Why I don’t like government subsidy of private education

Because, as shown in the Gonski report (and reported on the excellent Global Mail), it’s not effective.

Private schools perform better than state schools because they cherry-pick students – by and large, they reject problem students or students with higher educational needs. This gives them a more capable student base – so naturally they will receive higher scores on average. But that’s not a good measure – the correct measure is how well do those students improve, compared to similar students in the state system. Thanks to longitudinal studies such as the NAPLAN tests, we have an answer – students in the private system, on average, demonstrate no significant difference in performance. All that money – both public funding and the fees levied on parents – tossed away for no benefit over state schools.

(Yes, there are some schools that do cater to students who are educationally difficult – Montessori schools in particular are known for this. But they aren’t the rule in private schools – most private schools pride themselves on strict discipline and regimen – the opposite of a Montessori school)

I showed in an earlier post that the Catholic school system costs three times as much per student (by their own figures, taken from the website for the NSW Catholic Schools association). But it doesn’t deliver any additional value, let alone three times as much. While, as a nation, we should allow private education for those who insist on it, there isn’t any reason to toss public money on an inefficient system.

We, as a country, are literally pissing away the future by underinvesting and incorrectly investing in the education of our children. Instead of subsidising private education, how about we ensure that the public system provides good education for all students?

On the private health insurance rebate means test…

Personally, I think it’s a good idea. And not just because I’m a slavish fan of every utterance of the Labour government. Which of course I am. Except when it’s trendy and hipster not to be, of course. Because that’s how I roll.

More to the point, I actually think private health insurance in Australia is a screwed up business model that survives only with government support in the form of the aforementioned rebate and the regulation that allows insurers to charge discriminatory prices based on pre-existing conditions (those conditions being age and lack of continuous coverage). This support is wrong, and needs to be removed.

When the Howard government introduced the health care “reforms” in the 1990s, the stated promise was that private health insurance would – as long as it had sufficient membership – reduce health care costs and promote greater efficiencies. In particular, the reforms were going to encourage the health care funds to grow to a critical mass so that they could achieve economies of scale. This would reduce overheads and allow premium prices to drop. To ensure that, the government was going to regulate price increases – they’d only be allowed if they were shown to be needed.

It’s funny, though – every year since then, health insurance premiums have increased, usually by more than CPI. No fund has shown any breakaway improvements in administration costs. There has been relatively little consolidation in the market place, and private health care has not taken on a large share of the health care market. Instead, what we have seen is the public system continuing to take on more and more of the burden, despite a huge uptake in private health membership. This problem was identified back in 2003 - we’ve known for over 8 years that subsidising private health insurance has been a failing experiment.

The majority of health care costs are borne by the elderly. 5 out of 6 patients in hospital care are over 65. But the elderly aren’t as likely to have health care – people living on fixed income arrangements can’t afford it, by and large. In case you haven’t noticed, Australia – like most of the Western world – has an ageing population. So the number of old people are growing, and so are their medical expenses. This is why the public health system is struggling.

Private health care in Australia, by contrast, is a joke. I have private health insurance – just under the best possible to get. And I find it useless. My son broke his arm a few years back. He is autistic and non-verbal, so we went for a private hospital for the two nights he had to stay in (they needed to operate it and set it) so that he could have a private room and one of us could stay with him. The private hospital costs were reasonable – all we paid was the excess. We got to pick the surgeon – and we picked one who charged a small gap so it wasn’t a very large costs. But the only anaesthetists available – at a hospital recommended by our health care fund! – charged thousands of dollars over the rebate, and we were not informed that would be the case until after the operation. Had we known, we would have opted for a private room at a public hospital.

A similar situation occurred with my wife (though at least this time we went into it knowing that there would be extra costs). A broken knee 18 months ago costs us – _after_ insurance – almost $10,000. Plus she needs another operation to put an implant in which we have been told isn’t covered by our medical insurance (apparently prosthetic implants are only covered on the very best level of coverage, where they are described as “geriatric care”). So if we want them, it’s twelve months waiting to qualify on the coverage – which will let us pay through the nose for care again. Elective surgery through the public system would be free, and with a similar wait – though the post-op rehab wouldn’t be as good.

