Federal Coalition Government 2013-?

[Ruggo]

When in doubt, refer back to the economics. It is absolutely fucking mad. Economists also love a measure of productivity, so any economics perspective can be directed back to a healthy population.

Hockey says the people need to contribute more to the health system. I don't object to that standpoint at all. So propose an increase in the medicare levy and truthfully sell it to the people for the reasons he has stated. That's half the problem with these mugs, they think they are so much fucking smarter than the rest of us. Also a decent review of where the money is being dispensed needs to happen.

When did society become subservent to its economy and not the economy become subservent to society?

 

[fatprop]

Because mass deaths are always a good measure of good policy.
If the introduction of a government policy causes any number of 'acceptable deaths' then there's something very wrong with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As is trying to use sarcasm in a politics thread it appears

 

[fatprop]

When did society become subservent to its economy and not the economy become subservent to society?

It always has been, every time a government makes a budget they make decisions on how to spend our taxes.

Unless we want to increase the tax pie, hard decisions are always made to keep costs down

Health is a massive portion of the budget and in reality we could spend the whole budget on health and some would still not be satisfied with the service. We already had a push to expand Medicare into dental under the last government.

So compromises will always be made and always have been made.

 

[Runner]

When in doubt, refer back to the economics. It is absolutely fucking mad. Economists also love a measure of productivity, so any economics perspective can be directed back to a healthy population.

Hockey says the people need to contribute more to the health system. I don't object to that standpoint at all. So propose an increase in the medicare levy and truthfully sell it to the people for the reasons he has stated. That's half the problem with these mugs, they think they are so much fucking smarter than the rest of us. Also a decent review of where the money is being dispensed needs to happen.

When did society become subservent to its economy and not the economy become subservent to society?

From memory the original levy was to be 5% but cabinet wouldn't agree

 

[Scoey]

As is trying to use sarcasm in a politics thread it appears

Probably. But yeah I missed it in your original post.
When I come in here I usually have my 'interpretation to posts' dial set to outrage as a default.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

It always has been, every time a government makes a budget they make decisions on how to spend our taxes.

Unless we want to increase the tax pie, hard decisions are always made to keep costs down

Health is a massive portion of the budget and in reality we could spend the whole budget on health and some would still not be satisfied with the service. We already had a push to expand Medicare into dental under the last government.

So compromises will always be made and always have been made.

If you exempt enough people from the co-payment then it is probably reasonable. That would be anyone receiving income support payments and children most likely.

That certainly wasn't part of the original policy that was announced.

It is still wildly debateable whether it will actually lower the overall costs of the health system.

Further scaling back or completely getting rid of the private health insurance rebate would probably be a better targeted method of cutting costs in the health system.

 

[Sully]

It was my belief that none of the co-payment revenue was to go towards the health system but was going towards setting up a research fund. Is that correct?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

It was my belief that none of the co-payment revenue was to go towards the health system but was going towards setting up a research fund. Is that correct?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

That's a separate thing in terms of the funding although they're linked in the same piece of legislation meaning that if one fails, they both fail (and the government can say that the Senate has blocked the medical research future fund).

The co-payment doesn't really generate anything. Setting up the system is budgeted to cost almost as much as it raises. It is purely a price signal to try and get people to use services less.

The Medical research future fund is designed to work in a strange way though. They're aiming to build it to $20 billion by 2022-23 but only plan to distribute around $1 billion by that point in time.

The premise being that it will be more sustainable and can distribute research funding from earnings.

 

[fatprop]

If you exempt enough people from the co-payment then it is probably reasonable. That would be anyone receiving income support payments and children most likely.

That certainly wasn't part of the original policy that was announced.

It is still wildly debateable whether it will actually lower the overall costs of the health system.

Further scaling back or completely getting rid of the private health insurance rebate would probably be a better targeted method of cutting costs in the health system.

It is why my preference is always increase the pension/allowance/tax threshold and give the individual the ability to choose what the money is spent on

 

[Braveheart81]

It is why my preference is always increase the pension/allowance/tax threshold and give the individual the ability to choose what the money is spent on

That would be more costly though. Say you increase all those things by the average number of doctor visits but then spend most of the co-payment on administering the co-payment system it has a net cost to the budget.

In general though I do agree with your sentiment.

I.e. tax cuts to offset the carbon tax for low income earners. Anyone who reduced their electricity consumption ended up better off.

 

[boyo]

That's a separate thing in terms of the funding although they're linked in the same piece of legislation meaning that if one fails, they both fail (and the government can say that the Senate has blocked the medical research future fund).

