Domestic Politics

[Tesla]

Well, at least Abbott has back-tracked on his PPL scheme. He should have dumped that ages ago.

Should completely go. Forcing PPL on companys, and then forcing them to pay for it as well, massive economic fuck up. A better solution would be to offer more assistance for child care, but that's probably not necessary until the economy picks up again.

[hedaik]

Wonder if they'll ban newsgroups

[Tesla]

Wonder if they'll ban newsgroups

Doubt they know what a newsgroup is. I'm surprised if anyone in the Coalition even knows how to use the internet apart from maybe Turnbull. They all reminds me of the old businessmen who got fucked when the internet came around because they didn't see the value of investing in it while a bunch of younger cunts who know what was going on invested in an online presence and took most their business from them. That's why they pursue such an anti-internet agenda, because "back in their day" things were different.

This is why I said Brandis is also a problem, because they look like a bunch of old cunts completely out of touch, and Brandis looks like the oldest, most out of touch cunt of all of them.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Tesla

[KSK_47]

What the fuck? First the UK bans squirt porn, now we ban illegal downloading. That's two of my favorite things!

[Tesla]

What the fuck? First the UK bans squirt porn, now we ban illegal downloading. That's two of my favorite things!

I'm sure it will be easy to get around the block, that's not the point. It's about the precedent.

[sheepdog]

What the fuck? First the UK bans squirt porn, now we ban illegal downloading. That's two of my favorite things!

My mrs is a squirter.

No you cant meet her

[HeartinHobart]

What the fuck? First the UK bans squirt porn, now we ban illegal downloading. That's two of my favorite things!

My mrs is a squirter.

No you cant meet her

Lol, things that probably don't need to be mentioned on a soccer forum.

[thisphantomfortress]

 

 

What the fuck? First the UK bans squirt porn, now we ban illegal downloading. That's two of my favorite things!

My mrs is a squirter.

No you cant meet her

Lol, things that probably don't need to be mentioned on a soccer forum.

 

I like it makes me really hate domestic politicians.

 

[Tesla]

What the fuck? First the UK bans squirt porn, now we ban illegal downloading. That's two of my favorite things!

My mrs is a squirter.

No you cant meet her

mus-28 can confirm

[Tesla]

So the medicare copayment will now be $5. I've been saying from the start $7 was retarded, it's actually a big psychological difference to people the difference between $7 and $5.

[HeartFc]

GP co-payment is fucking stupid and disingenuous. If they really wanted to fix the system they would cap GP visits to 10 a year. Go over the 10 you paid $5. The chronically ill, seniors and kids under 16 never pay.

The hypercondriacs and dumb cunts will use the cap within a couple months and they are the ones slugged not the everyday Australian.

Edited December 9, 2014 by HeartFc

[Tesla]

GP co-payment is fucking stupid and disingenuous. If they really wanted to fix the system they would cap GP visits to 10 a year. Go over the 10 you paid $5. The chronically ill, seniors and kids under 16 never pay.

The hypercondriacs and dumb cunts will use the cap within a couple months and they are the ones slugged not the everyday Australian.

It's not like there is some magical fairy paying for it mate, 'the everyday Australian' is still paying either way. You realise $5 isn't even 10% of the cost of visiting a GP? Over 90% of you visiting the GP is still paid for by other people.

I always thought $5 should be the max, so I'm pretty supportive of it now.

Only thing I can think of that might make it better is if people weren't charged on the spot, and instead paid for it when doing their tax return. Or maybe you get a monthly/quarterly bill. I think it further decreases the chance of someone not visiting the GP when they need to just because they have to pay a fee.

[HeartFc]

yeah I know that but then why would the government make themselves so unpopular over something which hardly makes a dent. Its the symbolism, people don't wanna have to fork out an extra 5er every time they chuck a sickie.

[Braveheart]

 

the everyday Australian' is still paying either way. Over 90% of you visiting the GP is still paid for by other people.

 

Thanks Gough

Edited December 10, 2014 by Braveheart

[cadete]

It has become pretty clear that Australian Public has become more socially minded (A good thing IMO) since the Howard years...

A more cynical Liberal might argue that PPL have become too accustomed to the big spending of the Rudd government but the undertones that things needed to change were already there in the Costello Camp back in last term of the Howard Government.

