Australian Expats in Thailand read this.

[ABCer]

If you are an Australian living in Thailand you might be interested in the following:

a test case in the Constitutional Court is planned against Centrelink policy of withdrawal of Health care benefits for Expats on basis of Residence.

Interested? Don't just sit there and wait.

Contact me on Messenger.

[wow64]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

[GrantSmith]

If you are an Australian living in Thailand you might be interested in the following:

a test case in the Constitutional Court is planned against Centrelink policy of withdrawal of Health care benefits for Expats on basis of Residence.

Interested? Don't just sit there and wait.

Contact me on Messenger.

We don't have a "Constitutional Court" in Australia, at least the last time I looked.. Challenges to the constitutionality of policies gets tested in the High Court.

Health Care benefits? Do you mean Medicare? Or the PBS? If it's to do with Centrelink this would be about residents living overseas claiming a pension of some sort, no?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Seastallion

[kurnell]

I doubt I'll ever go back full time. I still have my Medicare card

[wprime]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

What about an Aussie who draws an income from Australia but living in Thailand? He is subject to a fixed tax rate on his Australian income. Is it not fair that he receive some services in return?

[MrWorldwide]

I doubt I'll ever go back full time. I still have my Medicare card

I'll go one further - I dont want to have to go back at all but I still have my Medicare card. Eventually it will expire and that will be that. My palliative care plan is a bottle of Mehkong and a bathtub but I'd like to think I still have some life left in me at 55 - famous last words in Patts. The nanny state can keep its struggling health care system and the Libs steady assault on 'free' health care. Barely had to go anywhere near a doctor for the first 50 years and the system was no help with dental or optical so I paid for those anyway - and the extra Medicare levy for those over a certain income. Every time I looked at private healthcare the cheapest options came in at - surprise, surprise - the amount I was paying over and above the standard levy and I couldnt see the point. I have medical cover here simply because the ramifications of getting a tropical disease or being hit by a motorbike are considerably more real than they were back in Oz - sheltered life, I guess. Went to a dentist here in Patts last week - they were ready for me bang on my appointed time, no injection or messing around and I was out of there a thousand baht later : superb job with no after effects and I'll happily go back to the same surgery.

Even a child could see that Oz's aging population would mean the taxpayer would eventually have to fork out more to keep people alive - cant say it was a huge surprise when our mate Joe started bleating about it. I believe there are interesting times ahead for a large section of the Australian population, particularly those with a cradle-to-the-grave view of the welfare system, but that's probably best left for another thread.

[David48]

I did try and identify the actual proceedings underway as described by the "a test case in the Constitutional Court is planned against Centrelink policy of withdrawal of Health care benefits for Expats on basis of Residence." but I couldn't find it.

OP ... do you have a link for verification?

[samran]

I can't remember a clause in the constitution that says the commonwealth must provide medical care to all citizens.

Anyway, health is nominally delivered by the states. And if Abbott and sloppy joe are proposing to introduce a $7 GP levy, then the universality plank of Medicare - the right to access it on the base of need and not income - vanishes.

Edited May 28, 2014 by samran

[kurnell]

I doubt I'll ever go back full time. I still have my Medicare card

I'll go one further - I dont want to have to go back at all but I still have my Medicare card. Eventually it will expire and that will be that. My palliative care plan is a bottle of Mehkong and a bathtub but I'd like to think I still have some life left in me at 55 - famous last words in Patts. The nanny state can keep its struggling health care system and the Libs steady assault on 'free' health care. Barely had to go anywhere near a doctor for the first 50 years and the system was no help with dental or optical so I paid for those anyway - and the extra Medicare levy for those over a certain income. Every time I looked at private healthcare the cheapest options came in at - surprise, surprise - the amount I was paying over and above the standard levy and I couldnt see the point. I have medical cover here simply because the ramifications of getting a tropical disease or being hit by a motorbike are considerably more real than they were back in Oz - sheltered life, I guess. Went to a dentist here in Patts last week - they were ready for me bang on my appointed time, no injection or messing around and I was out of there a thousand baht later : superb job with no after effects and I'll happily go back to the same surgery.

Even a child could see that Oz's aging population would mean the taxpayer would eventually have to fork out more to keep people alive - cant say it was a huge surprise when our mate Joe started bleating about it. I believe there are interesting times ahead for a large section of the Australian population, particularly those with a cradle-to-the-grave view of the welfare system, but that's probably best left for another thread.

Every time my card expires they send a new one to my sister

[wow64]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

The problem is all three people in your example if they move overseas will be able to get welfare not only the person who paid taxes all his life. I agree it should be fair but in my opinion to make it fair for a small percentage who choose to live overseas makes it unfair for the majority of tax payers.