Nearly every single time I have to use my health insurance, I find the same thing – massive costs which are unexpected and which make having the insurance pointless. The only area where I feel I get value for money is with optical care – and that’s because of discounts offered by optical stores, not rebates. (I just bought new glasses last week – the insurance policy covered about 40% of the cost, while the store discount for members of my health fund was 20% on top! And it wasn’t the frames – the frames were covered 100% by insurance).

This is why private health insurance in Australia is a failure – it provides an expensive level of coverage, and when it’s needed you still end up thousands of dollars out of pocket. It provides little to no financial security. My car insurance gives me financial security: I know that if my car gets written off or stolen, I will get compensation enough to get a new one. My home and contents gives me financial security. My health insurance gives me no financial security – in fact, I can contribute many of my financial problems over the last twenty years to using private health care.

You may wonder why I still have private health insurance – and the answer is simple: my wife and kids. But I’d rather have a solid public health system than have private health care.

In 2003, the government subsidies had a direct cost to the budget bottom line of $3.6 _billion_ dollars. That was over 8 years ago – it’s grown since. That is  billions of dollars every year taken out of the public health system, and given mainly to the upper quartile of income earners (which includes me, BTW). This contributes to growing economic inequality and isn’t needed – the system enables a relatively small slice of Australian society who couldn’t afford private health insurance otherwise to obtain it. Neither the carrot of the rebate or the stick of rising premiums if you decide to join later in life (when you are more likely to need it!) have resulted in private health funds becoming efficient or providing solid value.

The entire system represents a subsidy to high income earners and wealth transfer to the medical system. It does not result in reduced health care costs to society, or better care in general, which should be the goals.

The private health care rebates, and the government support to private health insurance in general, is a failure. Take it away, and let it die – the only downside is that the removal of easy money might actually make private health funds have to become efficient to survive.

 

The “truth” behind Whitney’s song price increases

Ever since the death of Whitney Houston, the twitter-sphere has been abuzz with stories about price hikes on her songs. For example, the iTunes Music Store now has a large number of her songs on the highest pricing tier. So does Amazon. This is being seen as an example of greed by Apple or by Sony (the latter for the people who realise that its the labels that set the price, not Apple).

However, it’s not as cynical as a label cashing in on the death of an almost forgotten music star who hasn’t sold very much for the last decade. (Seriously – when was the last time before a week ago that you bought or even listened to a Whitney Houston song?) I am willing to bet that nobody at Apple or Sony said “let’s raise the price for the Bodyguard song!”. Instead, what people are seeing is automatic price settings.

The pricing of songs at digital music stores – such as, but not exclusively, the iTunes Music Store – often include triggers. “When sales increase by X% or cross this threshold, increase the price to the next level”. These triggers are worked out by the labels – Apple dictate what price points are available, but which one gets used are up to the labels. (Amazon does a similar thing). When sales spikes, the price goes up.

Note that the algorithm doesn’t care about _why_ the price has gone up. Nobody at Sony decided to profit on Whitney Houston’s death explicitly. It just worked out that way.

And it’s not like the labels are completely insensitive either – as of last night, the most popular Whitney Houston song on iTunes (“I Will Always Love You”, aka “the Bodyguard Song”) is back at the mid-tier price point. And that would have been a decision by a human.

Not _everything_ is an example of corporate greed, you know.

My heart bleeds for Karen Gee…

School maths causes pain – Sydney Morning Herald

The woman featured in this story is complaining about high education costs, and wishes that the government could contribute more. My heart bleeds for her – at about 5.25 litres/minute. Seriously, hasn’t she got better things to whinge about?

Let’s actually put some numbers on this, and see what exactly she’s complaining about.

