DIY Insurance - as in Saving What Premiums Would Be - Does/Has Anyone Done This?

just asking out of curiosity really

i spend so much on the best health insurance you can buy only to find semi regularly they pay f all and i still have to pay thousands on top

it makes me often ponder if i would be better off automatically saving the premiums in my own account instead of automatically paying it to meanibank
and then 'self funding' my health stuff out of that account

and then i wonder the same thing about all the other insurances in the world

i mean basically when you have insurance you are gambling against the insurance company right?
if you saved instead, as long as you have the discipline not to touch it for other reasons - wouldn't you win as long as you didn't have a disaster in the short term?

thoughts? experiences?

Comments

  • +4 votes

    Do you have extras? Cut them

    • +1 vote

      Depends on your situation, if single then yes not worth it.

      Minimum extras for family = $800 a year

      Family of 4, that's 200 a person, enough for 2x cleans a year per person making up your 800.

      Your covered for anything else, fillings, xrays, gum work etc

      Plus if anyone in the family wear's glasses or needs the physio that's easily over 800 a year worth.

      • +2 votes

        How much do you get back for min. Extras

        •  

          For just dental - 600 a person a year, potentially 2400 back from 4 people.. roughly 70-80% back on visits.

          Definitely get more back than the 800 it costs us for the cover.

      • +4 votes

        Are you actually covered for anything significant though? The ones I looked at all seemed to get you almost your premiums back on regular maintenance, but then hardly provided any rebate for anything expensive.

        •  

          About the only useful thing the junk hospital cover policies will get you is elective surgery as a private patient for injuries resulting from an accident. For anything else you just stay as a public patient.

          I only have PHI to avoid paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge and for the extras cover.

          The PHI industry is a complete rort. Personally I'd prefer to just pay more tax and have true universal healthcare in this country.

      • +1 vote

        Classes top out at $150-300 limit.

        As an example I have three pairs and it cost $500ea.

        • +4 votes

          Do you need some glasses for your classes?

        •  

          After reading about them on here I have been ordering glasses from ausspecs, Depends on your level of extras but the frames and lenses are so cheap your insurance may cover them 100%. Just have to pay for coatings and postage.
          I usually get 2-3 pairs a year, costs about $50 in coatings and post.

          Frames have been pretty decent too, after most of my life having one pair of $$$ frames, it has been great having a few different styles of frame to choose from and a few spare of my favs, lose or break one I can just grab the spare.

    • +1 vote

      My extras policy costs just under $400/year, and I claim around $800 or so each year on them. So no thanks, I'll keep em.

    •  

      I only have extras and it costs me $2.91 per week. It's the hospital cover that's expensive. I figure the public system will look after me if I need it. I pay for ambulance cover so I won't be out of pocket if I need an ambulance. That's basically an insurance as well.

      •  

        But if you are over 31 you will need to pay Medicare levy surcharge depending on your taxable income though I guess

  • +14 votes

    …when you have insurance you are gambling against the insurance company right?

    Don't forget about the medicare levy surcharge too (depending on your income). It's like the government's "fine" for not placing your bets!

    • +4 votes

      This.
      If it wasn't for the stupid extra tax/levy I probably wouldn't have it at all. I can make do without the yearly free sunglasses, and that was just me looking for an excuse to use the insurance. Maybe if the value was better, as in besides from an excess you still don't have some massive gap. WTF is the point then.

      I only really apply this to health though.
      I actually rate things like car insurance to be worth it, and home/contents insurance at least you have an idea of the costs involved to build a house (i.e. a lot). Even then mine is on the low side given the inflation and property prices. Plus you need to as a condition of a home loan lol.

      Then there's my general cynicism of the industry; "oh people have been making claims so we need to jack up premiums" (i.e. you lost your own bet and just resorting to crap now).

      • +19 votes

        I personally think this is the wrong way of looking at the Medicare Levi. Or perhaps the right way from the Private Insurance Industry point of view. I consider Medicare Levi my contribution to public health system. More importantly as these base rate private insurances cover Jack all and you are handed back to the public system anyway. So you avoided contributing to what actually ended up saving you while lining up the pockets of some bullshit insurer.
        It's all a rort and many look at it the wrong way.

        •  

          It's not the Medicare Levy itself. It's the Medicare Levy Surcharge that is the issue. That is, the extra 1-1.5% tax for "high income" earners who don't buy their own private health cover.

