Domestic Politics

[Tesla]

 

[Deeming]

5 hours ago, Tesla said:

Out of interest, how are you gettunf 7%? Is it just your own estimate or is it from another source?

 

Do you really think people are voting for Deryl Hinch? Seems pretty random to me if they are. Also some comments from early voters that because of the size of the senate paper #1 spot might not be that good  since the paper is too big for the booth.

7% was my guess without doing the math. If all votes were valid and none exhausted it would be actually 8.34% (you need just over 100/12 of the vote). But because of invalid votes and votes exhausting it will be a bit less.

 

Yes I  think Hinch is enough of a name to poll well himself maybe 3-4%. Plus 1st spot is worth 1-2% then he will get preferences from Libs and Labor to get him over the line.

[Shahanga]

I'll tell you what, you wouldn't want to dose off at a Euthanasia Party meeting would you?

[Jimmy]

Pretty optimistic the LDP can grab a senate seat in Victoria and NSW without needing preferences. I've seen more of their ads than greens ads and like Tes says, they've polled well in those states in past elections and should have only gained awareness and popularity since. Getting keen for July 2.

[cadete]

13 hours ago, Shahanga said:

I'll tell you what, you wouldn't want to dose off at a Euthanasia Party meeting would you?

I dont know if anyone else saw this story... but earlier this year a Dutch Girl who was only in twenties was legally able to be euthanised due to have horrific PTS due to Child Abuse when she younger.

Admittedly she had been bedridden for a number of years and also had a terrible Eating Disorder but a lot Psychologists around the world still could not understand why Therapy was not tried for a far longer period before such a drastic measure.

Personally for me as awful the pain this girl was going through it shows how such laws can be a Slippery Slope.

[Jimmy]

1 hour ago, cadete said:

I dont know if anyone else saw this story... but earlier this year a Dutch Girl who was only in twenties was legally able to be euthanised due to have horrific PTS due to Child Abuse when she younger.

Admittedly she had been bedridden for a number of years and also had a terrible Eating Disorder but a lot Psychologists around the world still could not understand why Therapy was not tried for a far longer period before such a drastic measure.

Personally for me as awful the pain this girl was going through it shows how such laws can be a Slippery Slope.

Not a having a dig here but why is suicide considered "bad" in these circumstances? If she was really in that much pain and had no will to live then why should she be made to stay alive?

Edited June 27, 2016 by Jimmy

[cadete]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Not a having a dig here but why is suicide considered "bad" in these circumstances? If she was really in that much pain and had no will to live then why she should be made to stay alive?

The should have persisted with more Therapy/Medication and lesser known but more drastic (yet safe) treatments for Mental Illness before calling it all over when she was at such a young age.

The reality is a lot of PPL would have been in this girl's exact position and gotten out of it after certain periods of time - However long they take to do so.

Edited June 27, 2016 by cadete

[jw1739]

Isn't the question whether she was in a fit state to make such a decision? I can accept that there is a case for euthanasia where there is absolutely no hope for recovery/cure etc., but if there was a body of opinion that she could have ultimately overcome her issues then I don't think the choice should have been between life or death.

[Shahanga]

23 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Not a having a dig here but why is suicide considered "bad" in these circumstances? If she was really in that much pain and had no will to live then why should she be made to stay alive?

When life gets bad & depression set ins the person stuck there can think there is no way out. 

Normally though there is and with care & support ect etc they will climb through it and one day it's a distant memory.

Our society shouldn't be encouraging people who are doing it tough right now to top themselves.

[cadete]

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Isn't the question whether she was in a fit state to make such a decision? I can accept that there is a case for euthanasia where there is absolutely no hope for recovery/cure etc., but if there was a body of opinion that she could have ultimately overcome her issues then I don't think the choice should have been between life or death.

That's my point... and most of the prominent PPL in the field around the world felt that she was probably not when they were asked to comment on the case.

[thisphantomfortress]

Let's be honest though the Dutch have always pushed the limits on most things. Like abortion euthanasia must have its limits and PTSD isn't terminal so I think the doctors have failed her in their moral obligations.

Suicide is a very very touchy issue so i sincerely hope any friends and family were informed and supported her.

[NewConvert]

4 hours ago, cadete said:

I dont know if anyone else saw this story... but earlier this year a Dutch Girl who was only in twenties was legally able to be euthanised due to have horrific PTS due to Child Abuse when she younger.

Admittedly she had been bedridden for a number of years and also had a terrible Eating Disorder but a lot Psychologists around the world still could not understand why Therapy was not tried for a far longer period before such a drastic measure.

Personally for me as awful the pain this girl was going through it shows how such laws can be a Slippery Slope.

