Federal Coalition Government 2013-?

[Ruggo]

Negotiation takes two.
ALP are no to everything even things they wanted before. The Greens are barking mad and will always say no and are enjoying taking on the ALP as that is where there future voters will come from not the Libs.

PUP is an beast and a bully and should be stood up to

Everyone but the government are at fault Runner. I thought the adults were in charge, or at least that is what we were told.

This government is so arrogant that they shoot from the hip without thinking, making all these silly statements that when the job of governing under the confines of our parliamentary system gets tense, they have nothing. This government is proving itself not capable of arranging a piss up in a brewery.

Gareth Evens summed it up best on Q&A last night when he said governments are meant to become more sophisticated when they are in power but Captain Abbott has gone from using three word slogans to two word slogans.

Keep up the good work fella. You are doing TEAM AUSTRALIA proud.

 

[fatprop]

Negotiation takes two.
ALP are no to everything even things they wanted before. The Greens are barking mad and will always say no and are enjoying taking on the ALP as that is where there future voters will come from not the Libs.

PUP is an beast and a bully and should be stood up to

Dunno, the PUP's option on Carbon Tax actually made a lot of sense, set the ETS up and leave the price at $0 until our trading partners kick off their schemes and start to taxing our exports.

We really didn't vote for everything the Libs had policies for, we just voted Rudd, Gillard & Co out.

Broad brush descriptions are just not helpful, the Libs need to stop talking about a "mandate" they don't have (in the senate) and start compromising and negotiating

Holding their breath and having a tantrum is not going to work as a negotiating position

They have no moral high ground, they are politicians, they either start selling their position to other politicians or drive public opinion or both.

 

[Runner]

Everyone but the government are at fault Runner. I thought the adults were in charge, or at least that is what we were told.

This government is so arrogant that they shoot from the hip without thinking, making all these silly statements that when the job of governing under the confines of our parliamentary system gets tense, they have nothing. This government is proving itself not capable of arranging a piss up in a brewery.

Gareth Evens summed it up best on Q&A last night when he said governments are meant to become more sophisticated when they are in power but Captain Abbott has gone from using three word slogans to two word slogans.

Keep up the good work fella. You are doing TEAM AUSTRALIA proud.

Some adults are in charge. Some are on P's like Shorten, Milne is just nuts and no, PUP are in need of lessons of parliament. How do you negotiate with a rabble. The media are starting to see Clive is about Clive.

You can call them arrogant but they have a plan, carbon gone, boats mostly successful , MRT to go and more to come. ALP no plan while Greens plan to take us back to planet of the apes.

Evans in his very interest book has no plavce for Cheryl who he wooed to get legislation in. Look at the record the Libs supported reforms what have ALP supported of the reforms some of which where taken by them to the last election.

Riddicule Team Australia all you want. If it was Team Wallaby or Team Olympics is that also worth the derission of some on this blog?

 

[Pfitzy]

Negotiation takes two.
ALP are no to everything even things they wanted before.

Pretty much precisely what the LNP did when KRudd the Dud and Rough Red were in power.

Its the story of party politics the last decade. When was the last time either party worked on domestic policy together? GST?

 

[fatprop]

Pretty much precisely what the LNP did when KRudd the Dud and Rough Red were in power.

Its the story of party politics the last decade. When was the last time either party worked on domestic policy together? GST?

It is funny, with Labor using exactly the same approach the Libs used (being against everything).

The outcome ends up with Palmer getting a much higher profile and taking the Greens position of driving what policy gets approved.

 

[fatprop]

Some adults are in charge. Some are on P's like Shorten, Milne is just nuts and no, PUP are in need of lessons of parliament. How do you negotiate with a rabble. The media are starting to see Clive is about Clive.

You can call them arrogant but they have a plan, carbon gone, boats mostly successful , MRT to go and more to come. ALP no plan while Greens plan to take us back to planet of the apes.

Evans in his very interest book has no plavce for Cheryl who he wooed to get legislation in. Look at the record the Libs supported reforms what have ALP supported of the reforms some of which where taken by them to the last election.

Riddicule Team Australia all you want. If it was Team Wallaby or Team Olympics is that also worth the derission of some on this blog?

I always find it amusing to read the rusted on's posts, whether they be for the Libs or Labour, the blind loyalty is just staggering.

As I have said, no one endorsed Abbott's plan, he simply won by default.

