Turnbull’s Medicare backflip — or is it?

Turnbull recently announced that his government, if re-elected, will not change any element of Medicare. It came in response to Labor’s campaigning that Medicare was under threat, that it would be privatised under a Liberal government. The general media response was to take Turnbull at his word and that Labor’s continuing use of the campaign was no more than a ‘scare campaign’ now based on a ‘lie’. But let’s take a closer look, including a careful examination of the words he first used. 

First we need to understand Medicare. Although we associate Medicare with medical services, it actually does not deliver a single such service. In essence, it is no different to private health funds insofar as it provides cover for the costs when people purchase medical services — or as it is sometimes described, a ‘universal health insurance scheme’ and we pay the Medicare levy as our insurance policy payment. Of course, it has ‘bulk billing’ which allows that medical services, if provided at a cost stipulated by Medicare, can be provided at no cost to the ‘consumer’. It is basically a payment system. The government controls policy and sets the ‘prices’ it will pay for services and also determines what services are included in the Medicare benefits schedule (which is the other work of Medicare staff, advising on those prices and services). There have been policy decisions over the years that provided additional funding (‘incentives’) to service providers, such as pathology and diagnostic imaging, if they bulk billed.

So it is similar to government provision of pensions. Government sets the policies but provides only a payment and no direct service. By way of comparison, think about the Bureau of Meteorology or the Australian Bureau of Statistics: government again controls policy but its funding of those bodies is for the direct provision of a service.

Back in February it was revealed that a task force had been established within the public service to examine the Medicare payment system, including the ‘commercial possibilities’. The government described this, however, as only the ‘back office operations’ of Medicare. From the description of Medicare, you will see that the payment system is not a ‘back office operation’ but is the core business of Medicare.

The proposed change was described as:
… part of our commitment to ensuring the government embraces innovation and is agile and responsive to changes in the digital economy.
No doubt you will recognise the words ‘innovation’ and ‘agile’ and their obviously intended link to Turnbull’s previously announced national innovation agenda. The implication being that we should support the proposed changes to Medicare as part of a much broader agenda in the national interest.

Any outsourcing would only apply to back office operations and the administrative actions of making payments to individuals and providers. It doesn’t include setting fees or rebates and it doesn’t have any impact on the cost of health care, other than it may result in services being delivered more efficiently.
The latter are Turnbull’s words in parliament and remember this was only four months ago. He wasn’t denying it then.

Labor attacked then and continued the attack that the Liberal government did not support Medicare. It had plenty of ammunition including the continued freeze of Medicare rebates (now continuing until 30 June 2020) and the cessation of incentive payments for bulk billing to pathology and diagnostic imaging services. For the election, Turnbull announced that stopping the incentive payments had been put off for six months, will be reviewed, and that rents for pathologists will be reduced. How he can achieve the rent reduction is a vexed question — surely a Liberal government would not wish to interfere in the market in that way! All Turnbull has done is remove it temporarily while the election takes place. He has not said it is off the table permanently.

Labor’s attack was obviously gaining traction in the electorate forcing Turnbull to come out and say:
It will never, ever be sold. Every element of Medicare services that is being delivered by government today, will be delivered by government in the future. Full stop.
Apparently this was a ‘captain’s call’ by Turnbull but still Labor wasn’t convinced.

And I had to ask myself why did he spell out ‘every element of Medicare services that is being delivered by government’. As far as I can glean the only services not delivered by Medicare, but associated with it, are some registries of diseases kept by non-profit organisations in the medical sector. Or did he mean that payments are not a ‘service’? Or when he referred to ‘government’ was he limiting it to the ministers in his cabinet who govern the country? — in that case, what the government ‘delivers’ is the policy of Medicare. He was so specific in his statement that it hints at obfuscation.