 

The obvious problem is that Australia could have easily of afforded a more Socially Minded Policies from its Government back in 2005 than what the current economic climate can allow for... however Abbott and in particular Hockey have been horrific at selling such a message despite being one that is largely based on truth.

 

Regardless Abbott needs to respond to this change in the Electorate and reposition himself more line in with the general public otherwise if he can't successfully do as such in six months time I would not be surprised if Turnbull or Bishop start receiving serious calls from their fellow MP's to make a Leadership Challenge. 

 

Personally I think Turnbull would be too brittle to survive in a Gillardesque like climb to The Lodge - The one thing his enemies can't take away from Abbott is that he will fight to the death but Turnbull is no fighter. Bishop on the other hand could be considered a fighter but is also an unknown quantity in some respects but there is some dirt in her past... still all Liberal's can consider themselves lucky that Hockey is no longer an option.

Edited December 10, 2014 by cadete

[jw1739]

GP co-payment is fucking stupid and disingenuous. If they really wanted to fix the system they would cap GP visits to 10 a year. Go over the 10 you paid $5. The chronically ill, seniors and kids under 16 never pay.

The hypercondriacs and dumb cunts will use the cap within a couple months and they are the ones slugged not the everyday Australian.

You are misinformed. Many seniors (60+) do in fact pay the full cost. It is people who hold qualifying concession cards who do not pay at all or who pay a reduced rate. Just being 60+ does not entitle you to a qualifying concession card.

 

Let me also point out that having a chronic condition that requires ongoing medical treatment also of itself does not entitle you to a qualifying concession card.

 

What really needs to be addressed is the matter of who should qualify for a concession card, as so many things depend on that.

Edited December 10, 2014 by jw1739

[HeartFc]

I was thinking along lines of a whole new system. Concession cards would no longer qualify you for free visits. A concession card doesn't make you require more check ups so bullocks to that. So in closing I agree with you.

[Tesla]

I was thinking along lines of a whole new system. Concession cards would no longer qualify you for free visits. A concession card doesn't make you require more check ups so bullocks to that. So in closing I agree with you.

Your view is completely wrong. A concession card generally means you have a low income and that's why you should be exempt from paying. Someone's needing to visit the doctor a lot of times is pretty irrelevant. You use it more, you pay more. They're still receiving more benefit than the average person, because over 90% of their GP visit I'd covered. Eg I visit the GP twice, I get about 100$ from the government, someone else visits 20 times, they get 1000$ from the government.

That's not to say I don't support a 'cap', but not at 10 visits, maybe at like 30 or something.

Now I don't really know much about the system for giving out concession cards, so maybe jw is right in that it isn't adequate, but I still think it should be the measure whereby an exemption is given to the co-payment.

[jw1739]

 

I was thinking along lines of a whole new system. Concession cards would no longer qualify you for free visits. A concession card doesn't make you require more check ups so bullocks to that. So in closing I agree with you.

Your view is completely wrong. A concession card generally means you have a low income and that's why you should be exempt from paying. Someone's needing to visit the doctor a lot of times is pretty irrelevant. You use it more, you pay more. They're still receiving more benefit than the average person, because over 90% of their GP visit I'd covered. Eg I visit the GP twice, I get about 100$ from the government, someone else visits 20 times, they get 1000$ from the government.

That's not to say I don't support a 'cap', but not at 10 visits, maybe at like 30 or something.

Now I don't really know much about the system for giving out concession cards, so maybe jw is right in that it isn't adequate, but I still think it should be the measure whereby an exemption is given to the co-payment.

 

It may be that some concession cards are issued because someone actually has a low income, but that is certainly not the case for all concession cards. Also you are failing to take into account those who have an apparent low income, but in reality have nothing of the sort. I personally know a number of people who claim an Australian age pension and therefore have a pension card and therefore can find a GP who will bulk bill them but who own property overseas from which they derive income and/or receive an overseas pension. I also know people who use various other methods to disguise their real income and hence claim a concession card.

 

I have no problem with your basic premise that there are people in our society who need a medical/health safety net. But I contend that such a safety net should be based on their actual health/medical condition, not their apparent income.