I have one issue with the line in bold. Professionals cannot do a prognosis remotely unless the patient has been wired up to do so and with their consent and not all prognosis are correct. Two examples come to mind:

The first, if you recall the Terri Schiavo case in the USA where she had been in a vegetative state for several years and her husbands attempt to remove her feeding tube against her parents wishes and the entire Republican congressional party. Michael Schiavo won every court case as her legal guardian all the way to the supreme court no matter how much the Republicans changed the laws (Bush 43 interrupted his holidays and flew back to Washington to sign laws). The relevant part here is that Senator Bill Frist (Republican, Tennessee) made a medical diagnosis from watching a video of Terri Schiavo claiming that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. When the autopsy was eventually conducted they found that the brain had shrunk to 1/3 of a normal size and was consistent with a patient in a persistent vegetative state.

The second case was the Iranian twins, Ladan and Laleh Bijani, who were conjoined at the head and died during the operation to separate them. The operation was conducted in Singapore because no European doctor would operate due to the high probability that they would die on the operating table. The doctors in Singapore believed otherwise. The European doctors were right. Yes, I am sure that there will always be a physician who will claim otherwise that a person can be saved but they can also be wrong.

I didn't follow the case you refer to but if a court has permitted for the young woman to be euthanised  then I would expect that the court whould have had advised from physicians that had spent time diagnosing and treating the patient.

 

[cadete]

4 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I have one issue with the line in bold. Professionals cannot do a prognosis remotely unless the patient has been wired up to do so and with their consent and not all prognosis are correct. Two examples come to mind:

The first, if you recall the Terri Schiavo case in the USA where she had been in a vegetative state for several years and her husbands attempt to remove her feeding tube against her parents wishes and the entire Republican congressional party. Michael Schiavo won every court case as her legal guardian all the way to the supreme court no matter how much the Republicans changed the laws (Bush 43 interrupted his holidays and flew back to Washington to sign laws). The relevant part here is that Senator Bill Frist (Republican, Tennessee) made a medical diagnosis from watching a video of Terri Schiavo claiming that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. When the autopsy was eventually conducted they found that the brain had shrunk to 1/3 of a normal size and was consistent with a patient in a persistent vegetative state.

The second case was the Iranian twins, Ladan and Laleh Bijani, who were conjoined at the head and died during the operation to separate them. The operation was conducted in Singapore because no European doctor would operate due to the high probability that they would die on the operating table. The doctors in Singapore believed otherwise. The European doctors were right. Yes, I am sure that there will always be a physician who will claim otherwise that a person can be saved but they can also be wrong.

I didn't follow the case you refer to but if a court has permitted for the young woman to be euthanised  then I would expect that the court whould have had advised from physicians that had spent time diagnosing and treating the patient.

 

Mental Illness is very different to Physical Illness, where one group of professionals can only make a patient feel worse another brunch could achieve much better outcomes. 

[NewConvert]

29 minutes ago, cadete said:

Mental Illness is very different to Physical Illness, where one group of professionals can only make a patient feel worse another brunch could achieve much better outcomes. 

Agreed that physical and mental illnesses are different. My point is that those Psychologists from around the world had not actually seen the patient and so therefore I will treat any such claim with a great deal of caution. Secondly, they may claim that they can improve the patient's life but what if they fail? Do we cue all the Psychologists and let each one attempt to improve things? Do they get a second go? And at what point does the patient get to say enough?

[Deeming]

Just now, NewConvert said:

Agreed that physical and mental illnesses are different. My point is that those Psychologists from around the world had not actually seen the patient and so therefore I will treat any such claim with a great deal of caution. Secondly, they may claim that they can improve the patient's life but what if they fail? Do we cue all the Psychologists and let each one attempt to improve things? Do they get a second go? And at what point does the patient get to say enough?

While I'm not a psychologist, I cannot think of any psychological condition where euthanasia could be justified. Especially in the case of a young person, most psychiatric illness especially PTSD take years if not decades to treat. There is no way even if she was treated for a decade that they had exhausted all options.
Its also extremely insulting to other PTSD sufferers to suggest that anyone in their situation could have no hope. 

[thisphantomfortress]

6 minutes ago, Deeming said:

While I'm not a psychologist, I cannot think of any psychological condition where euthanasia could be justified. Especially in the case of a young person, most psychiatric illness especially PTSD take years if not decades to treat. There is no way even if she was treated for a decade that they had exhausted all options.
Its also extremely insulting to other PTSD sufferers to suggest that anyone in their situation could have no hope.

Perhaps only dementia, but then they don't have the capacity to make the decision do they? Like all issues of morality both sides present good arguements. I believe in it personally for terminally ill people. I find it hard to reconcile cases like this with my generally liberal pro-choice approach though.

