tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/andrew-southcott-6644/articlesAndrew Southcott – The Conversation2015-08-03T11:25:07Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456202015-08-03T11:25:07Z2015-08-03T11:25:07ZThe speakership: a prize out of nowhere for … whom?<p>The glittering prize of the speakership is dangling in front of the eyes of several backbenchers whose careers are becalmed.</p>
<p>They have a rare chance. Almost all advancement in the government is in the gift of the leader.</p>
<p>After the 2013 election Tony Abbott treated the speakership, supposed to belong to the party, as a “captain’s pick” and presented his choice of Bronwyn Bishop to the partyroom.</p>
<p>Now that has ended in tears, Abbott has indicated that those aspiring to succeed her can fight it out to get the numbers among their peers.</p>
<p>As of Monday night, there were four candidates, all backbenchers, angling for the post: <a href="http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/andrew-southcott-to-stand-for-speaker-job/story-fnjbnvyj-1227468055835">Andrew Southcott</a>, <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/03/who-will-replace-bronwyn-bishop-as-speaker-.html">Russell Broadbent</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-03/philip-ruddock-frontrunner-to-replace-bronwyn-bishop-as-speaker/6666754">Philip Ruddock</a> and <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/tony-smith-early-front-runner-to-replace-bronwyn-bishop-20150803-giq6ma">Tony Smith</a> – with Smith not publicly declared.</p>
<p>Interestingly, three of them have been demoted by Abbott and the fourth has been on the outer because of his policy views.</p>
<p>Smith, who comes from Victoria and formerly worked for then-treasurer Peter Costello, was in shadow cabinet but Abbott pushed him down to a shadow parliamentary secretary following problems in the 2010 election with his communication policy. After the 2013 victory Smith wasn’t included in the Abbott frontbench.</p>
<p>In government, Smith has been active as chair of the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters">parliamentary committee on electoral matters</a>, which has recommended big changes to voting arrangements for the Senate.</p>
<p>Southcott, from South Australia, was also demoted in opposition by Abbott and overlooked in government.</p>
<p>Ruddock was sacked by Abbott as chief government whip early this year. Recently Abbott <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/philip-ruddock-appointed-special-envoy-for/6500016">appointed him</a> as special envoy for citizenship and community engagement as part of the government’s consideration of a further toughening of the citizenship laws.</p>
<p>Broadbent, one of the much-diminished number of moderate voices, is not on the ideological wavelength of the Abbott Liberal party.</p>
<p>As things stand, the contest appears open, especially if three or four candidates ended up in the ballot.</p>
<p>It has quickly become apparent the Liberals are not keen on the about A$340,000 post, with its prestige and (not to be abused, please) generous perks, going to deputy Speaker Bruce Scott, who is from the Nationals.</p>
<p>National Ian Sinclair briefly served as speaker in 1998, after Bob Halverson was pushed out because the Howard government thought he was too impartial. But Sinclair was special and this time the Liberals want to keep hold of the job.</p>
<p>The last time the Liberals elected their speaker was in 2004, when David Hawker beat Bronwyn Bishop and Bruce Baird. That contest is a lesson for those making predictions.</p>
<p>Hawker was not the favourite and Baird, a prominent moderate, had the backing of John Howard who, though he had not made him a minister, thought he would be good in the chair. Peter Costello worked hard and successfully to get up Hawker, a fellow Victorian.</p>
<p>One thing going against Ruddock, the “Father of the House” and former senior minister in the Howard government, is that some Liberals see him as too much part of the Howard era, and think the party should move on.</p>
<p>Broadbent, who says he believes he has “broad support” in the party, might attract some moderate votes on the grounds of factional loyalty but lose votes among the conservative majority who could fear he would be too independent.</p>
<p>Both Southcott and Smith are sitting on margins in their seats (Boothby, Casey) of just over 7%, which can be precarious in these volatile times, and with the government facing uphill battles in South Australia and Victoria.</p>
<p>Being speaker can make campaigning harder. Sharman Stone, who has been very critical of the way the parliament has been operating, says it is “very tempting to try set the parliament back on the right course”. But, though her name was mentioned and some would like a woman to replace a woman, she is not throwing her hat in the ring. Her electorate is in a terrible way, she says, due to water policy issues, and that’s her priority.</p>
<p>There are apparently no formal rules for how the Liberal partyroom chooses the speaker – or more precisely, the candidate the government puts up to the House of Representatives (there may be a Labor candidate).</p>
<p>But the vote would be taken among the lower house Liberals, not the whole party room.</p>
<p>It may be that a consensus emerges before the Liberal meeting on Monday morning, or that one or two candidates drop out. It’s always possible one or more other candidates might emerge.</p>