The co-payment doesn't really generate anything. Setting up the system is budgeted to cost almost as much as it raises. It is purely a price signal to try and get people to use services less.

The Medical research future fund is designed to work in a strange way though. They're aiming to build it to $20 billion by 2022-23 but only plan to distribute around $1 billion by that point in time.

The premise being that it will be more sustainable and can distribute research funding from earnings.

It's a type of blackmail - vote for the co-payment or there is no medical research fund.

They have been very sneaky linking the two.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's a type of blackmail - vote for the co-payment or there is no medical research fund.

They have been very sneaky linking the two.

It's not exactly an uncommon practice. The previous ALP government did it as well.

 

[fatprop]

That would be more costly though. Say you increase all those things by the average number of doctor visits but then spend most of the co-payment on administering the co-payment system it has a net cost to the budget.

In general though I do agree with your sentiment.

I.e. tax cuts to offset the carbon tax for low income earners. Anyone who reduced their electricity consumption ended up better off.

Cost more, yeah, lower concerns over fairness, definitely - and that is this government's continuing issue

Also the minor increase to what 12 a year? or an extra $84 a year is very little but takes away a political impediment and would allow the user to spend the money (I think my free market ideals are showing through)

 

[Tex]

To paraphrase Bernard Keane (Crikey): so a price signal in health is appropriate, but a price signal on emitted carbon is not?

The government is bending to that many vested interests that they've lost any consistent ideological thread.

Turnbull this morning was trying to reassure Michael Brissenden that the budget negotiations were standard mundane processes of government, rather than the clusterfuck of ego and hubris that I'm seeing. Can't say I agree with him.

 

[Pfitzy]

I'm disappointed that someone used Jessica Irvine's article above.

She's the same one who was whining about home ownership earlier this year, who also recently said the RBA Governor was right and we should all harden up.

She's a classic noise-for-nothing journalist. Hardly an "economics" reporter.

 

[Bowside]

Abbott is ramping up terrorism fears and committing ground soldiers to IRAQ in order to direct attention away from domestic issues.

Australia isn't a terrorist target currently, but I'm sure if we follow the US back into Iraq all guns blazing we may well become one.

ISIS is a stain on humanity, but it's not our problem - and even if it was, it's not a problem we are capable of fixing. Rather this is just an attempt to drum up sentiment, distract attention and also probably keep the US military-industrial complex ticking over.

Straight out of the George W. Bush playbook and I hope Australia dosn't fall for it.

 

[boyo]

"Mr Joyce's office declined to answer questions and directed inquiries to the corporation."

Of course he wouldn't - it's difficult to speak when your mouth is full of your foot.

Barnaby Joyce slackness cost us our pay rise, say researchers

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/barnaby-joyce-slackness-cost-us-our-pay-rise-say-researchers-20140827-108vri.html#ixzz3BebjMm2f

He may be the class clown, but he's not funny.

 

[Runner]

Abbott is ramping up terrorism fears and committing ground soldiers to IRAQ in order to direct attention away from domestic issues.

Australia isn't a terrorist target currently, but I'm sure if we follow the US back into Iraq all guns blazing we may well become one.

ISIS is a stain on humanity, but it's not our problem - and even if it was, it's not a problem we are capable of fixing. Rather this is just an attempt to drum up sentiment, distract attention and also probably keep the US military-industrial complex ticking over.

Straight out of the George W. Bush playbook and I hope Australia dosn't fall for it.

We have had several attempts at terror over time. Assassinations last centruy of the visiting Duke, The Turkish embassy, Hilton, you could put in Bali and perhaps some I have forgotten.

Several persons are in goal for planning to do them so why not give the guys who guard our doors some benefit of the doubt?

Not our problem. So climate change, world poverty, etc are not our concern either.

 

[Bowside]

Concerns about several attempts over a long period doesn't really justify the wasted money and loss of Australian life that would result from our intervention in this conflict.

And the blokes who are thwarting terrorism in this day and age are sitting behind computers in data centres building watchlists etc. They are not combat soldiers.

All of this is beside the point:

We have a budget deficit - going to war is a shit way to fix that. Every dollar that is spent on military kit in Iraq is a dollar that isn't spent on our schools, roads and hospitals. What do you think is going to grow gpd more considering we are buying the equipment from foreign nations.

 

[boyo]

Abbott is ramping up terrorism fears and committing ground soldiers to IRAQ in order to direct attention away from domestic issues.

Is he trying to hide his budget woes behind this?

Another "Look over there" moment.