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Deeming said:

While I'm not a psychologist, I cannot think of any psychological condition where euthanasia could be justified. Especially in the case of a young person, most psychiatric illness especially PTSD take years if not decades to treat. There is no way even if she was treated for a decade that they had exhausted all options.
Its also extremely insulting to other PTSD sufferers to suggest that anyone in their situation could have no hope. 

People with PTSD commit suicide and according to a Fairfax article in January the rate of suicide for people with PTSD is increasing. Obviously people who do suffer from it believe that it is justified and in reality it is not up to me to get involved either through the law or personally as I don't know them. And you are right that treatment can take years but Medicare only subsidises 10 visits to a psychologist/psychiatrist - so I am with you on this lets raise taxes so that people suffering from PTSD can receive the treatment that they need. According to the ABS about 6.4% of Australians suffer from PTSD which equates to about 1.4M people.

And I disagree with your second point that you raised about insulting other PTSD sufferers because one person, an adult, was granted the right to euthanasia. Not all cases are the same and not all sufferers want to end it. One case in law says nothing about the situation or state of others. 

[jw1739]

57 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

People with PTSD commit suicide and according to a Fairfax article in January the rate of suicide for people with PTSD is increasing. Obviously people who do suffer from it believe that it is justified and in reality it is not up to me to get involved either through the law or personally as I don't know them. And you are right that treatment can take years but Medicare only subsidises 10 visits to a psychologist/psychiatrist - so I am with you on this lets raise taxes so that people suffering from PTSD can receive the treatment that they need. According to the ABS about 6.4% of Australians suffer from PTSD which equates to about 1.4M people.

And I disagree with your second point that you raised about insulting other PTSD sufferers because one person, an adult, was granted the right to euthanasia. Not all cases are the same and not all sufferers want to end it. One case in law says nothing about the situation or state of others. 

But not all to the same degree, surely? 

[thisphantomfortress]

18 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

But not all to the same degree, surely? 

A friend of mine has it after a car accident and his is mild at best 

[Shahanga]

3 hours ago, Deeming said:

While I'm not a psychologist, I cannot think of any psychological condition where euthanasia could be justified. Especially in the case of a young person, most psychiatric illness especially PTSD take years if not decades to treat. There is no way even if she was treated for a decade that they had exhausted all options.
Its also extremely insulting to other PTSD sufferers to suggest that anyone in their situation could have no hope. 

What about Melbourne Victory supporters?

[NewConvert]

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

But not all to the same degree, surely? 

This is true. Also some will receive treatment and improve and so on. However I could not find any time series to see whether that figure is stable or not. Also the biggest contributor to the increase of severe cases are the defence forces returning from tour of duty.

TBH I am a little concerned as to what gets classified as mental illness and the severity. I seem to recall that one figure was close to 25% of Australians suffer from mental health issues in a year. And that doesn't sit right with me. If that was the case I would expect our suicide rate to be very high to the point that everyone knows someone who has taken their own life, and all sorts of other dramatic issues. If it means that everyone is pissed off with their lot in life at least once a year then the whole thing is meaningless.

[jw1739]

This will blow your mind.
http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-mental-illness/facts-and-stats

TBH I think we're probably faced with over-diagnosis, just as I believe we are with the "autism spectrum."

[NewConvert]

8 hours ago, jw1739 said:

This will blow your mind.
http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-mental-illness/facts-and-stats

TBH I think we're probably faced with over-diagnosis, just as I believe we are with the "autism spectrum."

Interesting. And I agree with you on "autism spectrum" .

[Tesla]

On 27/06/2016 at 4:13 PM, NewConvert said:

People with PTSD commit suicide and according to a Fairfax article in January the rate of suicide for people with PTSD is increasing. Obviously people who do suffer from it believe that it is justified and in reality it is not up to me to get involved either through the law or personally as I don't know them. And you are right that treatment can take years but Medicare only subsidises 10 visits to a psychologist/psychiatrist - so I am with you on this lets raise taxes so that people suffering from PTSD can receive the treatment that they need. According to the ABS about 6.4% of Australians suffer from PTSD which equates to about 1.4M people.

And I disagree with your second point that you raised about insulting other PTSD sufferers because one person, an adult, was granted the right to euthanasia. Not all cases are the same and not all sufferers want to end it. One case in law says nothing about the situation or state of others. 

I think I mentioned in this thread earlier that I wouldn't mind a GP co-payment with the funds raised going to improved public mental health services. I don't support any new government money going into health care, and it's not realistic to expect any new government money to go into it when both sides of politics are trying to cut health care costs, but financing it through the introduction of a GP co-payment could potentially be a good idea.