          • +6 votes

            @bobbified: The same explanation above applies to the surcharge as well. (am happily paying the surcharge as well).

            • +4 votes

              @OpayuOnam: The Medicare Levy is compulsory for most people which is fine. But for the people they refer to as "high income", the government says, you ALSO either pay these PH clowns that will give you nothing or you get penalised and you've got to pay us (the govt) more anyway.

              I wouldn't mind if the goverment actually said that higher income earners contribute more to the Medicare Levy (which they already do because the basic levy is a %) rather than have this surcharge bs if you don't take PH.

        • +12 votes

          Well said!

          I cancelled my utterly useless PHI and am happy to pay medicare levy plus surcharge. In the process, it means I’m not lining the pockets of some CEO, nor actually promoting the abhorrent US style health system here, just for a minor tax break (and yes the amount is minor to me).

          It’s indeed a massive rort.

          • +5 votes

            @wasabinator: We need more and more people with this mentality… It's just a shame that these PHI lobby so hard in Canberra.
            I know a few people whom can easily afford PHI and it would be so much cheaper for them to get PHI than pay the Medicare Levy and Surcharge yet out of principle they still opt to pay these taxes. They are doctors and fully understand the public health system in Australia. Fun fact even when PHI seems to be paying the bill they are still being given a hand by Medicare so you tell me if that's not a rort.

        • +1 vote

          Definitely this.

          PHI cover can be so spotty, it’s likely you’ll be bounced back to public anyway. Then you never contribute to the public health system but benefit off it.

          •  

            @FrugalDealHunter: ..bounced back to public? I've been medically very unfortunate over the past ten years and never heard of such a thing. Where do you get that from?

        • +2 votes

          The thing is, the Medicare levy surcharge isn't a proportional tax like the Medicare levy (2% of taxable income) or a progressive tax like income tax.

          Singles: If your taxable income is $90,000 you don't pay the surcharge, but if it is $90,000 + $1 you pay $900.

          Families: If your taxable income is $180,000 you don't pay the surcharge, but if it is $180,000 + $1 you pay $1800.

          The way the surcharge works, you are encouraged to have PHI even if you don't get much value from it.

          • +4 votes

            @kevindatle: Again I'd like to refer you to my earlier comments, this "encouragement* is by design. Not from a better for public point of view but due to lobbying from insurance companies. They want you to see PHI as an incentive, then they throw bullshit words around such as reducing stress from public health system (a lie, as for most serious things PHI off loads you to public anyway).
            Sadly we are on the route of USA if we continue feeding into this system.

        • +2 votes

          I consider Medicare Levi my contribution to public health system

          I thought the same but have recently found out that the medicare levy actually goes into a General Fund and doesn't directly go to the public health system. Which is super (profanity) up

        • +2 votes

          I agree with your point of view.
          It all depends on how much you use your extras, but still if you don't have private health insurance in most cases you get a rebate from medicare or can negotiate the rates with the service providers.
          In my case for a visit to the dentist I used to pay $200 with insurance, and get about $70 - $80 back. Without insurance the same visit, after negotiation, costed me $150, so no much difference.
          A couple (friend of us) went to a maternity ward on a well known hospital with PHI and ended up paying $5,000 out of pocket. No complications or anything. We went to the same hospital thorough medicare, and paid $0. The difference, private room on PHI vs two people room on public. if this is important to you then you should pay for PHI, because you cannot top up the medicare to get a private room.

          I honestly don't believe PHI is worth it, and I am happy to contribute more to medicare to improve their services

  • +23 votes

    "disaster" is the key word
    crash into a $500k car or worse and it would ruin your life
    .

    • +17 votes

      Yep. Insurance is not there to pay for incidental matters along the way.

      Spoiler alert … on average, you'll pay more in premiums than you'll get back. How else does an insurance company stay in business, let alone make a profit?

      The purpose of insurance is to pay for big, "unforseen" events that you effectively are unable to pay for out of your own pocket.

      IMHO opinion, insurance shouldn't be paying for a dental check up (as a single example of many only) … but it should be there to pay for a complete reconstruction in the event of a car accident (again, a single example of many only).

      It's the expectation people have today that they need to "get something" out of their insurance policy (and therefore effectively making constant low value claims) that is causing it to become completely unaffordable.

      • +5 votes

        You will find that they pay quite generously for things like a "dental checkup", because if they find something small early on, it can be repaired simply and cheaply. If people weren't getting reimbursed for checkups, they probably wouldn't be getting them as frequently. This results in major dental problems down the road, with the insurer paying out big time as opposed to just paying for a simple checkup and filling. It is risk-mitigation for them to manage payout costs.