Sent from my c64

[wow64]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

What about an Aussie who draws an income from Australia but living in Thailand? He is subject to a fixed tax rate on his Australian income. Is it not fair that he receive some services in return?

Its not fair but we made the decision to move overseas.

Sent from my c64

[simple1]

Australia has 'The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900'. However it was updated by the Australia Act 1986 which removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution as in force in Australia. Any changes to the current Constitution would need to be approved by way of a referendum.

The proposed co-payment of A$7.00 per GP visit is claimed to be used to fund over time A$20 billion in medical research facilities. As far as I am aware it has yet to be established how any new IP would be commercialised / moved into production onshore for which Australia has a very poor track record. Indeed I do not believe any business case has been articulated.

As Samran mentioned Fed government is proposing reduction of funding for State & Territory for health, plus education, that equates to A$80 billion. Many commentators are claiming this is just a move to force an increase in State/Terroritory taxes for which Fed Govt can disclaim responsibility for any 'new taxes' whilst claiming reduction in Fed expenditure. In the meantime Fed Civil Service is costing Oz tax payers A$56 billion a year, this cost is on a continuing J curve that the various governments have completely failed to contain.

[simple1]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

The problem is all three people in your example if they move overseas will be able to get welfare not only the person who paid taxes all his life. I agree it should be fair but in my opinion to make it fair for a small percentage who choose to live overseas makes it unfair for the majority of tax payers.

Sent from my c64

It’s a fallacy, government funded study identified it is less cost to the Oz taxpayer if recipients of Centrelink payments e.g. Aged Pension and DSP relocated overseas. Legislation was not introduced due to political concerns of resentment by the electorate. From memory TV member Harry has got the link to the study, perhaps he can repost in this topic

Edited May 29, 2014 by simple1

[Seastallion]

My daughter, aged 29, never lived in Australia all her life but moved there a few months ago. She is an Australian citizen by birth and travels on an Australian passport, so no residency problems. Her 3 year old son (a NZer...and for those that don't know, all Australians enjoy free medical care and all other benefits that NZers enjoy in NZ) hurt his elbow. She took him to the public hospital where a nurse treated his elbow by manipulation. The visit took half an hour. Because she had only just landed in Australia, she had not registered for anything, and so despite her Australian passport, she was landed with a $480 bill. Hard, but in a way fair enough as she has never paid tax there, yet had an Ozzy mum landed in NZ and her son got hurt, there would have been no bill at all....and my daughter is Ozzy in Oz!

[wow64]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

The problem is all three people in your example if they move overseas will be able to get welfare not only the person who paid taxes all his life. I agree it should be fair but in my opinion to make it fair for a small percentage who choose to live overseas makes it unfair for the majority of tax payers.

Sent from my c64

It’s a fallacy, government funded study identified it is less cost to the Oz taxpayer if recipients of Centrelink payments e.g. Aged Pension and DSP relocated overseas. Legislation was not introduced due to political concerns of resentment by the electorate. From memory TV member Harry has got the link to the study, perhaps he can repost in this topic

I wasnt referring to the cost to the tax payers, I was referring to it not being a fair go.

I dont think social welfare should be extended to anyone other then retires who relocate os.

Sent from my c64

[BookMan]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

The problem is all three people in your example if they move overseas will be able to get welfare not only the person who paid taxes all his life. I agree it should be fair but in my opinion to make it fair for a small percentage who choose to live overseas makes it unfair for the majority of tax payers.

Sent from my c64

It’s a fallacy, government funded study identified it is less cost to the Oz taxpayer if recipients of Centrelink payments e.g. Aged Pension and DSP relocated overseas. Legislation was not introduced due to political concerns of resentment by the electorate. From memory TV member Harry has got the link to the study, perhaps he can repost in this topic

Not a fallacy at all SImple1. You are confusing two separate issues.

You are referencing a report that looks at a narrow band of the current cost of providing a pension benefit to overseas residents.

The report doesn't look at what the increasing cost of providing the benefits are if more people were living overseas and what the point is where it becomes more expensive. The report also doesn't look at the loss to Australian society and the Australian economy of the pension money being received and spent overseas and not in the Australian system.

Most importantly the report does not focus on why the benefits are paid in the first place. Some people seem to have forgotten why. The benefits are a safety net for members of society, they are not a funding net for overseas living, nor are they a payment to bring happiness and quality of life. Payments were introduced to help people live week to week. Food, rent etcetera.

Really, if you choose to retire overseas, fund it yourself. If you are on a DSP, why should you receive it overseas?

