Medicare levy hike to pay for the NDIS :(

[nero_bolt]

THE average worker could be hit with an increased Medicare levy of about $300 a year in next month's budget to help pay for the national disability insurance scheme.

The federal government is seriously considering increasing the Medicare levy from 1.5 to 2 per cent after Prime Minister Julia Gillard warned "urgent and grave" decisions were needed to cope with a $12 billion hit to tax revenue.

The Daily Telegraph understands while the higher Medicare levy would be presented as a reasonable form of "insurance" to protect families from the huge costs of coping with a disability, no final decision has been made whether to include it in the May 14 budget.

Ms Gillard will face attacks that it is another broken promise after she last year ruled out increasing the Medicare levy to pay for DisabilityCare

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/medicare-levy-hike-to-pay-for-the-national-disability-insurance-scheme/story-e6freuy9-1226631862091

[*mrgrizz*]

You and your hubby pay more for everyone?  All 19m people in Australia?

how many people in Australia?

must be a few on holidays:^O

[cherry*135]

I'll up that to 23million.  A lot of people for one couple to pay for/support.

[lakeedge]

rubbish. she's forcing him to deliver something he'd slither out of otherwise. brilliant :^O

Abbott may well "slither" as you so nicely put it, out of the scheme, but only because the money raised, $3 billion, is just a drop in the bucket to what this scheme will require, $22 billion is the real figure & it will grow every year.

Just to administer such a scheme will take billions.

With the worsening budget forecast & our high dollar, the budget black hole & a myriad other things like the end of the resources boom, there's very little chance the NDIS will ever deliver the services that people with disabilities require.

[newstart2380]

Currently 1.5% with an increase of 1/2%. Proposed new levy will be 2%.

Why bother with the 1/3 or 33.3%? Is this some Liberal way of trying to portray Labor is fleecing the people?

absolutely not, just pointing out the actual increase in percentages so people are fully informed. I have and did not suggest labor is "fleecing" anyone, that was your comment So please don't suggest that I say things that I don't.

[newstart2380]

no I have never listened to Pickering, Ross greenwood on the today show put it on a graph and it is correct, maybe Pickering saw it there too. 

[*crikey*mate*]

So tell me what would you do?  Leave our young disabled in the situation that they are now with no where to go when their parents die. There is little housing available and few services. Or worse a young person becomes disabled and is left to rot away in a nursing home.  There are few services for these people.

What should the government do then?

when families are so desperate they can hardly function.  The grief and guilt they feel when they know they are leaving behind their children in a world that can't relate and won't support them.

Quite frankly most people spend more on coffee a year. It's a small price to pay to see our most vulnerable cared for.

I hear what you're saying Bella, but will they be cared for? Is this sustainable long term? What happens when the demand exceeds supply? Do they revert back to substandard levels of service like they already have in our "free" education and health systems?

They let us believe that it is a fix all solution - but for whom and for how long?

In the short term, it will provide extra funds into the gov coffers (via the increased medicare limit) for them to fund what they have already promised us but failed to deliver.

So what happens when that money isn't enough for the rest of these people's lives?

How long until the goal posts get changed again, so that it is near on impossible to meet eligibility and thus no care (or very limited care) is available, and any chance of getting it through private means will have become obsolete.

I'm thinking primarily here of the care extended to mental health patients. How many of them have been removed from full time care only to suffer badly when there was no one to monitor their medicine?

It's a scheme to generate short term funds to fund promises they already can't keep. So what happens when there is no more money? What happens when a fault base system is eradicated?

However, I hope that it does help those who are victim of non traumatic illnesses, as in our fault based system it is these people who have no access to reasonable care or assistance or compensation. But history shows us that it won't. There is not one country in the world where a non fault based system has proven to be sustainable long term. So why does Australia think it is any different?

[lakeland27]

Abbott may well "slither" as you so nicely put it, out of the scheme, but only because the money raised, $3 billion, is just a drop in the bucket to what this scheme will require, $22 billion is the real figure & it will grow every year.

Just to administer such a scheme will take billions.

With the worsening budget forecast & our high dollar, the budget black hole & a myriad other things like the end of the resources boom, there's very little chance the NDIS will ever deliver the services that people with disabilities require.

well i'm not prepared to see this reform put off. as one of the worlds wealthiest societies we should and can do it. if we can afford to subsidise automotive sector wages to the tune of 25-30K per year, buy planes and subs that don't work properly for a conventional war that won't happen (a war decided by missiles is more likely) we can pay for a basic human need like this. there is plenty of wasteful spending, these projects (especially the NDIS) are money well -spent.

[*crikey*mate*]

I agree with your sentiment LL - but the areas of waste are not those that will be cut back to fund this. It is the general public that will be asked to fund this and all of the other things too.

Besides, clearly we can't afford to fund what they already try to....

Micasheen is spot on.

[*crikey*mate*]

The 3 Billion a year is only enough to cover the policies that they already can't fund from previous policies.

It's not enough to provide long term sustainability at an adequate level.

[newstart2380]

well i'm not prepared to see this reform put off. as one of the worlds wealthiest societies we should and can do it. if we can afford to subsidise automotive sector wages to the tune of 25-30K per year, buy planes and subs that don't work properly for a conventional war that won't happen (a war decided by missiles is more likely) we can pay for a basic human need like this. there is plenty of wasteful spending, these projects (especially the NDIS) are money well -spent.

Ahum, which government has subsidised the car industry, decided to go ahead and buy new planes and subs knowing there is no money in the coffers, guess who ?

I also agree we desperately need the NDIS and it is so important to so many people who care for or are suffering a disability.

It will be interesting to see who is and who is not covered by this scheme, I would like the PM to come clean before the budget on the 14th May and TA to put forward their plans and let all Australians know what each party plan is.