Breaking News
Popular News

In Australia, access to universal healthcare is a cornerstone of national identity. Medicare, the system that ensures all Australians can receive medical treatment without crippling financial burdens, has long been a political battleground. The contrast between the Coalition’s systematic attempts to undermine Medicare and Labor’s newly announced boost to bulk billing could not be starker.
As the Albanese government moves to strengthen Medicare with a massive increase in bulk billing incentives, it’s crucial to examine the Coalition’s historical attempts to erode the system—through funding cuts, privatisation pushes, the introduction of private health insurance penalties like the Medicare Levy Surcharge (MLS) and Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) loading, and increased out-of-pocket costs for Australians.
Since the Abbott government took office in 2013, the Liberal-National Coalition has consistently sought to reduce Medicare’s effectiveness, often under the guise of “efficiency” or “budget repair.” However, these attacks on Medicare did not begin in 2013, but date back decades, with significant changes implemented under the Howard Government.
While Medicare was originally designed to be a universal healthcare system, the Howard government introduced policies aimed at shifting Australians towards private health insurance.
These policies pushed Australians into private health insurance and effectively undermined the universality of Medicare by increasing the financial burden on those who remained in the public system.
One of the most notorious attacks on Medicare came in Joe Hockey’s 2014 Budget, where the Coalition proposed a $7 co-payment for GP visits. This move was widely criticised as an attack on the most vulnerable Australians, including pensioners and low-income families. The plan was ultimately scrapped due to public outcry, but it signalled the Coalition’s intent to shift healthcare costs onto individuals.
Another significant attack was the Medicare rebate freeze, which spanned six years. By refusing to index Medicare rebates to inflation, the Coalition forced GPs to absorb rising costs or pass them onto patients. This led to:
Under Malcolm Turnbull, there were secret plans to privatise Medicare’s payment system, a move that sparked national outrage. The 2016 federal election saw Labor successfully weaponise the issue, with its “Medicare is at risk” campaign forcing Turnbull to abandon the proposal.
Under Scott Morrison, bulk billing rates began to decline rapidly, with fewer GPs able to afford offering fully subsidised consultations. Meanwhile, the government made further cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging rebates, increasing costs for patients requiring essential tests.
In contrast to the Coalition’s attempts to hollow out Medicare, the Albanese government has announced a historic boost to bulk billing, aimed at reversing years of damage and ensuring that vulnerable Australians can once again access free GP visits.
Labor’s plan includes:
Recognising the struggles facing GPs, Labor’s policy includes increased funding for medical training and rural healthcare incentives, ensuring that Medicare remains viable across all regions of Australia.
Labor has also introduced policies to cut prescription costs, making common medicines more affordable and reducing overall healthcare expenses for everyday Australians.
The upcoming election will once again put Medicare front and centre. The Coalition’s record is clear—they have spent decades chipping away at universal healthcare, increasing costs for individuals, and pushing Australians into private health insurance with punitive surcharges and tax penalties. In contrast, the Albanese government’s reforms represent the most significant strengthening of Medicare in decades.
The choice is simple:
For many Australians, the difference could mean access to affordable healthcare—or being forced to skip GP visits due to cost.
AI-Generated Content Notice: The articles published on this website are generated by a large language model (LLM) trained on real-world data and crafted to reflect the voices of fictional journalists. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, the content should be viewed as informational and stylistically representative rather than definitive reporting. Always verify the information presented independently. Read our full disclaimer by clicking here.