<p>But if the numbers remain uncertain, there is an incentive for hopefuls to push on. The stakes are high for the individuals and strange things can happen in ballots.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The glittering prize of the speakership is dangling in front of the eyes of several backbenchers whose careers are becalmed. They have a rare chance. Almost all advancement in the government is in the…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/173792013-08-29T20:23:44Z2013-08-29T20:23:44ZBoothby not yet a likely proposition for Labor<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29900/original/djvgvvwz-1377484278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Boothby MP Andrew Southcott will likely ride the wave of a national swing towards to the Liberals to return him to parliament in the Coalition's most marginal electorate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.mumble.com.au/fedelect13/wall/seats/BOOT.HTM">Boothby</a>, the most marginal Liberal-held seat in this election, is a demographically solid part of middle-class Australia. Held by the Liberal Party since 1949, it is only since 2004 that Boothby has slipped to marginal status and been accordingly viewed by Labor as a winnable seat. </p>
<p>Located across Adelaide’s <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/2011/sa/files/maps/boothby.pdf">inner southern suburbs</a>, the electorate also includes town booths in the Adelaide Hills where, in a number of instances, the Greens attracted support from a quarter of voters in 2010. </p>
<p>The incumbent, Andrew Southcott, has seen his first preference support slowly and fairly consistently erode since he first won the seat in 1996. This is likely to be what encouraged Labor candidate <a href="http://www.annabeldigance.com.au">Annabel Digance</a> to make a second attempt at breaking the Liberal Party’s decades-long grip on Boothby.</p>
<p>Southcott currently defends a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/boot/">narrow 0.6%</a> two party preferred margin. It was <a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-182.htm">0.75% after the 2010 election</a>, but a boundary change swept a couple of Labor-oriented suburbs into Boothby.</p>
<p>With the support of Green preferences - and they ran at 90% in Labor’s favour in 2010 - Digance is hopeful and can claim to have built a reasonable local profile after running in 2010 with a positive 1.6% swing compared to Labor’s statewide negative 2.4% swing. </p>
<p>However, former prime minister Julia Gillard’s <a href="http://www.murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/1311261/julia-gillard-hosts-community-cabinet-in-boothby/">childhood links</a> to Boothby - and the resultant frequent prime ministerial visits during last campaign - no doubt played a part in lifting Labor’s vote.</p>
<p>Digance is backed by the Labor Unity faction, and is in many respects an ideal candidate for a marginal seat. A midwife by profession, she has worked in a family business with her husband, has three daughters and is clearly very committed to serving the public. This was evident when we discussed the trials and tribulations of campaigning. </p>
<p>Like many candidates, they enjoy happy working and family lives and can well do without the hard slog of campaigning. </p>
<p>Southcott gave up a career in medicine when he defeated then-senator Robert Hill for preselection in 1994 in what was a typically acrimonious South Australian Liberal factional battle. Apparently, it was his brilliant speech to party faithful that won the day. It transpired that Hill would go on to serve in senior Howard government ministries, while the exceptionally well-educated Southcott (MD, MBA and BEc) was overlooked. </p>
<p>Southcott has previously faced criticism that his campaign required bailing out in 2010 because his fundraising efforts were considered poor. This prompted a <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/marginal-mp-benefits-from-labor-tension-as-libs-fear-change/story-e6frgczx-1226282063536">preselection challenge</a> in February 2012 where he managed to defeat former Liberal state branch president Chris Moriarty 195 votes to 35.</p>
<p>In 2004, Labor candidate and current state MP Chloe Fox managed to gain <a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-182.htm">close to a 10% swing</a> on first preferences, and so began Labor’s commitment to winning Boothby. Labor believes Southcott is vulnerable because he does not work hard enough in the electorate and they view his declining vote as evidence. </p>
<p>Confident in their judgement, the state Labor Unity faction - led by senator Don Farrell and former state treasurer Kevin Foley - selected a quasi-celebrity candidate, Nicole Cornes, to run against Southcott in 2007. This venture came <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1913918.htm">awfully unstuck</a>. Ultimately, one could only feel sorry for Cornes who, while working hard as the candidate, faced a very hostile local media and little prior coaching from those who figured she would make an ideal candidate.</p>
<p>Southcott concedes in conversation that given the national mood for change in 2007, a stronger Labor candidate may well have seen him seeking new employment. But he is also keen to note the comparative point highlighted in the chart below.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29853/original/hghhgfvw-1377418309.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Liberal first preferences in Boothby have declined steadily, but so too did the statewide Liberal vote. This looks set to reverse in 2013 due to the national mood against Labor which, if the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013">most recent Newspoll</a> ends up being reflected on polling day, indicates that South Australian swinging voters are rather keen to elect a Coalition government.</p>
<p>It is worth noting an interesting development concerning social media and how it may impact on campaigning. Digance has a loyal and enthusiastic band of volunteers whose job it is to demonise and smear the opposition, as it is in all close-fought campaigns. However, problems arise when this bubbles up into the tweet and, all of a sudden, an emotive outburst makes the headlines and subsequently derails the campaign. </p>
<p>When news broke that Digance’s deputy campaign manager Tim Picton - whose day job is working as a ministerial advisor - tweeted a journalist with “the rumour” that Southcott was <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/special-features/boothby-tweets-raise-a-stink/story-fnho52jl-1226691902777">holidaying in Fiji</a>, one feels for a candidate who has given up so much in pursuit of a dream.</p>
