JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

Have you seen figures for wealth per square kilometer as apposed to GSP? It's never based on how big a state is but on the state as an entity.

 

I have to agree that landmass is an irrelevancy here. Much of WA is utterly sterile and unproductive while Victoria has a comparitively small area which cannot be used for any worthwhile commercial, industrial or agricultural purpose. WA wins in the minerals debate by virtue of its size, sure, but other states contribute enormously to national wealth from underground resources too. For example, what is the value of NSW's coal exports? I don't have a clue, but as Newcastle has the largest coal loader in the southern hemisphere, I have to assume that NSW leads the nation for coal exports. This debate is really give and take and unfortunately, the enormous discrepancies between the states in population distribution and wealth generated by mineral exports doesn't help to balance the argument.

I will say this though. Are we Australians, or are we Queenslanders, Victorians, New South Welshmen etc? There will always be a degree of animosity between the states, not just on sporting fields, but in commerce, politics, you name it. I don't begrudge helping to rebuild any state from Federal reserves. I just object to the creation of yet another tax to do it, when the government is prepared to squander billions on misguided, mismanaged and misconstrued projects.

 

PBS cost cutting

So, discuss?

In my opinion it's a crock of ****, I have a 3wk new born and if I was told she needed a medicine that costs close to a thousand dollars, there is no way I would be able to afford it without using a credit card or asking my mum to pay for it.

 

Hang on Jules, weren't we going to be able to use the "super-net" to communicate directly with our doctors? Maybe they had that in mind when discussing cutting the PBS?

Or maybe not.....

 

On the other hand we can just give them a 20L gerry full of petrol and an eski full of food and turn the tubs around. Seriously - do you open the front door of your house and let whoever they like come and stay for a while???

Yes - agree on that one.

Strength and calling their bluff stopped the boats. all this namby pamby compassion and understanding claptrap has put us further back than square 1. What you are doing is rewarding bad behavior which makes matters worse.

How about a little research then??? It's pretty simple international law - any refugee intending to claim asylum should do so at the first opportunity. Not just cherry pick.

Turn them all around and grant asylum to those genuine refugees in the camps of Africa and the middle east etc who otherwise have no hope. Far more compassion in that proposal IMO.

I do it with Westpac and ANZ regularly. Most recently it was BOQ. I presume the rest do as well.

No animosity here Cabler. My argument is entirely about making those who enjoyed the benefits of a lower cost base paying their fair share when it goes guts up. I am filthy mad that I am forced to contribute to footing the bill because of the blatant incompetence of those 2000+ km away!

Reaper

 

Next move, cut medicare out of the budget completely and privatise all hospitals so we all pay through the teeth for it.

On a serious note, has anyone ever sat there and worked out just how much of our pay goes into the governments coffers? I'm sure the amount we pay would be well into the more then halfs once you take into account GST, income tax, rates, rego, levys and all the other crap we pay.

 

DO IT!!! I'm covered... Would improve service 10000% if that was done. If you can't afford it or aren't insured, more fool you!

 

This is how the ALP philosophy fails. What we need is the best dollar spend for the greater good. ALP philosophy is about equality for all even if doing so makes that equality lower for everybody. This is exhibited in both their opposition to the private health insurance subsidy and similar subsidies for private and semi-private schools.

Say govco spends $1000 (for example) on health care for a person thru medicare. But on the other hand, if the person with private health insurance contributes (say) $500 and the government contributes $600 for that person, that individual will get $50 of (in theory) better cover than on Medicare with the rest going to the insurer as profit. The clincher is that the other $400 can be used to improve the level of cover given to those in the public system. Overall *everybody* is better off by varying extents compared to the "equal for everybody" system.

Same thing goes for education. Unfortunately this is not good enough for the socialist philosophies of the ALP. Equality for everybody no-matter the cost comrade!!!!

Reaper

 

Seems like a win comment right? But in reality it's a fail comment.

Why? Private companys are set up to make profit, so for the same thing the government can provide for the cost of lets say $1000, a private company will want to make a profit and charge $1500. Don't have insurance? Well just spend the $1500 on a coffin.

But you have insurance you say? Hey look another company making a profit, so lets say that hospital visit now costs you $1700.

Privitisation does not increase service experience, because a private company will cost cut even more visiously then the government to increase profit margins.

But hey who cares right, because now instead of spending money to give a cost effective hospital system they now make money on taxing the newly private hospital. So while we're at it chuck a bit of tax on that $1700 and your soon paying $2000 for what should cost no more then $1000.

Ofcourse these are all hypothetical numbers, but I can gaurantee you service will be worst and you will pay a **** load more for it.

 

Agreed, the only way to do it is not be a bunch of cost cutting/tax raising pricks and leave the system how it is. It worked for Howard and got them into a surplus, why is it that Krudd and Ju-liar can take that exact same system and screw it up to the point we lose out surplus, go into the red and all have to pay out of our pockets to get back into the black?

The best way is to use a combination of the systems, private and public.

People who CAN afford it use public for there cushy service and take some pressure of the public and a public system for the people who can't afford it.

 

As it should be.

 

some of what I’m about to say is not remotely political, just a suggestion to those who don't want to see a doctor for every ailment, just around the corner from you is the most undervalued (in terms of medical skill) health professional you are likely to see in your life time; the Pharmacist. Just around the corner from you is a person who has a wealth of medical knowledge ready to help diagnose and treat your medical problems. And not just that we (yes I am one, so a little bias here) can help you with questions you might have about medications (for that $1000 dollar medicine for your baby you might want to have a look at something called the SAS or special access scheme). We also know a lot about the PBS because that is where our money comes from, our wage.

But anyway my opinion of where we are headed in terms of the health system? Who knows it could go either way, we could end up like the USA (invest in a coffin like someone above me said) or we could end up broke. The answer, I believe is a medium between the two those who can afford it can get private health insurance (have better cover, the gov pays some of it etc) and those who can't still have a safety net for bad times. The beauty of this system is that it keeps the private insurance companies honest, they can't charge whatever they want because people will just go back to the public system. It’s all about equilibrium folks.

 

Couldn't agree more! Sadly though, most people can't comprehend this so therefore won't understand and will ultimately disagree.

As it should be.

You should probably do a little research before putting your foot in your mouth next time. I'm with a private health insurance company that is not for profit of the organisation but profit for the members though increased benefits. I am covered for everything conceivable should the worst happen for minimal outlay on my part? Why? Because I can and because I don't expect others to foot the bill for me! Those who can't need to work harder, put in the effort and improve their situation such that they no longer need support from the government. Of course I am not lumping everyone in that same boat. People who are unable to help themselves (such as the mentally ill or physically handicapped for example) still need looking after. But the leeches of society (and unfortunately there are many) simply put such a huge drain on the Government support systems that those that genuinely need help, miss out or don't get enough.

 

which one?

and exactly why is the american way the better way to go?

 

GMHBA? For a bare hospital cover through a private health insurance that is supposedly not for profit it's $200 a month with a 500 excess. Sounds ULTRA cost effective.

 

That's depend on how the $500 excess works. You'd want to hope it's not like cars where you pay the first 500 of any claim.

 

PS: Your health insurance is not for profit? Well your hospital is for profit. Infact my local private hospital (only one in darwin) posted an 88 milion profit on 2009 (well the company that owns it did) So as said above, private hospitals never have and never will be a cost effective medical strategy

 

In like bar... "You and CSP like this." I would like to add "for different reasons."