover doesn't usually pay for private emergency, there's always a significant out of pocket expense.
      Personally I would pretty much never go to a private ED for any serious issue even with my private cover. Go to a better staffed public hospital and transfer privately when you're stable enough for it.
      Private EDs are for issues too embarrassing for me to go publicly where I'll be treated by friends.

    • +6 votes

      Stay happy, the TRIAGE system in place at your public hospital decided your case was not urgent. No amount of private insurance would alter your priority at all. Lucky us, money doesn't buy priority - your medical condition does.

      We have a private hospital near us, their emergency ward costs are hundreds of dollars.

      Your public hospital has access to the best / highly motivated medical staff around.

      Private insurance in this case is money down the drain.

    •  

      Private hospitals tend to have no queues in their emergency departments… Though private hospitals with ED are quite rare.

      • +1 vote

        Though private hospitals with ED are quite rare.

        Not in SYdney. They're everywhere.

    •  

      2 hours is a quick wait.

    • +1 vote

      Emergency generally works on a triage principle

    • +2 votes

      2 hours? That's incredible. I didn't realise the public system had improved this much.

    •  

      It also provides some tax benefit. The extra medicare levy for not having private insurance is enough to cover most of the private insurance cost.

      •  

        Depends how much you earn. If you're just above the threshold, it will cost more than the MLS. If you're a CEO, then you'd be stupid to not take out hospital cover.

  • +3 votes

    of course dont get one unless your income is above the threshold, otherwise you pay surcharge.

    • +2 votes

      what about loading ?

    •  

      What's the threshold?

        • +3 votes

          The base income threshold (under which you are not liable to pay the MLS) is $90,000 for singles and $180,000 for families. However, you do not have to pay the MLS if your family income exceeds the threshold but your own income for MLS purposes was $21,655 or less.

          So if I earn over $90,000 I pay the surcharge but if it is below $21,655 I don't have to?

          What about in between?

          Sorry am usually not smart and easily confused by the wording of these things.

        • +1 vote

          @AlienC: if your family meets the $180,000 figure, but you earn less than $21,655 (eg. your partner has high income but you take care of the kids and do a few hours a week)

        •  

          @nubix: and what if I'm a single bachelor.

        • +1 vote

          @AlienC: You do not have to pay MLS if your income is under $90,000. Forget about everything else

        •  

          @AlienC:

          and what if I'm a single bachelor.

          So if I earn over $90,000 I pay the surcharge

        • +1 vote

          @whooah1979: so under $90,000 single bachelor don't pay surcharge.

          Under $21,655 in family with over $180,000 total don't pay surcharge.

          But if both partners in a family earn above $90,000 they pay the surcharge.

          But if both partners in a family earn less than $90,000 I.e less than $180,000 total they both don't pay the surcharge.

          Is this now all correct?

        • +1 vote

          @AlienC:

          $89999 each partner and pay nothing.

        •  

          @AlienC:

          Plus the final one (if my understanding is correct), if one partner earns between $21,655 and $90,000 and the other one earns so much that the family income is over $180,000 then both pay the surcharge. For example, one earns $85,000 and the other $96,000 then both pay the surcharge.