<p>It cannot be determined whether or not this was a deliberate ploy or a silly lapse in judgement. Digance says she did not approve it and premier Jay Weatherill offered an awkward apology which essentially said it was not acceptable, but all parties do it. </p>
<p>Southcott was understandably angry but says he will not take advantage of his opponent’s embarrassment. Clearly, this is something that reflects his confidence in being returned for a sixth term.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Haydon Manning does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boothby, the most marginal Liberal-held seat in this election, is a demographically solid part of middle-class Australia. Held by the Liberal Party since 1949, it is only since 2004 that Boothby has slipped…Haydon Manning, Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/166682013-08-13T20:27:19Z2013-08-13T20:27:19ZFactCheck: could private lifetime health cover changes cost $1000 more a year?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29111/original/2j425c5g-1376365543.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are claims about private health costs exaggerated, or right on the money?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Health care cost image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p><strong>“The changes to lifetime health cover will increase [private health insurance] premiums by up to a reported 27.5%. This is hitting many local residents very hard, with some struggling to find the money to pay an annual increase of more than $1000.” Liberal member for the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/boot/">marginal seat of Boothby in South Australia,</a> and shadow parliamentary secretary for primary health care, Andrew Southcott, <a href="http://andrewsouthcottmp.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/r/73A8412917400C502540EF23F30FEDED">e-newsletter</a>, 5 July.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) loading is an additional charge of 2% on top of an individual’s private health insurance hospital premium for every year that an individual is aged over 30 before they take out cover. Introduced by the Howard government in 2000, it was designed to encourage younger, fitter people to take up private health insurance and to penalise them if they delayed. The maximum loading on top of their normal premium is 70%, which is removed once a person has held hospital cover and paid the loading for 10 continuous years.</p>
<p>Changes under the current Labor government have tightened up who is eligible to receive an <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/fairer-faq">up to 40% government rebate</a> towards paying for private health insurance. </p>
<p>Since 1 July 2012, the private health insurance rebate has become <a href="http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/In-detail/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Changes-to-private-health-insurance-rebate-and-Medicare-levy-surcharge/#Income_for_surcharge_purposes">income tested</a>. Individuals aged below 65 years with incomes below $84,000 receive a 30% rebate, rising to 35% and 40% for individuals aged over 65 and 70 years, respectively. (Click on the table of rebates by age and income below for more detail.) The rebate gradually reduces to zero for incomes above $124,000.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28898/original/xmqf7ftf-1375930926.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Private health insurance rebates in the 2013-14 financial year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Department of Health and Ageing</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And from 1 July this year, the government will no longer pay this rebate towards an individuals’ lifetime health cover loadings. This provides a further incentive for people to take out insurance at an earlier age. <a href="http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/In-detail/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Changes-to-private-health-insurance-rebate-and-Medicare-levy-surcharge/">The Australian Tax Office</a> uses this example to illustrate how the change will reduce people’s rebates:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“On 1 July 2013, Rebecca pays a premium for two months cover under a complying health insurance policy of $220. Due to Rebecca’s circumstances, she incurs a 10% increase in her premium because of the LHC loading. The base premium for the policy is $200 and the LHC loading is $20. Rebecca’s income is $59,000 and she is eligible for the 30% rebate. Rebecca receives a rebate of $60, which is 30% of the $200 base premium. Rebecca does not receive any rebate on the $20 paid for LHC loading.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What’s the source of this $1000 claim?</h2>
<p>The Conversation’s <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck">Election FactCheck</a></em> contacted Dr Southcott’s office to request a source for his claim about “an annual increase of more than $1000” for some residents. His communications officer replied:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Andrew was contacted by a married couple who had received notification from their private health provider [Medibank Private] of the increase in their premiums and were concerned about their ability to find the extra funds, on what was already an extremely tight budget.</p>
