Note that the 1% (or 1.5%) Medicare levy doesn't fully fund the health system here.
The system in Australia is:
* All Australian permanent residents (and some travellers) are able to access Medicare services. The services are funded by a combination of Federal and State governments.
* GPs/Surgeons/Specialists get set amounts from Medicare for different services delivered to patients. The amounts are set by the Federal health department and is the subject to ongoing arguments between the service providers and the government about the amount paid.
* For GP and out patient services, if the provider is willing to deliver the service at the set amount, then they "bulk bill" and the service is delivered "free at the point of delivery" to the paitent. If the provider charges more, then there is a "gap" that must be paid by the patient and cannot (by law and regulation) be covered by private insurance.
* For in-patient services, patients are either "private" or "public". Publicly funded hospitals accept patients of both types, private hospitals only accept "private" patients.
* Private patient services still receive the same reimbursement at a set value from the government. However, if the provider charges over that rate, private insurance is allowed to cover that "gap". Insurance companies can offer differing plans with different levels of cover for that "gap", as well as offering things like single patient wards, choice of physician/specialist etc.
* Public patients in a public hospital receive exactly the same services as private patients, but they: a) don't get to choose their doctor, b) are subject to waiting lists based on capacity, degree of urgency, etc.
* A public patient at a public hospital receives all services "free at the point of delivery". Private patients receive the same reimbursement, then their private insurance will reimburse according to their plan, then any remaining "gap" is payable by the patient.
* The "Medicare levy" is a theoretical additional tax that is added to a person's marginal tax, but it has never really covered the cost.
* As an incentive to get private insurance, the government subsidizes it at 30% and there are sticks and carrots (increased Medicare levy, age related reduction in subsidy if insurance is not continually held etc).
* Private insurance price increases are government regulated and require approval of the minister each year.
Subsidies for prescription medicines is a completely different system (the "PBS").
There is some undeniable truth in this discussion: people with higher income pay for the people with lower income. 10% of 100,000€ is a lot more than 10% of 20,000€.
It's not like the private insurance system is "equitable" either. I am very healthy and hardly ever need to see a doctor, but my insurance comes in at around $650/mo (mostly paid by my employer, but the money still has to come from somewhere). I definitely do not incur anywhere near $650/mo in health care costs of my own; I'm paying for care for people much sicker than I am, who incur health care costs higher than what they pay into insurance.
Taxes work with the basic assumption that people need some money to live, there is a humanitarian aspect to it if you see the govt positively or you can say, people in govt dont like thier head too far away from their bodies..
> There never has been and will never be 'free healthcare for all' - its not free, it's only free for some people if some other people pay for it.
That's what I replied to. I also mentioned living with one European system, and a similar Australian system that are both largely considered "effectively free (or at least, out of pocket)", and how no-one living under either system that I've been a part of, thinks that their healthcare is "literally free".
In fact, most of the tropes about "It's not really free, you're paying for it with taxes!" come from Americans bemoaning the insidious evil that they consider "healthcare for all" systems to be. It's a straw man, built up by some to decry "socialism".
> For instance, you can use taxpayers money to give birth if you want, but you don't choose the date, you don't get a room for long and no way you get a C-Section unless you risk dying.
This makes absolutely no sense. Short of induction agents, which have varying degrees of efficacy, if you're not getting a C-section, the healthcare industry, hospital, don't decide when you give birth, you/your baby do.