      •  

        @seraphin

        I'm not talking about

        constant low value claims

        I'm talking about a few years ago having the highest health insurance you could get, needing surgery for cancer, and having to pay literally every cent I had in "gap"

        Which;
        government blamed on insurance companies and doctors,
        insurance companies blamed on government and doctors,
        and doctors blamed on government and insurance companies

        but it should be there to pay for a complete reconstruction in the event of a car accident

        I bet you a million dollars I don't have that there is no insurance you could buy that would actually do that

        Which negates your entire arguement

        •  

          @bargain huntress: I was curious what sort of premium you are paying for the "best health insurance you can buy" for family cover and what extras are included? What is your excess?

          •  

            @nudy: i pay nearly $400 a month

            i have singles cover i dont know what it would be for a family i dont have one

            i have no excess for the last i dont remember years

            the extras now is just all the ones you can get anywhere
            there used to be more extras before the new gold silver bronze gov thing

            i really need to go over what the new plan closely now they have changed it
            im sure theyve used it as an excuse to shaft us even more

            the gov bs about making it simpler - medibank has 3 times as many plans now
            it was never about making it simpler for us

            it was just introduced so insurance comps couldn't sell their medicare levy avoidance fake policies anymore - which is a good thing if it works, but at least be honest about it

        • +2 votes

          needing surgery for cancer, and having to pay literally every cent I had in "gap"

          Isn’t this more about the sizeable difference between Medicare’s and the AMA’s cost schedules, leaving large gaps which the PHI refuse to pay since they only look at Medicare’s schedule?

          Also, a stay in a private hospital is typically worth thousands per night (which should be covered PHI).

          •  

            @ShortyX:

            the PHI refuse to pay since they only look at Medicare’s schedule

            that's their choice. it's the excuse they use. there is no reason why they couldn't use the ama's prices instead. pass the buck to medicare and the ama.

            medicare passes the buck to the phi and the ama.

            ama passes the buck to the phi and medicare.

            i don't care who's fault it is, i just don't want to pay nearly 5 grand in insurance every year, and then also have to pay 3 grand when i need life saving surgery.

            wtf am i paying for in the first place then?

            Also, a stay in a private hospital is typically worth thousands per night (which should be covered PHI).

            and how much profit do you think they take there?

            why do doctors believe they are entitled to these enormous incomes?
            why do insurance companies believe they are entitled to these enormous profits?
            why do private hospitals believe the same?

            i am currently both paying huge insurance premiums, and saving for my next potential "gap".

        • +1 vote

          and this is the major issues with PHI.
          Major claims is exactly what the system need PHI to cover, otherwise people with those issues just go and use the public system which defeats the purpose of PHI

          •  

            @MechEng: that's exactly what they want
            thats why they LOVED selling all those junk policies before the bronze silver gold rating system

            they could get premiums, and pay for a massage every now and then, and then when someone actually needed some medical care; they got off scott free dumping them into medicare

            they wanted me to pay them 4-5k a year, then gawp at my surgeons 3k "gap" and go public so they wouldn't have to pay ANYTHING to anyone

      • +5 votes

        Good answer - I once heard the following regarding insurance - "The best insurance policy is the one you never have to use".
        You are better off having insurance and never needing it than not having it and needing it once for a serious event that could wipe you out financially.

        • +1 vote

          The problem is, even with the private insurance, you could still be wiped out financially.

          •  

            @leiiv: True but insurance is limited to the coverage you pay for, and the issue is that many people don't know what type and how much cover to get so they are usually underinsured when they do have insurance.
            Sadly, the websites that give purchasing advice usually channel punters to a provider (and get a commission on the way) and those who provide advice (on life/house/contents insurance) are being forced to charge upfront fees which are many times the cost of the premiums.

            •  

              @blindwilly: In the case of health insurance, even the most expensive cover is "hospital" only cover which does not cover everything else, eg specialists, medicines. For example, is there any health insurance that fully cover GPs so that I can go to any GP without paying any gap? NO. So if unlucky, one could end up paying the most expensive premium, not getting any benefits from it, and still need to pay a lot of money for certain treatments. It is a scam.
              If the regulation is right, there is no need for any professional advice on insurance. Just like you don't need it to decide which supermarket to go to. Just force the insurance to cover for everything health related (doctors, hospitals, medicines, lab tests, etc), and make the premium you pay based on the percentage of the cost that can be claimed.