Continue reading

Leveraged Buyouts – what a crock

When you borrow money to buy something, it’s not uncommon for the thing you bought to be used as collateral for the loan. The obvious example is a house mortgage – you borrow money, the house is the security. This makes the act of borrowing itself reasonably risk free: if the purchase falls through, the loan is dissolved and all you’re out is some administrative fees. Your real risk starts when the purchase is successful.

TL;DR – Borrowing money to buy a house is to leveraged buyouts as a pat on the cheek is to a punch to the testicles; same general act, very different implications.

Continue reading

Goals for 2012

Each year, I make exactly one New Year’s resolution: only make one resolution. I’ve been doing that for five years, and I have a 100% success rate.

But I do make goals. The difference between a goal and a resolution is that with a resolution, as soon as you break it, it’s gone. But a goal is something you work towards, and you measure yourself not with the binary of achieved/failed, but by the progress and effort you make along the way.

Continue reading

My Book Collection

Well, the technical ones, anyway – not shown are the two other similarly sized bookcases – and the other one which is a little more than twice as big – which are overflowing with my fiction collection.

(Click to embiggen)

The bottom two shelves (and a couple in the third row) are very dated – I don’t think anyone cares about the pre-OS7 Macintosh Toolbox anymore, for example. A number of the books in that row are from my university days.

The next three rows (including the slight spill over to the top row, which will soon force me to relocate the DVDs) are a more recent vintage – those are the books that I kept at work while I procrastinated about unpacking my study (Hey, I only moved in just under two years ago!). But I finally did that on the weekend, and now they’re home (except for a few I’ve lent out)

I gotta say, I’m thankful for ebooks – over the last two years, I’ve predominately bought ebooks. I’m not sure I could get their physical versions on the top shelf even without the DVDs (it would be another 24 books or so).

Anyway, the reason I’m posting this isn’t to brag or anything – it’s to set myself a challenge. I haven’t been keeping up with my reading over the last year for a number of reasons, up to and including battling with a moderate case of depression. I’m going to change that though – I’m going to go through those top shelves and re-read (or, in a few cases, read) each on that’s still relevant – which is most of them. I mean, I’m sure Webwork In Action was great in the day, but Webwork isn’t relevant to me anymore. Age isn’t a factor, though – in that bookcase somewhere is a 2nd-printing copy of The Mythical Man Month (which I picked up in a Lifeline store for $5!), and I’ve got both the original and the re-issue version of Peopleware in there. Then there’s the Psychology of Computer Programming - but that’s from the 20th anniversary printing.

Anyway, my challenge – to myself – will be to read and post a review of the books in there. One a week, with the first review due next Saturday (October 1), with an e-book thrown into the mix every so often as well. I’ll post a full set of the books within the next few days, and I’ll even see if I can turn it into a poll of sorts in case there’s books people want me to review first.

Watch this space for more.

Updated: You can see my Delicious Library collection, or you can view the page that will become a dynamic view over my books (but right now is just static)

Carbon Tax Thoughts – “That’s not a tax – it’s an ETS”

What a lot of people haven’t seemed to understand about the carbon tax is that it’s not a tax. It’s actually a way to transition from a “pollute-all-you-want” model to a capped-permit model – the ETS.

In order for an ETS to work, you need to have permits to pollute, issued by the government at a price. In order to developed a market for the permits (the ‘T’ stands for trading, after all), you need to have a finite number of these permits, so that companies can sell the permits that they don’t need. You also need penalties for the people who pollute without the permits.

The ‘carbon tax’ is an introduction of a uncapped permit scheme. With no upper limit on the number of permits, there’s no secondary market, but what this does do is help the government work out how many permits are required. Then, in 2015, the government is going to limit the number of permits it issues each year. Companies will still be able to buy them from the government – until the permits run out. After that, they can either buy them from the general market, OR pay the fine for polluting without a permit (this will set an upper-cap on the market price).

Labelling it a carbon tax is largely an exercise in both smear politics and lazy journalism (and it doesn’t help that the politicians have accepted the term ‘carbon tax’ as a moniker).

For a summary – in the government’s own words – see the Clean Energy Future site.