Here is a recent read

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/youre-paying-100m-for-pensioners-to-live-overseas/story-fni0fiyv-1226901383832

[simple1]

It’s a fallacy, government funded study identified it is less cost to the Oz taxpayer if recipients of Centrelink payments e.g. Aged Pension and DSP relocated overseas. Legislation was not introduced due to political concerns of resentment by the electorate. From memory TV member Harry has got the link to the study, perhaps he can repost in this topic

Not a fallacy at all SImple1. You are confusing two separate issues.

You are referencing a report that looks at a narrow band of the current cost of providing a pension benefit to overseas residents.

The report doesn't look at what the increasing cost of providing the benefits are if more people were living overseas and what the point is where it becomes more expensive. The report also doesn't look at the loss to Australian society and the Australian economy of the pension money being received and spent overseas and not in the Australian system.

Most importantly the report does not focus on why the benefits are paid in the first place. Some people seem to have forgotten why. The benefits are a safety net for members of society, they are not a funding net for overseas living, nor are they a payment to bring happiness and quality of life. Payments were introduced to help people live week to week. Food, rent etcetera.

Really, if you choose to retire overseas, fund it yourself. If you are on a DSP, why should you receive it overseas?

Here is a recent read

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/youre-paying-100m-for-pensioners-to-live-overseas/story-fni0fiyv-1226901383832

Ok, may be not the report Harry referencd that I was referring to, but I did read a study that concluded it was a net financial benefit to Australia for people on Aged Pension to relocate overseas, sorry I cannot relocate the report, but from memory a Dept of Social Services unit funded study (FaHCSIA).

The article you provided a link just underlines the politics of resentment for those receiving Aged Pension overseas, but is fair enough for those on DSP who are not complying to ongoing re-assessment T&C's

Edited May 29, 2014 by simple1

[Seastallion]

Not a fallacy at all SImple1. You are confusing two separate issues.

You are referencing a report that looks at a narrow band of the current cost of providing a pension benefit to overseas residents.

The report doesn't look at what the increasing cost of providing the benefits are if more people were living overseas and what the point is where it becomes more expensive. The report also doesn't look at the loss to Australian society and the Australian economy of the pension money being received and spent overseas and not in the Australian system.

Most importantly the report does not focus on why the benefits are paid in the first place. Some people seem to have forgotten why. The benefits are a safety net for members of society, they are not a funding net for overseas living, nor are they a payment to bring happiness and quality of life. Payments were introduced to help people live week to week. Food, rent etcetera.

Really, if you choose to retire overseas, fund it yourself. If you are on a DSP, why should you receive it overseas?

Here is a recent read

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/youre-paying-100m-for-pensioners-to-live-overseas/story-fni0fiyv-1226901383832

I agree with the bold text above. I question the underlined part. Why does a beneficiary's location rule him out? In theory, a retiree would require less if living in Thailand. So much less that it may be in the interests of the tax payer to encourage retirees to move overseas and recieve less than what they would if they remained in Australia....it may even pay in the long run for social services to pay his airfare just to be rid of him and be able to pay him $50 per week less!

Edited May 29, 2014 by Seastallion

[oldsailor35]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

WOW! that is so well put. I am sure that most reasonable thinking persons will agree with you. Congratulations.

[oldsailor35]

My daughter, aged 29, never lived in Australia all her life but moved there a few months ago. She is an Australian citizen by birth and travels on an Australian passport, so no residency problems. Her 3 year old son (a NZer...and for those that don't know, all Australians enjoy free medical care and all other benefits that NZers enjoy in NZ) hurt his elbow. She took him to the public hospital where a nurse treated his elbow by manipulation. The visit took half an hour. Because she had only just landed in Australia, she had not registered for anything, and so despite her Australian passport, she was landed with a $480 bill. Hard, but in a way fair enough as she has never paid tax there, yet had an Ozzy mum landed in NZ and her son got hurt, there would have been no bill at all....and my daughter is Ozzy in Oz!

Don't understand this one, a pommie relative of mine, on holiday, went to hospital in Qld.,and got free treatment. I did the same whilst on holiday in the UK and got free treatment. Because UK and Australia have got a reciprocal agreement which i believe, as does NZ and Australia.

