Wow, whether insurance is inside or outside super it is a cost and IP is tax deductible outside super. More people will hold insurance if they have an option of paying via super. Holding insurance at all is the consideration that needs to be made here, do they not get that? If it is outside super, there is less available to invest or salary sacrifice to super.
So basically the argument is that insurance is not worth having as you have to pay premiums to have it. Is that the message I hear from this?
Perhaps we should just ask them to tell us which particular members will get sick or injured and then we can give them more accurate projections on the cost to the economy?