[HeartFc]

But we pay through tax already, concession card doesn't have any real benefit from a bulk billing doctor. Fuck it off and start over if this is a system in crisis I say. Surely 30 is a bit much on the cap? All I know is I haven't been to the doctor in over 2 years so I reckon my tax covers me for the next 5 years.

[Tesla]

the everyday Australian' is still paying either way. Over 90% of you visiting the GP is still paid for by other people.

 

Thanks Gough

Not sure what your point is? FWIW, when it comes to universal healthcare, that's actually the least of my concerns. Like I've said before, it's a system of extreme benefit to our society, but it also comes at an extreme cost to our society. And the cost to the taxpayer is only the start of it. You looks at the US, and many doctors actually oppose universal healthcare, even though obviously subsidising healthcare equals more business and money for them. They oppose it because it really does limit things and lead to poor results for patients. For example, under our system, there are quite strict conditions on when a doctor can prescribe a certain test, because obviously that's going to cost taxpayer $$$ and there needs to be limits in place. But that means there will be cases where the criteria wasn't met for prescribing the test but that test could have identified a medical condition. Another major issue is, if you do have universal health care, then the only logical thing to do is to tax everything that increases the risk of someone needing health care. But that is far from simple, firstly there will obviously be political considerations that won't make it possible to properly implement something like that, but you also run into the debate of what actually does increase someone's risk and by how much.

But anyway, those things will forever be a problem, at least the $5 co-payment goes a long way to fixing the biggest problem of not only universal healthcare, but of giving anything away for free, and that's the simple fact that people will abuse it. $5 is enough to make people reconsider pointless trips, while not pricing anyone out of visiting the GP (especially if concession car holders are exempt).

[Tesla]

I was thinking along lines of a whole new system. Concession cards would no longer qualify you for free visits. A concession card doesn't make you require more check ups so bullocks to that. So in closing I agree with you.

Your view is completely wrong. A concession card generally means you have a low income and that's why you should be exempt from paying. Someone's needing to visit the doctor a lot of times is pretty irrelevant. You use it more, you pay more. They're still receiving more benefit than the average person, because over 90% of their GP visit I'd covered. Eg I visit the GP twice, I get about 100$ from the government, someone else visits 20 times, they get 1000$ from the government.

That's not to say I don't support a 'cap', but not at 10 visits, maybe at like 30 or something.

Now I don't really know much about the system for giving out concession cards, so maybe jw is right in that it isn't adequate, but I still think it should be the measure whereby an exemption is given to the co-payment.

It may be that some concession cards are issued because someone actually has a low income, but that is certainly not the case for all concession cards. Also you are failing to take into account those who have an apparent low income, but in reality have nothing of the sort. I personally know a number of people who claim an Australian age pension and therefore have a pension card and therefore can find a GP who will bulk bill them but who own property overseas from which they derive income and/or receive an overseas pension. I also know people who use various other methods to disguise their real income and hence claim a concession card.

 

I have no problem with your basic premise that there are people in our society who need a medical/health safety net. But I contend that such a safety net should be based on their actual health/medical condition, not their apparent income.

If someone is hiding their income, to avoid taxes and/or receive government benefits they aren't entitled to, that's fraud and chances are they'll more than pay for it eventually.

But I disagree that it should be based primarily on medical needs rather than income. The fact is there is already somewhat of a safety net in place for people that spend a lot of money on healthcare, after a certain limit it's tax deductible.

I understand there is a concept of fairness involved in that it's not someone's fault if they have a chronic condition that requires a lot of healthcare. It is unfair. But no one said life is fair. There are plenty of unfair things, and no government or system can solve them, nor should they try to. Singling out one thing that is unfair to target, while leaving all the other unfair things alone, just creates more unfairness really.

Fact is, someone that needs more health care, is already getting substantially more benefit from the system than the average person. They are already well looked after, and I don't see a problem with them paying some of what they use, until a point is reached where they legitimately can not afford it. So yes there needs to be some safety net, but not at $50 or even $100 worth of GP co-payments. Because if that was the point they couldn't afford it at, chances are they'd have a concession card.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Tesla

[Tesla]

concession card doesn't have any real benefit from a bulk billing doctor.

I'm saying under the co-payment system, people with a concession card should be exempt. I think you're correct about there being no benefit currently to seeing a GP with a concession card.