Also he claims that these services ‘will be delivered by the government in the future’. What does that clause actually mean? It doesn’t preclude the possibility that payments could be contracted out: that is still a ‘government service’ but it has simply asked someone else to do it. Consistent with Turnbull’s statement it is not ‘selling’ the provision of Medicare payments, merely hiring someone else to undertake the task. Remember he is a trained lawyer and understands the use of words.

Subsequently Turnbull had to clarify his meaning and spelled out that payments would not be outsourced and upgrading of the payment system would take place 'within government'. The fact he was forced to do so emphasises that his opening explanations were less than clear but more importantly not convincing the electorate.

As Labor initially continued the attack, despite the denial, Turnbull said that Labor was ‘peddling an extraordinary lie, so audacious it defies belief’. Surely it shouldn’t defy belief within the Liberal party: after all they used a similar tactic regarding Gillard’s words about a carbon tax.

Turnbull also made a point of saying that the issue had not gone before cabinet and, therefore, there was no government decision. However, when Labor made an FoI request on the issue it was denied a number of documents because they involved ‘briefing the minister on a submission which is proposed to be submitted to cabinet’. Clearly the public servants had been preparing briefs and submissions on the issue: that doesn’t happen without someone in cabinet knowing about it and such submissions to cabinet are coordinated by Turnbull’s own Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. So Turnbull’s nit-picking that the issue did not go to cabinet was a little disingenuous.

Although the task force seems no longer to be operating, Labor also points to a Productivity Commission report requested by Treasurer Scott Morrison:
… to review all aspects of human services delivered by government, including community services, social housing, prisons, disability services and Medicare.

The terms of reference include examining ‘private sector providers and overseas examples like the United States’ for alternative service delivery models.
One could ask why the United States is specifically picked out as an overseas example. If the government wished only to improve efficiency but retain services within government, it could have listed a few European countries as examples for study. No, looking to America, with its heavy emphasis on the private sector, is clearly indicating the model the government wants.

I still question Turnbull's stronger dismissal of Labor's argument. If payments by the Department of Human Services are outsourced on an American model, it would become logical in the future to also outsource Medicare payments — we already see Centrelink and Medicare in the same shopfronts and it would make sense for staff to have access to the same payment system on their computer screens. Would such an approach still be 'within government'? — it could, simply by fully moving the Medicare payments system to the Department of Human Services.

Whatever else may be said, Labor achieved its purpose and forced Medicare to front and centre of the election debate. For a while it moved discussion onto its favoured ground forcing the Liberals to respond with border security and turning back boats and revealing information they normally claim is a secret operational matter. Yes, when it comes to an election operational secrecy no longer matters!

Turnbull, as are many politicians, is a trained lawyer and knows how to choose his words carefully. He knows how to avoid outright lies but also how to avoid the truth. He knows how to say only what he wants to say and avoid adding any flourish that may reveal more than he wishes. The fact he was forced to change his words does imply that he was less than truthful in his initial statements or, at the least, was attempting to keep his options open. And perhaps even his stronger denial still has an element of keeping his options open but I leave that for you to think about.