      • +1 vote

        I agree with you there with one caveat
        Dental, Medicare should pay for this

        •  

          i think it might if there wasn't such a history and reputation of shonky dentists overtreating people and or faking claims

    • -1 vote

      @nugs would that not be covered by the compulsory insurance it is illegal not to have?

      • +4 votes

        QLD may be different, but in SA the compulsory insurance is for personal injury (not property).
        If you run over a cyclist, all the cyclists medical is paid (surgery, rehab etc) but not his bike.
        If you drive into a fish and chip shop, you are covered for the people you injure, not the shop itself.
        To cover the bike or the shop you need a minimum of TPP (Third Party Property) insurance
        To cover the bike, shop AND your own car you need comprehensive insurance
        .

        • +1 vote

          Excellent explanation. QLD works the same way.

        • -2 votes

          i see thank you
          so how come the TPP is not compulsory - is that just the government trying to save medicare money?

          • +3 votes

            @bargain huntress: Because the damage caused to property is a civil matter - not necessarily the government's problem. You could well argue that TPP should be compulsory, but lots of 'libertarian' type people would complain.

          • +1 vote

            @bargain huntress: The compulsory part is so that there's one insurer to deal with and everything gets dealt with quickly. This is fairly critical for personal injury stuff.

            In terms of why it's done that way and not covered in the public system, it's partially a fairness thing, e.g. tourists pay it when they rent a car (as part of the rental cost) and those that don't have a car don't pay it at all.

          • +1 vote

            @bargain huntress:

            how come the TPP is not compulsory - is that just the government trying to save medicare money?

            I dont think Medicare will pay doctors/GPs to repair your car.

            • +1 vote

              @Ughhh: Well I believe the matter is where you draw the line on what should and should not be compulsory in terms of insurance. Should home insurances be compulsory, too?
              I believe there should be a minimum level that TPP and Home should be mandatory, but I don't know how an implementation of that will be

  • +20 votes

    Plenty of people do DIY insurance on OzBargain. Just check out the weekly car accident posts.

    Insurance is not gambling. Insurance is risk management. You are looking at how much risk you have , how much risk you are willing to accept, and how much you are willing to pay to reduce that risk by a particular amount.

    • +3 votes

      Insurance is not gambling. Insurance is risk management.

      Exactly.

      They do also provide more than just the raw cost of repairs. It's nice for example to just be able to call in with the details of the at fault driver and basically be done with it.

    • -3 votes

      @wei

      Insurance is not gambling.

      Why does this

      You are looking at how much risk you have , how much risk you are willing to accept, and how much you are willing to pay to reduce that risk by a particular amount.

      sound so much like a description of gambling then?

      • +5 votes

        I hear your point.

        In gambling, you are taking on a supposedly calculated risk, with the intention of making a gain.

        With insurance you have already incurred the risk elsewhere, and your aim is to reduce losses in the event of an adverse incident.

        Maybe 'risk-sharing’ is a more apt term.

        •  

          This guy gets it.

        •  

          So when the blackjack dealer asks me if I want insurance when they show an Ace, its not considered gambling? lol

          It is gambling because your expected value (EV) with the insurer is never positive or even close to zero.

          For example, a hypothetical car insurance below:

          Probability of getting your car totaled in an accident (driver's fault) = 5% in a year (1 in 20 year event)
          Annual Premium plus excess for a comprehensive car worth ~$20k = $1,500

          Calculation:
          0.05 x 20000 = 1000
          0.95 x (-1500) = -1425
          EV = 1000 - 1425 = -$425

        •  

          It is actually risk transferring in exchange of a premium

      • +2 votes

        Because you don't want to 'win' the 'bet'…..

        Insurance is something you hope will be the biggest waste of your money.

  • +7 votes

    This works for health insurance, no others that I can think of.

    • +2 votes

      You probably should always be covered for other people's costs - but you can decide if you want to insure against your own costs. You should always have TPP insurance for your vehicle, but you don't necessarily need comprehensive insurance; it's a matter of value and convenience. I wouldn't get comp insurance on a car worth less than about $8k, but that's my choice.

  • -1 vote

    Insurance is stupid, but I can make a profit regardless. Example:

    Extras policy - Frank 80% (I get a fixed return of 80% for every claim, up to my benefits)

    Cost: $502 p.a. (single adult. Family policies make theese figures even better)

    Remedial massage without health fund = 12x $80 per year = $960
    With health fund rebates = $192 out of pocket

    Meaning I've paid $694 for services I was already going to get, instead of $960. So from one single claimable item the policy has paid for itself.