Labor were one election too far and the electorate wanted rid of them

And to suggest the "adults" are in charge, meh

While this guy is in charge of education that comment just doesn't hold up to scrutiny

and some of their policies stuff I do like, but they are continuingly losing on the fairness factor and they need to fix it, soon

 

[Braveheart81]

When most of the controversial policies they've tried to get through have been devised by the people who completed the Commission of Audit and are based on gut feeling more than facts and expert opinion, it's no wonder that everyone else is unwilling to pass these measures nor for the public to support them.

University deregulation and the Medicare co-payment should fail because they are terrible policies. They will cost the country money in the long run.

Trying to dismantle the renewable energy target when even the government's own research suggests it will lower electricity prices in the future is nothing more than ideological rubbish pandering to the mining industry. It too should fail.

 

[Pfitzy]

As I have said, no one endorsed Abbott's plan, he simply won by default.

KRudd only got in because people were convinced 11 years of Howard was enough.

And Kevin07 was a complete fucking narcissistic arseclown, who was an Anglican evangelist to boot! His own mates knifed him, put up a woman as a popularity offering, then hit her on the back of the head with a spanner when they realised it wasn't enough.

 

[fatprop]

When most of the controversial policies they've tried to get through have been devised by the people who completed the Commission of Audit and are based on gut feeling more than facts and expert opinion, it's no wonder that everyone else is unwilling to pass these measures nor for the public to support them.

University deregulation and the Medicare co-payment should fail because they are terrible policies. They will cost the country money in the long run.

Trying to dismantle the renewable energy target when even the government's own research suggests it will lower electricity prices in the future is nothing more than ideological rubbish pandering to the mining industry. It too should fail.

I disagree on the co-payment, but there should have been better compensation to low income earners.

But I was brought up on the mantra of if you get something for free, you don't value it.

The university deregulation is a funny one, the government is copping a lot of flack because universities would raise their fees if they could. (and strangely are asking the government not to let them )

So instead they must be lower service standard to work within their current budget limitations

 

[Pfitzy]

Fuck the tax system BTW - I'm sinking a shitload into deductions (borderline criminal) and barely getting anything back. This, despite my annual September bonus being taxed at the highest rate because its almost 15% of my regular income in a single hit!

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree on the co-payment, but there should have been better compensation to low income earners.

But I was brought up on the mantra of if you get something for free, you don't value it.

The university deregulation is a funny one, the government is copping a lot of flack because universities would raise their fees if they could. (and strangely are asking the government not to let them )

So instead they must be lower service standard to work within their current budget limitations

The co-payment is poor policy from an economic standpoint because primary medical services are the cheapest part of the health system per visit and the preventative nature that it can involve is highly beneficial in terms of saving costs further downstream.

In terms of the mantra that if you get something for free you don't value it, I don't think that really applies here. The problem is that people aren't the best at knowing when they need to see a doctor and when they don't. Some people may overuse the service but what's there to say that if they are charged a fee that will cut down their visits they cut down the right visits?

People see the doctor because they don't know what exactly is wrong with them or they need medication. Sometimes they will be told that rest is all they need to get better and sometimes it will be something worse or they will require a prescription to make them better. If someone misses that step and then gets much sicker and ends up being admitted to hospital the costs blowout massively.

If statistics tell us that people with tertiary education earn more income over their lives and pay more tax then surely you want to encourage more people to go to university. Making tertiary education less accessible to the general population is not the way to improve the overall standard of living of the population. It is entirely the way to entrench inequality.

 

[fatprop]

Some people may overuse the service but what's there to say that if they are charged a fee that will cut down their visits they cut down the right visits?

Simple economics, the same reason we increase the costs of cigarettes

I grew up pre medicare, I had to be near death to be sent to the doctor.

An aspirin, a glass of flat lemonade and a couple of butterfly clips for wounds less than 3 inches in length was the family medical standard

Whereas if my brother's kids farts smell funny they are rushed up for a quick free check up in case it is ebola

 

[Runner]

Pretty much precisely what the LNP did when KRudd the Dud and Rough Red were in power.

Its the story of party politics the last decade. When was the last time either party worked on domestic policy together? GST?

Except the Greens held the balance of power via a power sharing arrangement with Gillard so they got their legislation through. In some cases where the Greens oppossed the Lib voted with ALP.

 

[Runner]

As I have said, no one endorsed Abbott's plan, he simply won by default.

That is an opinion not shared by 53% of the electrorate

Lets live high on the hog as ALp sent on pipe dreams and let the next generation pay. Now that is fair and equitable. That is the way ALP thinks

 

[Runner]

The co-payment is poor policy from an economic standpoint because primary medical services are the cheapest part of the health system per visit and the preventative nature that it can involve is highly beneficial in terms of saving costs further downstream.

