Private Health Insurance like all insurance is riddled with clauses and  conditions, premiums and extras so its essentially impossible to compare  two policies to one another; as such it is very difficult to know what  policy is right for your needs and budget.
I assumed that I was insured  under my parents private health insurance policy until while I was under  25 and still studying. I was recently advised by my mother that I am in  fact not covered under my parents policy, as I am earning over $14,000  per annum and have been since I was 17. So this effectively means I have  been without private health insurance for 5 years, because of some fine  print. Lucky for me, I haven’t had to make a claim in that time, but  this brings me to my next point; do I really need it?
Personally, as a capitalist, I think Private Health Insurance is a good  thing for the country, it relieves the pressure form the public health  care system and it ensures that policy owners receive better service  than those on relying on the public system. Conversely, as a self  confessed tight-ass I find it very difficult to bring myself to spend  hard earned dollars on something I might not need. So you can see I am  in a bit of a jam here; do I cough up the money for private health  insurance and guarantee myself better treatment for treatment I may not  need, or do I contradict my core values and rely on the public health  system which my tax dollars are supporting anyway.
Instead of answering the question myself, I’ll flip it onto the  government. They can either;
Option 1: Make the public health system as good, if not better  than the private health system:
As nice as this idea sounds, it would take a massive investment in the  health system. The money would have to come from somewhere, being tax  revenue. It would be unfair to place excessive taxes on the lower income  demographic, so it’d have to be a tax on wealthier Australians, who  would (due to current MediCare Levy Surcharge Rules) probably already  have private health insurance anyway. So effectively you’d be taxing  wealthy Australians to support a service that they do not use. This is  already the direction the government has been heading for several years  now with the MediCare Levy. Peter Costello was on the right track  introducing the MediCare Levy Surcharge and Private Health Insurance  Rebate; by encouraging middle class and wealthy Australians to take up  Private Health through a tax rebate and threatening them with a  surcharge if they didn’t.
I am concerned about the direction that the public health care system is  heading. The government is looking at spending more on the public  health care system, which is great; but is looking at financing it by  reducing the tax incentive to have private health cover in the first  place. Counterintuitive much? The Liberal Party aren’t doing much better  by proposing that the additional revenue be sourced from an increase in  tax on tobacco. The irony of this proposal is that if the tobacco  excise did in fact curb tobacco consumption; the government would lose  the tax revenue to support the public health sector. This and similar  kinds of social engineering (ie Alcohol, Gambling, Petrol taxes) are the  government wanting to be seen trying to curb consumption by increasing  excise, but what they’re doing is profiteering by taxing economically  inelastic goods.
Option 2: Develop an ingenious way for people to finance private  health insurance policies without spending cash out of their pockets:
At the moment Death, Total Permanent Disability and Income Protection  Insurance premiums are allowed to be deducted from your superannuation  fund. You’ll find these policies are dramatically cheaper if sought  through superannuation rather than personally. This is because of the  massive economies of scale and pooled risk diversification offered by a  superannuation fund. Also, traditionally with insurance the more people  insured the lower the premiums will be across the board, as the insurer  has diversified the risk across a wider population. This means that the  price of Private Health Insurance could effectively be halved if done  via a superannuation fund. Further premiums would be paid by your  superannuation fund as opposed to out of your own pocket; as such people  would not feel the pinch of the fund premiums.
Due to the reduction in premiums,  the no “out of pocket” cost and the  simplification of policies; I believe more Australians would adopt  Private Health Insurance, particularly if people had to “Opt Out” of  default health insurance policies in their superannuation fund, similar  to current arrangements with industry and retail funds. With more people  in the private system, the burden is lifted of the public system, which  means that public treatment will go to those that need it the most.
Current legislation prohibits private health insurance premiums from  being taken out of superannuation, as the fund member would have the  “benefit” of the insurance before retirement. I understand why the  legislation was written like this, without it there would be nothing  stopping a fund member from “investing” in a yacht and sailing the seven  seas. That said I am sure that the SIS Act could be tweaked to allow  Private Health Insurance premiums, as it is “an investment in the  longevity of the fund member.” 
The other counter-argument is that the additional insurance premiums  would chew into retirement savings; this is 100% true. The solution;  increase the superannuation guarantee above 9%! If the rumour mill is  correct then this may already be in the pipeline. Super Guarantee  gradually increased from 6% in 1997 to 9% by 2003. Since then it has  stayed at 9%. If this country is serious about encouraging Australians  to support themselves in retirement, then it should be doing its best to  encourage people to invest more into superannuation. Since the last  federal budget the government has halved the contribution limit and  reduced the co-contribution by 33%. This created a short term revenue  boost for the government, but the long term ramification of more people  relying on an age pension would cost more in the long run.