    Then, you add on every other claimable item - dental, glasses etc and that is saving me several hundred more dollars each year, on things I was also already paying for without a policy.

    How do they make money when I get more than I pay? No idea, but it DOES explain why premiums are always rising…

    • +1 vote

      How did you get $502?

      I got a quote for $819 for extras 50%

      How do they make money when I get more than I pay? No idea, but it DOES explain why premiums are always rising

      Perhaps you included the private health insurance rebate which means you are paying for it through your tax.

      • -1 vote

        Hmmm, not sure. Just pulled the figures off the website

        Our family plan is $985 annually so it's under $500 per adult, if you don't count kids that are included

      • +3 votes

        Same, don't get anywhere near as low a price.
        Plus the remedial massage has a $400 claim limit per year.

        Fishy figures

      •  

        Premiums can vary depending on the state you live in and your income level.

    • +2 votes

      Do you get any "extras" with the massage?

    • +1 vote

      who are you with? i'm paying much more and sounds like getting much less with medibank

      • +1 vote

        This is with Frank, which is one of a few wholesale versions from GMHBA. Used to be labelled with Budget Direct, but the product is basically the same anyway

    • +1 vote

      What's your age? Im 30 and mine is just over double at $1110.

      Optical limit is $250. One annual dental check up is like $100 normally. I'm wildly off matching the extras cover.

    •  

      Your numbers don't add up at all.

      GL receiving $760 per year from them for your own remedial massage, considering it is twice their limit.

  • +7 votes

    DIY Insurance

    Is known technically as self-insurance.

    You only need insurance for big, low odds of occurring losses such as your house burning down.

    You don't need insurance for smaller, more frequent losses such as dropping your phone.

    E.g. I have building insurance but don't have landlord's insurance for my investment properties (that is, I self-insure that cover).


    You can DIY a bit by having a high excess/deductible.


    Health insurance - the hospital cover part has tax implications for high income earners if they want to self-insure (need to factor total savings vs total cost); ancillaries is not really insurance but a savings mechanism.

  • +3 votes

    A lot of large companies self insure for things such as motor vehicles and workcover. Works out cheaper on average to pay for the claims themselves than paying the premiums. Thing is you need to have enough scale so that one big claim would be less than a years worth of premiums.

    • +1 vote

      Thing is you need to have enough scale so that one big claim would be less than a years worth of premiums.

      surely this is not right, what kind of claim is so small its worth less than the premiums, and why is that insurance premium so high if the claim is so small?

      • +1 vote

        The point is scale. Let's say you have 100 cars in your fleet worth $40,000 each. And insurance for every car would cost $800/year.

        Your company is paying $80,000/year total in insurance premiums. It could afford to not pay insurance and write off 2 cars.

        But that's not why you insure. You insure against a catastrophic event such as bushfire burning down nearly car kept overnight at the business premises car park.

        • +1 vote

          yea, completely understand the point of scale. But again, my point is, what insurance has a large enough claim that is less than a years of premium.

          I can not imagine it. I am asking for an example of what jimbo is saying

          •  

            @cloudy:

            I am asking for an example of what jimbo is saying

            I worked at a company that did this for their cars.

            what kind of claim is so small its worth less than the premiums, and why is that insurance premium so high if the claim is so small?

            1. See above for economies of scale.
            2. Profit
            3. Do you crash your car every year?
      •  

        Yeah, JIMBO might be using a 'rule of thumb' calculation, but it's not the literal definition. You need to have enough scale that you can afford to pay for any foreseeable event.

  • +1 vote

    How much will you need? For car insurance, if you write off a new camry, how long do you save and make sure you don't write off one before you have the money to buy them a new car?

  • +1 vote

    and then i wonder the same thing about all the other insurances in the world

    you do self fund many insurance.

    I know people who buy phone insurance, and some who don't
    I know people who buy engagement ring insurance, and some who don't
    I know people who buy watch insurance, and some who don't
    I know people who buy funeral insurance, and some who don't

    insurance is a choice, if you dont buy those products you effectively self fund as you pay when something goes wrong.

    •  

      insurance is a choice

      The C in CTP doesn't stand for choice.

      Funeral insurance

      There is a 100% probability you will die.
      This is just poor money management.