 

Surely 30 is a bit much on the cap?

30 x $5 = $150 a year. Honestly if you have too high an income to receive a concession card, but can't afford $150 a year, WTF are you doing with your money?

 

But we pay through tax already

All I know is I haven't been to the doctor in over 2 years so I reckon my tax covers me for the next 5 years.

So then you should be happy with the co-payment because less of your tax $$$ are going to pay for other people's healthcare? Of the top of my head its like 20-30% of government revenue that goes to healthcare, how much tax a year do you pay? (not just income tax, all tax). Shouldn't take you long to figure out how much of your money is going to healthcare without you using the system. Is that fair on you? At least those who do use it will avoid pointless trips now and contribute a small fraction of the cost of their visit now.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Tesla

[bt50]

Agree with all Tesla has said.

The Net Medical Expenses tax offset is been phased out tho and in the 2014 fy you can't claim it unless you claimed in the 2013 fy

[jw1739]

 

 

 

I was thinking along lines of a whole new system. Concession cards would no longer qualify you for free visits. A concession card doesn't make you require more check ups so bullocks to that. So in closing I agree with you.

Your view is completely wrong. A concession card generally means you have a low income and that's why you should be exempt from paying. Someone's needing to visit the doctor a lot of times is pretty irrelevant. You use it more, you pay more. They're still receiving more benefit than the average person, because over 90% of their GP visit I'd covered. Eg I visit the GP twice, I get about 100$ from the government, someone else visits 20 times, they get 1000$ from the government.

That's not to say I don't support a 'cap', but not at 10 visits, maybe at like 30 or something.

Now I don't really know much about the system for giving out concession cards, so maybe jw is right in that it isn't adequate, but I still think it should be the measure whereby an exemption is given to the co-payment.

 

It may be that some concession cards are issued because someone actually has a low income, but that is certainly not the case for all concession cards. Also you are failing to take into account those who have an apparent low income, but in reality have nothing of the sort. I personally know a number of people who claim an Australian age pension and therefore have a pension card and therefore can find a GP who will bulk bill them but who own property overseas from which they derive income and/or receive an overseas pension. I also know people who use various other methods to disguise their real income and hence claim a concession card.

 

I have no problem with your basic premise that there are people in our society who need a medical/health safety net. But I contend that such a safety net should be based on their actual health/medical condition, not their apparent income.

 

If someone is hiding their income, to avoid taxes and/or receive government benefits they aren't entitled to, that's fraud and chances are they'll more than pay for it eventually.

But I disagree that it should be based primarily on medical needs rather than income. The fact is there is already somewhat of a safety net in place for people that spend a lot of money on healthcare, after a certain limit it's tax deductible.

I understand there is a concept of fairness involved in that it's not someone's fault if they have a chronic condition that requires a lot of healthcare. It is unfair. But no one said life is fair. There are plenty of unfair things, and no government or system can solve them, nor should they try to. Singling out one thing that is unfair to target, while leaving all the other unfair things alone, just creates more unfairness really.

Fact is, someone that needs more health care, is already getting substantially more benefit from the system than the average person. They are already well looked after, and I don't see a problem with them paying some of what they use, until a point is reached where they legitimately can not afford it. So yes there needs to be some safety net, but not at $50 or even $100 worth of GP co-payments. Because if that was the point they couldn't afford it at, chances are they'd have a concession card.

 

Make myself crystal clear. I'm not against the co-payment at all, so we agree on the "fee-for-service" concept. Where I differ from you is what criteria should be used to determine where the cap should be placed for an individual. You're happy to accept the possession of a concession card issued on the basis of perceived income, whereas I say it should be health related.

[cadete]

He left it late but what a great slashing run from behind to pick up "Dickhead of The Year by David Hicks:

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/10/david-hicks-heckles-george-brandis-human-rights-event

 

Bare in mind this is a bloke that watched 9/11 in which Australians died,

Then saw the War on the Taliban begin and thought to himself: "I need to pay for myself to get from Australia to Afghanistan to help out those who killed my innocent countrymen in 9/11." 

Edited December 10, 2014 by cadete

[Tesla]

So the new Premier has already brocken 2 election promises.

