I had the misfortune years ago of having a client who was involved in setting the policy for ACT when it first started. One of the policies he wanted them to consider was giving tax rebates to people who had private health insurance or who sent the children to private schools because they weren’t, in his opinion, a “burden on the state.”It is, but those with the means have the opportunity to opt into a private setting and let those less fortunate take up the public setting. Absolutely private and public should have the opportunity to cross each others settings for purposes such as overloading on one or the other, but in my view neither should be prioritised from the setting they belong to unless there is concerns of the severity and life threatening for the patient. For most of society the private setting gets too expensive the older you get , which is when it’s often necessary or helpful and majority end up back on the public system. I do lean towards means testing on the subject of superannuation but a loophole would be found I’m sure if this eventuated, I think the days are gone where we should expect honesty and decency from people and it just comes across to me as naive thinking. Fascinating in a courtroom setting that society expects someone on a stand to be completely honest from holding their hand over a book. It’s almost comical.
He also wanted a “reverse” means testing for superannuation….. he felt people should only get super as long as it reflected how much tax they had paid. So, a worker on a low wage most of their working life would only receive it for a short time but the rich would receive it for the rest of their lives.
One of the most arrogant people you could ever meet and with little to no empathy for others.