[n0mad]

My daughter, aged 29, never lived in Australia all her life but moved there a few months ago. She is an Australian citizen by birth and travels on an Australian passport, so no residency problems. Her 3 year old son (a NZer...and for those that don't know, all Australians enjoy free medical care and all other benefits that NZers enjoy in NZ) hurt his elbow. She took him to the public hospital where a nurse treated his elbow by manipulation. The visit took half an hour. Because she had only just landed in Australia, she had not registered for anything, and so despite her Australian passport, she was landed with a $480 bill. Hard, but in a way fair enough as she has never paid tax there, yet had an Ozzy mum landed in NZ and her son got hurt, there would have been no bill at all....and my daughter is Ozzy in Oz!

you daughter can claim on medicare once she receives her card, no issue there really.

exact same thing happened with my Son, because he had just been born he had no medicare card. even though i was billed for the pediatrician, once i got his card we could claim the cost through medicare. My Son is Australian and was born here and never left here.

while it's a hassle she doesn't lose her entitlement.

[Seastallion]

My daughter, aged 29, never lived in Australia all her life but moved there a few months ago. She is an Australian citizen by birth and travels on an Australian passport, so no residency problems. Her 3 year old son (a NZer...and for those that don't know, all Australians enjoy free medical care and all other benefits that NZers enjoy in NZ) hurt his elbow. She took him to the public hospital where a nurse treated his elbow by manipulation. The visit took half an hour. Because she had only just landed in Australia, she had not registered for anything, and so despite her Australian passport, she was landed with a $480 bill. Hard, but in a way fair enough as she has never paid tax there, yet had an Ozzy mum landed in NZ and her son got hurt, there would have been no bill at all....and my daughter is Ozzy in Oz!

Don't understand this one, a pommie relative of mine, on holiday, went to hospital in Qld.,and got free treatment. I did the same whilst on holiday in the UK and got free treatment. Because UK and Australia have got a reciprocal agreement which i believe, as does NZ and Australia.

Yeah, it's beyond me too. And the cost!

Edited May 29, 2014 by Seastallion

[Seastallion]

My daughter, aged 29, never lived in Australia all her life but moved there a few months ago. She is an Australian citizen by birth and travels on an Australian passport, so no residency problems. Her 3 year old son (a NZer...and for those that don't know, all Australians enjoy free medical care and all other benefits that NZers enjoy in NZ) hurt his elbow. She took him to the public hospital where a nurse treated his elbow by manipulation. The visit took half an hour. Because she had only just landed in Australia, she had not registered for anything, and so despite her Australian passport, she was landed with a $480 bill. Hard, but in a way fair enough as she has never paid tax there, yet had an Ozzy mum landed in NZ and her son got hurt, there would have been no bill at all....and my daughter is Ozzy in Oz!

you daughter can claim on medicare once she receives her card, no issue there really.

exact same thing happened with my Son, because he had just been born he had no medicare card. even though i was billed for the pediatrician, once i got his card we could claim the cost through medicare. My Son is Australian and was born here and never left here.

while it's a hassle she doesn't lose her entitlement.

Thanks for that, I'll tell her.

[GrantSmith]

Here's the official line on it...

http://www.immi.gov.au/Live/Pages/new-zealand-citizens.aspx

[raybal5]

If you are an Australian living in Thailand you might be interested in the following:

a test case in the Constitutional Court is planned against Centrelink policy of withdrawal of Health care benefits for Expats on basis of Residence.

Interested? Don't just sit there and wait.

Contact me on Messenger.

We don't have a "Constitutional Court" in Australia, at least the last time I looked.. Challenges to the constitutionality of policies gets tested in the High Court.

Health Care benefits? Do you mean Medicare? Or the PBS? If it's to do with Centrelink this would be about residents living overseas claiming a pension of some sort, no?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If he is talking about Centrelink then it can only be in reference to the issuing of a Health Care Card. All it does is identify the holder as being eligible for concessional rates on things, primarily discounted medical, pharmacy and transport costs but also covers things like energy concessions, telephone concessions etc etc.

I don't really understand what the OP is on about. If you rocked up at a Thai hospital or docter and showed them an Australian Health Care Card I am sure they would be met with a blank, bemused, or confused look. The HCC itself does nothing unless presented in Australia for services provided in Australia.

[raybal5]

My daughter, aged 29, never lived in Australia all her life but moved there a few months ago. She is an Australian citizen by birth and travels on an Australian passport, so no residency problems. Her 3 year old son (a NZer...and for those that don't know, all Australians enjoy free medical care and all other benefits that NZers enjoy in NZ) hurt his elbow. She took him to the public hospital where a nurse treated his elbow by manipulation. The visit took half an hour. Because she had only just landed in Australia, she had not registered for anything, and so despite her Australian passport, she was landed with a $480 bill. Hard, but in a way fair enough as she has never paid tax there, yet had an Ozzy mum landed in NZ and her son got hurt, there would have been no bill at all....and my daughter is Ozzy in Oz!

