I don't know whether this point has been made yet as I've not read through all 18 pages so far.
But anyone staying here on a retirement extension, using the money in the bank has to keep a minimum of 400k all year round, which in a medical emergency would be available, and unlike the proposed insurance there would be no "denied claims for pre-conditions", and it would be available to everyone regardless of age.
As such it would certainly be preferable to being forced to waste perhaps 15-40% of this every year to take what could be totally worthless mandatory insurance. I do realise that once used it would probably result in your next extension being denied, and you would need to start-over again.
It just seems a little coincidental that the level of cover being mandated for the O-A (as for the O-X already) is the same as the minimum balance we must keep.
I realise also that 400k is probably not enough cover for many illnesses, especially if wanting to use private hospitals, but if this considered critical, then surely a higher figure should be mandated for the insurance.
I could foresee such insurance being mandated for those on extensions using the monthly income method, where they may not have access to ANY funds in the event of hospitalisation.