1. The EWL contract and business case weren't released in a week as he promised.

2. As I suspected and mentioned in the thread, the Metro tunnel will not be built due to the 'challenging economic climate'.

No roads or PT, nice one Victorian voters

Edited December 11, 2014 by Tesla

[hedaik]

I dont think they ever promised to build it, just that they'd put 300 mill towards it. Some people just assumed it was a choice between EW Link or a rail tunnel.

[HeartFc]

I dont think they ever promised to build it, just that they'd put 300 mill towards it. Some people just assumed it was a choice between EW Link or a rail tunnel.

 

Thats still a lie IMO, if you say something knowing people are going to take it a certain way then you go back and say but technically I didn't say that then you're a knobhead. Abbott has done that and it aint going down well. 

[hedaik]

I never got the impression from their policies they were going to build the metro tunnel, which is why I was pro EW Link.

[HeartFc]

I guess I'm fucking moron then.

[Tesla]

What? They said they would build it. The sneakily only budgeted 300m for it.

[Tesla]

"Only Labor will build the Melbourne Metro Tunnel" was one of their key campaign slogans.

[hedaik]

What? They said they would build it. The sneakily only budgeted 300m for it.

 

Yeah which should be pretty obvious the money would only be used for preliminary works. Maybe they did lead people astray with catchy phrases, but it was clear to me they were never going to build it. The removal of the 70 road level crossings was always their public transport policy. 

[Tesla]

What? They said they would build it. The sneakily only budgeted 300m for it.

 

Yeah which should be pretty obvious the money would only be used for preliminary works. Maybe they did lead people astray with catchy phrases, but it was clear to me they were never going to build it. The removal of the 70 road level crossings was always their public transport policy.

50

Only 12 new ones that will actually happen this term

[jw1739]

So how much of this is still valid? http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/railway-crossings/removing-level-crossings/

 

• The 2014/15 State Budget includes $457 million for the removal of level crossings at Burke Road in Glen Iris, Blackburn Road in Blackburn and North Road in Ormond.
• The 2014/15 State Budget includes $200 million for the removal of the level crossing at Main Road in St Albans.
• The $2-2.5 billion Cranbourne/Pakenham Rail Corridor Project will include the removal of four level crossings Murrumbeena Road in Murrumbeena, Koornang Road in Carnegie, Clayton Road in Clayton and Centre Road in Clayton. It will also plan for the future removal of level crossings at Grange Road in Carnegie, Poath Road in Murrumbeena, and Corrigan, Heatherton and Chandler Roads in Noble Park.

[Tesla]

So how much of this is still valid? http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/railway-crossings/removing-level-crossings/

• The 2014/15 State Budget includes $457 million for the removal of level crossings at Burke Road in Glen Iris, Blackburn Road in Blackburn and North Road in Ormond.
• The 2014/15 State Budget includes $200 million for the removal of the level crossing at Main Road in St Albans.
• The $2-2.5 billion Cranbourne/Pakenham Rail Corridor Project will include the removal of four level crossings Murrumbeena Road in Murrumbeena, Koornang Road in Carnegie, Clayton Road in Clayton and Centre Road in Clayton. It will also plan for the future removal of level crossings at Grange Road in Carnegie, Poath Road in Murrumbeena, and Corrigan, Heatherton and Chandler Roads in Noble Park.

The 8 the Coalition already started (those you list) will continue, Labor will do 12 new ones, which are underfunded so who knows how many will actually go ahead.

That's basically all your going to get from Labor in terms of infrastructure it seems.

[jw1739]

At somewhere between $150m and $200m per crossing there's no way the State can afford to do another 12 in the next four years.

 

Typical Labour rubbish. Can't believe anyone falls for it, but somehow they do.

[Begbie]

At somewhere between $150m and $200m per crossing there's no way the State can afford to do another 12 in the next four years.

 

Typical Labour rubbish. Can't believe anyone falls for it, but somehow they do.

If the selling of the Port of Melbourne actually happens it'll cover about 25 of them..

[Hammerhead]

Anyone got a decent link to what actually was occurred in regards to the Myefo?

 

So far I've got is

3.7 Billion cut from foreign aid

1.3B increase in Defence spending

Deficit doubled to 40b

Cuts to public serivice roles

 

anything missed?

Edited December 15, 2014 by Hammerhead