Don't understand this one, a pommie relative of mine, on holiday, went to hospital in Qld.,and got free treatment. I did the same whilst on holiday in the UK and got free treatment. Because UK and Australia have got a reciprocal agreement which i believe, as does NZ and Australia.

It sounds like she took the kid to a private hospital.

[wow64]

Seriously you think you should still get government medical assistance if you don't' live in Australia.

It was your decision to move here.

There is a valid argument that needs to be tested.

Lets look at a person who worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time. He never once bludged off the system, but after retiring (forced to retire because of age) emigrated to Thailand. He has not renounced his Australian citizenship, just chooses to live outside Australia. He is not wealthy.

Then look at, say, a Sydney Westy who dropped out of school at age 16 and has been on the dole for 40 years, aside from a few stints in prison (where he was still fed by the state). He chooses to stay living in Australia, and continues to enjoy handouts.

Now look at an immigrant who arrived in Australia, perhaps illegally, aged 59. He eventually gets residency, turns 67, and is on a pension with medicare for the rest of his life.

The first chap contributed to society. The other two did not. But because of one thing only, that is location, the first guy gets nothing, the other two get benefits.

It doesn't sound fair to me.

One of the greatest Ozzy sayings is "Fair go". We have a deep-seated cultural mentality of fairness. It's only modern politics that undermines that ethos.

WOW! that is so well put. I am sure that most reasonable thinking persons will agree with you. Congratulations.

And what happens if the other two decide to move overseas?

Sent from my c64

[ABCer]

Well, gentlemen, I am very pleased the discussion has took off.

There is no links so far because I said the test case is planned, not filed.

My contempt is addressing the fact that being an Aus citizen and receiving full age Pension I am being discriminated against on the grounds of Residency.

Surely the decision to live overseas is mine. The problem is every time I come to Aus I am denied the Health Card on grounds of Residency.

Living in Thailand I am paying full price on all pharmaceuticals and this is my decision.

But every time I return to Aus I am denied all benefits and forced into Private sector.

My argument is: being an Aus citizen and in receipt of full Centrelink Age Pension I am denied same benefits in Aus as any new Australian Resident who arrived yesterday.

Those of you who see my point and agree with me should contact me on Personal Messenger.

There is a possibility of filing a group case to be tested in Supreme Court. Not against Centrelink but against Ministry of Health and Social Services. The decision is theirs.

Now, as a practical example: I need an urgent surgical procedure. Naturally I prefer having it done in Aus. Estimated cost $7,000 - $10,000 if done Privately without Med Insurance.

Public hospitals are out since I have no choice of doctor. Private Med Insurance is out because of Residency status. Medicare rebate is about $1,000.

Where is the "fair go"? Considering any of Expats can face similar dilemma I think it is worthwhile testing such a case.

Please continue your arguments. You do give me some alternative viewpoints.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ABCer

[sdanielmcev]

Well, gentlemen, I am very pleased the discussion has took off.

There is no links so far because I said the test case is planned, not filed.

My contempt is addressing the fact that being an Aus citizen and receiving full age Pension I am being discriminated against on the grounds of Residency.

Surely the decision to live overseas is mine. The problem is every time I come to Aus I am denied the Health Card on grounds of Residency.

Living in Thailand I am paying full price on all pharmaceuticals and this is my decision.

But every time I return to Aus I am denied all benefits and forced into Private sector.

My argument is: being an Aus citizen and in receipt of full Centrelink Age Pension I am denied same benefits in Aus as any new Australian Resident who arrived yesterday.

Those of you who see my point and agree with me should contact me on Personal Messenger.

There is a possibility of filing a group case to be tested in Supreme Court. Not against Centrelink but against Ministry of Health and Social Services. The decision is theirs.

Now, as a practical example: I need an urgent surgical procedure. Naturally I prefer having it done in Aus. Estimated cost $7,000 - $10,000 if done Privately without Med Insurance.

Public hospitals are out since I have no choice of doctor. Private Med Insurance is out because of Residency status. Medicare rebate is about $1,000.

Where is the "fair go"? Considering any of Expats can face similar dilemma I think it is worthwhile testing such a case.

Please continue your arguments. You do give me some alternative viewpoints.

Non-Austrailian here, but I am curious. How are you being discriminated against? I know that in the USA,our Social Security, Medicare and the such are pay-as you-go, and can be denied to me for living in Thailand. Not returning some, most, or all of government benefits back to the land of residence in the form of purchases and the such keep said economies going.

This test case could allow ex-residents to keep all their benefits? As I say, I am curious, not finger pointing.