      •  

        Dude, you must be clicking reply to the wrong posts. You’re stuff is senseless.

        The C in CTP doesn't stand for choice

        notice there is no I in CTP. Because it’s not insurance

        There is a 100% probability you will die.

        But having a funeral is a choice, you don’t have to have your life celebrated upon death…something I suspect you might choose.

        •  

          You said insurance is a choice.

          Next you said CTP is not insurance, let's google it
          https://www.google.com/search?q=ctp&oq=ctp

          Yep definitely insurance.

          But having a funeral is a choice

          Is having a bush fire burn down your home a choice?

          Do you even know how insurance works?

          •  

            @deme: car driving is a choice, getting insurance for your car is a choice. Paying your rego is not a choice, rego covers all sorts of public costs, inclusive of that is what you like to call CTP insurance. In Vic, we don't call it insurance, we call it TAC. Not insurance, look at the front page of TAC, not one mention its insruance. https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/

            Is having a bush fire burn down your home a choice?
            wtf are you on about

            • -3 votes

              @cloudy: Is breathing a choice?

              •  

                @deme: you can choose not to and hopefully you have funeral insurance paid lolzzz!!!

  • +1 vote

    A neighbour has a landlord who ‘self-insured’ a large chunk of his house damage risk.

    Nothing happened for years and years. Bet he felt pretty smug about that at family BBQs.

    Then a hailstorm came through dropping cricket balls made of ice and messed things up.

    Now he’s trying to make do with a handful of second-hand tiles and fudgery to fix a roof that needs to be completely replaced.

    Our repair bill is looking to be towards $80k, and we’re not as badly affected as him or others in our area. Insurance covering it all, thank <religious entity>.

    Be careful what you self-insure.

    •  

      .. thank <religious entity>.

      I would put a word there that starts with an F, but I woudn't call it a "religious entity". 😜

    • +1 vote

      Nothing happened for years and years.

      how many years?

      and did he actually save the would be premiums - including rises?

      • +1 vote

        Premiums average over 80 years would probably be less than 1k p.a. (but he can earn a return on it). Bloke unlikely to have paid premiums for 80 years.

        If he earnt 0% on his premium savings he would be behind in this case, but depending on his returns, we can't say for sure.

        • +1 vote

          he might have put the premium into bitcoin ten years ago?

          dad had a cattle farm and apple orchards. instead of paying insurance premiums he used the money to buy lambs and raised them in the home paddock. he was way ahead over his lifetime.

          •  

            @Antikythera: interesting

            but what if a bushfire had come through?

            • +1 vote

              @bargain huntress: he was captain of the CFA and cleared his land well.

              the artist colony of hippies the other side of the hill however never cleared correctly and I believe got burned out.

              and here is some related art titled "After the Bushfire (1962)"
              https://img.aasd.com.au/08113957.jpg

              which probably is worth way more than the burned out shacks.

  • +2 votes

    This is a strategy that might be best applied when very young…..putting premiums aside in a bank account instead of paying to an insurer. Requires a very steady head and strong discipline to be successful over time. Could work, if you want to gamble on having no expensive health issues in short term, but a gamble like any other. More and more people are quitting health cover altogether it seems.

  • +9 votes

    I ditched my private health cover a few years ago. I had the highest level of cover for about 15 years and when I actually came down with an issue, I had to go back and forth seeing specialists. It ended up costing me thousands over the 6-12 months.

    How much of it was covered by my private health policy? Exactly $0.00. After that, I cancelled it.

    Then, a couple of years ago, I had a major operation that was would've cost me $200-250K. Luckily, it cost me $0.00 because Medicare covered everything.

    • +1 vote

      But private insurance doesn't cover you for out of hospital expenses. It's like complaining it didn't cover your leaky roof.

      • +1 vote

        But private insurance doesn't cover you for out of hospital expenses. It's like complaining it didn't cover your leaky roof.

        And that is exactly my point!

        Why am I paying hundreds of dollars each month for a private policy that isn't even as good as the one we pay for with our tax dollars? I've been pay the medicare levy surcharge each year - I'm sick of paying for such a useless private policy.

        •  

          If you earn 90k+, PHI probably worth it.
          You pay PHI so that you can have non-urgent elective surgery faster.
          e.g. Knee replacement

          Choice of living in pain for years while waiting on the public hospital waiting list or getting the knee replacement now.
          It's all a matter of choice I suppose. Some people are happy to live with the pain and wait and some are not.