In terms of the mantra that if you get something for free you don't value it, I don't think that really applies here. The problem is that people aren't the best at knowing when they need to see a doctor and when they don't. Some people may overuse the service but what's there to say that if they are charged a fee that will cut down their visits they cut down the right visits?

People see the doctor because they don't know what exactly is wrong with them or they need medication. Sometimes they will be told that rest is all they need to get better and sometimes it will be something worse or they will require a prescription to make them better. If someone misses that step and then gets much sicker and ends up being admitted to hospital the costs blowout massively.

If statistics tell us that people with tertiary education earn more income over their lives and pay more tax then surely you want to encourage more people to go to university. Making tertiary education less accessible to the general population is not the way to improve the overall standard of living of the population. It is entirely the way to entrench inequality.

I sat in a hospital for 4 hours recently and got great service as they could provide. Why pay? One person was there for a Panadol, a women had a kid who had fallen over and needed a bandaid. A girl came in with a sore foot from dancing the night before and after a while with a bit of a cream ( decorub from smell) left. Yet the staff had to waste time.

It will deter the nuts

 

[fatprop]

As I have said, no one endorsed Abbott's plan, he simply won by default.

That is an opinion not shared by 53% of the electrorate

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I understand the old election maxim still continues, government lose elections, oppositions don't win them

The labor polling and analysis I quoted earlier confirmed that

 

[Braveheart81]

Simple economics, the same reason we increase the costs of cigarettes

I grew up pre medicare, I had to be near death to be sent to the doctor.

An aspirin, a glass of flat lemonade and a couple of butterfly clips for wounds less than 3 inches in length was the family medical standard

Whereas if my brother's kids farts smell funny they are rushed up for a quick free check up in case it is ebola

I don't get your analogy with cigarettes. How does that relate to seeking healthcare?

Would your brother be likely to decrease their doctor visits if it cost $7 a time to take their kids there? If kids end up being free under a concession on the GP Co-payment scheme then it would still not cost anything to take the kids to the doctor.

The point is that if the difference is that someone is treated by a GP and gets better or they don't seek treatment and end up being admitted to hospital, the cost difference is monumental. Taxpayers pay $32.80 for someone to visit a doctor (from memory). If someone spends a night in hospital the cost to taxpayers is in the thousands.

People aren't medical experts and are not always good at telling which doctor visit they really need and which they don't. Invariably if you reduce people's doctor visits some of the visits that would have cost $32.80 will end up costing thousands in hospital costs.

The $7 co-payment will save money taxpayers pay for people to visit the GP but it will increase hospital costs which are a far more expensive part of the system on a per service basis. It doesn't make economic sense.

I sat in a hospital for 4 hours recently and got great service as they could provide. Why pay? One person was there for a Panadol, a women had a kid who had fallen over and needed a bandaid. A girl came in with a sore foot from dancing the night before and after a while with a bit of a cream ( decorub from smell) left. Yet the staff had to waste time.

It will deter the nuts

This is completely irrelevant to the $7 co-payment issue.

 

[fatprop]

I don't get your analogy with cigarettes. How does that relate to seeking healthcare?

simply if you increase the cost of something, demand generally reduces

 

[Braveheart81]

simply if you increase the cost of something, demand generally reduces

Yes. A co-payment will decrease demand for primary medical services.

Will it have no effect on people's health and will it decrease costs across the whole health system?

I believe the answer to both those questions is a resounding no.

If you increased the costs of antibiotics because you believed that people took antibiotics more often than they needed them at a cost to taxpayers it might lower the amount taxpayers spent on antibiotics.

When the rate of hospital admissions from septicemia increase requiring acute care in an intensive care ward, any savings achieved on antibiotics will be blown instantly.

I think you would actually save money across the health system if you made people of lower socio-economic backgrounds attend the GP more often.

If you look at men and women, women see the GP roughly twice as much as men. They then have less hospital stays and each hospital stay is for a shorter length of days than that of men. People avoiding seeing a doctor costs taxpayers money.

 

[I like to watch]

Some adults are in charge. Some are on P's like Shorten, Milne is just nuts and no, PUP are in need of lessons of parliament. How do you negotiate with a rabble.............
Riddicule Team Australia all you want. If it was Team Wallaby or Team Olympics is that also worth the derission of some on this blog?

Abbott cant negotiate anything.
His abject failure in gaining power last time around is proof of that.
Team Austraya?
That's for middle aged middle income or better,with kids who have just finished Uni.
It is a slogan,it is not inclusive of all Australians.