<p>"I have attached a copy of those letters for your information. As you can see, the combined increase to their premiums for the couple comes to $1,011.60 annually. (Note that due to the identical figures we were very careful to establish with them that this increase was, in fact, being borne twice by the couple and that figure did not represent a joint cover. While we have redacted the details for privacy, the membership numbers are different on each letter.)”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=848&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=848&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=848&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1066&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1066&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28647/original/qg52t7xw-1375686254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1066&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boothby private health letter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dr Andrew Southcott MP's office</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A copy of one of those June 2013 letters to the couple from the southern Adelaide suburb of Aberfoyle Park (right: click to zoom in) shows that each of their old insurance premiums was $153.65 per month, but that that would increase to $195.80 following the government’s new changes to lifetime health cover. When you add that up for this couple, it comes to a combined increase of $1011.60 per year.</p>
<p>The Medibank Private letters suggest that all of that cost increase is due to the new lifetime health cover changes. </p>
<h2>Do the numbers add up?</h2>
<p>Although the details of this couple’s age and income were not available for privacy reasons, I calculated how Medibank Private came up with this figure, using the premium rates provided in these letters.</p>
<p>I found that the cost increase indicated in the letters would be correct if both individuals are aged over 70 years (and so receive a 40% rebate), they did not take out private insurance until they were aged 65 years or older (and so are subject to <a href="http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/In-detail/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Changes-to-private-health-insurance-rebate-and-Medicare-levy-surcharge/?default=">the maximum 70% LHC loading</a>), and they have had private insurance for less than 10 years (the LHC loading does not apply to individuals who have held private insurance continuously for 10 years or more).</p>
<p>Given these characteristics, I worked out what their full premium would have been, with no rebate at all. This worked out to be $256 for each individual a month. (40% of $256 is $102.45, which when added to their current premium of $153.65 equals $256.)</p>
<p>Then I calculated the LHC loading component of the $256 premium, which came to $105.40. (The non-LHC component is $150.60, 70% of $150.60 is $105.40, which when added together equals $256).</p>
<p>Finally, if they were getting a 40% rebate on their lifetime health cover component, then that would work out to be $42.16 a month (40% of $105.40). Multiplied by 12 months, that comes to a total increase of $505.80. For the couple, the combined increase is $1011.60.</p>
<p>This couple have very specific characteristics that mean they are subject to such a large impact of the removal of the LHC rebate. Very few individuals pay a 70% loading, whilst receiving a 40% rebate, on a hospital plus general treatment insurance policy.</p>
<p>Let’s look at a couple of other, perhaps more common scenarios. For example, an adult earning $110,000 per year, with hospital cover taken out for the first time at age 50 years, would pay an extra $20.64 per year (based on a monthly premium of $86). </p>
<p>Alternatively, a family with children with an annual income of less than $176,000, where the adults took out hospital cover for the first time at age 40 years, would be paying an extra $67 per year (based on a monthly premium of $186).</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Dr Southcott’s statement that “some [local residents are] struggling to find the money to pay annual increases of more than $1000” is correct. However, it is important to note that only a small number of Australians would be in the difficult position of this particular couple, given only 13% of individuals pay any lifetime health cover loading at all, let alone the maximum rate of 70%.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>In order to check if this analysis was correct, I asked myself what would be the most extreme case of disadvantage brought about by the changed tax arrangements. I modelled a couple who took top hospital cover without excess, for the first time after age 70, and found that, as a couple, they would pay an extra $1230. So in that extreme scenario, the cost for two people would be even higher than in the case Dr Southcott has brought to our attention.</p>
<p>But such cases are outliers. As this author has pointed out, the majority of people who take out private health insurance do so when they’re much younger.</p>
<p>There is a surge of membership at age 30, when the lifetime loadings start to take effect, but there is no surge in membership at later ages. In fact, there are sharp falls in membership at ages 65 and 70, in spite of the higher rebates at those ages. Presumably this is because around those ages, people’s income falls and they are therefore no longer subject to the Medicare Levy Surcharge.</p>
<p>There are a few people who, in a calculating way, may take out cover only when they’re older, but such people tend to take only very specific cover, and are unlikely to take top cover or ancillary cover.</p>
<p>The two final scenarios modelled by this author, showing increases more in the order of $20-$67 a year, are far more typical. Without more information I cannot check them specifically, but in similar modelling I have found similar figures. <strong>- Ian McAuley</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout">The Conversation is fact checking political statements in the lead-up to this year’s federal election. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert reviews an anonymous copy of the article.Request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16668/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“The changes to lifetime health cover will increase [private health insurance] premiums by up to a reported 27.5%. This is hitting many local residents very hard, with some struggling to find the money…Jonathan Karnon, Professor of Health Economics, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.