Abbott to sell Medibank

[i-need-a-martini]

There goes the benchmark that keeps our insurance premiums at a decent level.

I don't even understand why this is even necessary given that Medibank makes a profit? It's as if decisions are being made without any thought goig into it other than they promised to do it in 2007 so this is their way of punishing voters for not voting for them in at that time.

What other reason could there be?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-moves-towards-medibank-private-selloff-...

[boris1gary]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@catsnknots wrote:

Boris often finds her thoughts from the communist party web site.... she is very open about that... 

I find that your thoughts are more original... slightly annoying to my right minded sense of politics but much better than the communist one. 

and there are a few tax issue I am not happy with... but I am willing to work a bit harder and make some wiser choices so I can take my burden of helping pay back the labor Debt. 

---

Yeah, because a recession would have been so much better than a relatively small, manageable debt.

---

freaki, Sometimes it's all a bit pointless - we will soon have our very own homemade recession, despite what the Telegraph and the other rags say, a national economy is not like a household budget. All the facts and figures are there but.......................i suppose that might be whats meant by original thoughts??????

[tall_bearded]

Monman12 wrote

 “TB: "Once Medibank has been sold off you will see a rapid increase in fees coupled with a similarly rapid decrease in services covered...."
I suggest you study the regulatory conditions apropos fee increases for private health funds, as the regulations will  not be "sold off",  then consider that there are over 30 other health funds in competition with Medibank. at the moment

What is the medical term I wonder for an inability to  research basic facts ?”

Response

So what basic facts are we talking about?

For instance, can you introduce one fact which supports your assertion that after  privatisation, competition coupled with the so called regulatory safety net has delivered a better outcome for the customer.

[monman12]

TB: "So what basic facts are we talking about?"

The fact that  premiums/fees for private health funds, all 36 of them, are closely monitored and regulated:  "Australia's private health insurers are also monitored and regulated by an independent statutory authority known as the Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC). A second independent authority, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman is a service to help consumers with private health insurance problems and enquiries."

These regulations will remain in force when Medibank is finally privatised, as it currently  operating as a competitive business.

Regulations and oversight are the answer to your 2nd question TB  : "can you introduce one fact which supports your assertion that after  privatisation, competition coupled with the so called regulatory safety net has delivered a better outcome for the customer."

I give you the CBA,   and the mainstays of our excellent banking system:   APRA and ASIC.

    

"It's not actually legal for sheep or goats to vote"

[freakiness]

What's the medical term for someone who has a goat and sheep fetish?

[polksaladallie]

Kiwi?

[freakiness]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Kiwi?

---

That might offend the kiwis  😄

[lakeland27]

---

@freakiness wrote:

What's the medical term for someone who has a goat and sheep fetish?

---

 there is a term for the inevitable outcome of such a condition.

[polksaladallie]

Sorry Kiwis.  I forgot that there has been a SOHectomy here.

[boris1gary]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Sorry Kiwis.  I forgot that there has been a SOHectomy here.

---

I was sure you meant the flightless bird, or the fruit.

[tall_bearded]

But then wasn’t the past privatisation of every other public sector corporation subject to “regulations and oversight”, and yet though subject to said safeguards, didn’t the cost of every product or service privatised go through the roof subsequent to privatisation.  As such, is that in itself proof to the contrary?  That is, do not the cost blowouts to the consumer post privatisation prove that “regulations and oversight” does not protect the consumer, in the way you say it would.

As for the CBA how has the consumer benefited.

Is it not a fact that before privatisation, as a publically owned bank the consumer was protected because every decision made on fees, charges and interest rates by that bank was subject to parliamentary oversight, and this on its own  was sufficient to forces the private banks to exercise restraint when it came to fees and charges and interest rates policy.

So compare the above to what is happening now.