Rate This Post

Current rating: 0.4 / 5 | Rated 14 times

Ad astra

26/06/2016Ken You have concluded your piece with a warning about the importance of words and how lies can be perpetrated, but always gift wrapped in populist rhetoric. This morning I read an article on Brexit written by Andrew Macleod in [i]The New Daily: Britain may be leaving the EU because of a lie[/i]. It is worth reproducing some of it here. It reinforces your message. “[i]…globally, we must understand that populist politicians are distorting the truth, resulting in causing major tectonic shifts. “Undoubtedly one of the major issues in this referendum was that of immigration. “Brexit campaigners promised to introduce an Australian-style point system instead of EU free movement and allowed the interpretation to grow that such a system would not just control migration, but reduce it. “Polish plumbers that were laying about on government benefits could no longer pinch British people’s jobs – according to populist beliefs. “Let’s ignore the fact that you can’t be on benefits and have a job. “Let’s ignore the fact that migration adds to the economy. “Let’s ignore the fact that more than half of the UK’s immigration comes from outside the EU. “Let’s ignore the fact that the Australian points system results in a migration rate twice that per head of the UK. “But populist dog whistling about migration isn’t unique to Britain. “Remember Donald Trump’s wall with Mexico to keep out the illegal migrants who will concurrently pinch your job, rape your daughter, sell drugs to your son and take unemployment benefits? “Or Australia’s irrational fear of being flooded by asylum seekers who likewise pinch your job, take unemployment benefits and blow up your aeroplanes while yelling Allah-u-Akbar in their designer jeans and tax payer funded sun glasses? “Britain has voted to leave the UK and in my opinion a significant number of people have voted believing that migration was a problem and migration will now be reduced. Populist politicians allowed that belief to grow. “I do not believe either of those things regarding immigration are true. [b]“Globally the greatest threat to functioning democracy is populist politicians who distract key and difficult issues on sound bites. “People then vote on distorted hopes and then become disillusioned in the system because facts over time show those hopes to be false. “This is a clear and present danger to our way of life and we do not recognise how serious the threat of populism is.”[/i][/b] (My emphasis) Who could disagree with Macleod’s words?

Stuart Dean

26/06/2016Centrelink and Medicare are already available online at MyGov. Turnbull is promising to throw billions more at it because it is a botched system - a lot of flaws, apparently.I am completely flummoxed at how people have accepted Abbott's lies when they so vehemently rejected Julia Gillard when she was accused of lying (she didn't). For any voter to now believe Turnbull's promises is so mind numbing, so two-faced and ridiculously stupid. We will get the Government we don't deserve because of these ignoramuses'.

Joan Kindelan

26/06/2016I still believe there is an ulterior motive for the LNP to privatise Mecicare. http://despensable.com.au/indespensable/2016/02/government-betrayal-revealed-as-tpp-trade-agreement-is-linked-to-secret-plan-to-privatise-health-care/


27/06/2016Ad Astra - further to your comment, the popularist Political Leader has to continue to 'guild the lily' when the inevitable accusations of no delivering what they promised occur. Then we end up where Australia is after Rudd and Abbott.

Ad astra

28/06/2016Stuart Dean Thank you for your comment and welcome to [i]The Political Sword[/i]. Do come again. You are right. It is incomprehensible that people still believe the lies that are peddled by our politicians. Politicians have mastered the art of lying in a way that invites belief. They use weasel words to hide the truth; they use half-truths, and they sometimes tell outright lies. They follow the Goebbels principles that if a lie is told often enough, the people will eventually believe it. He added that the bigger the lie, the more likely it would be believed. To get away with their mendaciousness politicians rely on the indifference of much of the electorate, which can’t be bothered checking the facts or the logic politicians use. The media too is complicit by selectively quoting and through partisan reporting. It leaves decent, honest people with a feeling of hopelessness. They feel disenfranchised. Disillusioned with politics and politicians, some voters are abandoning the major parties. This may throw up surprising outcomes next Saturday.

Ad astra

28/06/2016Joan Kindelan Welcome to [i]The Political Sword[/i] too. Do come again. Thank you for the link – it was most interesting reading. I have bookmarked your reference. If they win on Saturday, time will tell how determined the LNP is to privatize Medicare. ‘Privatization’ can take many forms. The more control of Medicare is passed to others, for example through the mechanism of co-payments and higher medication costs for patients, the less the government takes responsibility for it. We have seen how devious the LNP has been, when having failed with its $7 co-payment for GP consultations, has set about achieving the same through the freeze on GP rebates. To be suspicious of any utterance, of any reassurance, is wise.


7/07/2016Thanks for this detailed analysis of Turnbull's back peddling on Medicare outsourcing. I agree that his words still leave room for his government to proceed with this outsourcing arrangement.
I have two politicians and add 17 clowns and 14 chimpanzees; how many clowns are there?