There is one thing I don't like about that idea, you'd think the majority of any such increase in funding for mental health care would go to psychologists, and honestly I question the ability of the average psychologist, to the extent that it puts me off any increase in public funds going to them. I'm not trying to put a whole profession down, I'm sure there are many very good ones, but the requirements to become a psychologist are a lot lower than other health care practitioners and it's not like there aren't plenty of dodgy GPs running around who have met these much higher standards than psychologists have to meet. So I don't think I'm being unfair in saying I am sceptical of wether it's worth giving them a substantial amount of public funds. You also have to factor in the better ones would most likely be in the private system, so what you'll have left in the public system would be average and below.

Now of course I'd be the first one to point out that if you did increase public funds to psychologists, they would earn more, and therefore more/brighter people would go into the field and the standard would increase in the long term. Also you can only work with what you've got, and even if the standard is questionable it's all we've got and better than nothing. Both true. I'm just saying it weakens the case for a substantial increase in public funds when there is bound to be a fuckload of dodgy or incompetent psychologists who are going to rake in public money.

Anyway, putting that aside, I think it is an area that would be worth the government exploring. There may even be a pretty good economic case to it, I wonder how many billions in lost productivity there is due to mental illness, it would be a substantial figure.

It can only be a better use of money than providing completely free GP visits so people can go get dodgy medical certificates without paying a cent or satisfy their hypochondria without paying a cent.

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

I think I mentioned in this thread earlier that I wouldn't mind a GP co-payment with the funds raised going to improved public mental health services. I don't support any new government money going into health care, and it's not realistic to expect any new government money to go into it when both sides of politics are trying to cut health care costs, but financing it through the introduction of a GP co-payment could potentially be a good idea.

There is one thing I don't like about that idea, you'd think the majority of any such increase in funding for mental health care would go to psychologists, and honestly I question the ability of the average psychologist, to the extent that it puts me off any increase in public funds going to them. I'm not trying to put a whole profession down, I'm sure there are many very good ones, but the requirements to become a psychologist are a lot lower than other health care practitioners and it's not like there aren't plenty of dodgy GPs running around who have met these much higher standards than psychologists have to meet. So I don't think I'm being unfair in saying I am sceptical of wether it's worth giving them a substantial amount of public funds. You also have to factor in the better ones would most likely be in the private system, so what you'll have left in the public system would be average and below.

Now of course I'd be the first one to point out that if you did increase public funds to psychologists, they would earn more, and therefore more/brighter people would go into the field and the standard would increase in the long term. Also you can only work with what you've got, and even if the standard is questionable it's all we've got and better than nothing. Both true. I'm just saying it weakens the case for a substantial increase in public funds when there is bound to be a fuckload of dodgy or incompetent psychologists who are going to rake in public money.

Anyway, putting that aside, I think it is an area that would be worth the government exploring. There may even be a pretty good economic case to it, I wonder how many billions in lost productivity there is due to mental illness, it would be a substantial figure.

It can only be a better use of money than providing completely free GP visits so people can go get dodgy medical certificates without paying a cent or satisfy their hypochondria without paying a cent.

I will always oppose a GP co-payment because I think that it is detrimental overall. And I don't have an issue with governments trying to cut health care costs or at the very least have increased productivity. The reasons for the increase are varied ranging from increased use of pathology services (wouldn't want to get sued for malpractice just because the doctor didn't issue another urine test) through to medical campaigns to get men to take better care of their health and women to have breast cancer tests. Then there is the ability for medicine to treat patients for a greater range of illnesses and people living longer. The first successful bypass was done in the late sixties - these days you can get a quintuple bypass and watch the costs skyrocket. BTW my father's cousin was diagnosed with standard heart disease issues in early 2008 which was easily treatable but it would come at the price of having to change his lifestyle, something that he refused to do and he lasted less than six months and died at age 61. So that is my measuring stick as to how long we can survive with an untreated standard illness. Death is going to be a big topic over the next few decades as we age and live longer.

Back to the main topic of mental health. I don't question psychology and like in any profession there will be a distribution curve regarding their competence. What I find difficult is that it is the one area of medicine where the possibility of that illness being unique to each patient. Consider that if both of us break the same bone in the same way, then the treatment would be identical. However if we both suffer mental health issues caused by the same thing then the treatment will be different.

Also you do not have to increase the money that psychologists earn. All you have to do is increase the consultation from 10 to 15 and all that will mean is that the psychologist will have an assured income for an additional 5 hours. I should also add a very important point - if your illness if bad enough the psychologist refers you to a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are qualified medical doctors who undertake post-grad qualifications. So you point about psychologists not being qualified enough is not entirely on the mark because people who do suffer from PTSD end up seeing a psychiatrist.

My major problem with mental health issues is that so many things can be classified as mental health issues. You had a setback of some sort and you got the blues for a while - that is classified as a mental health issue. Sure your productivity declines and you feel pretty miserable for a while but then most people get over it without the need for a psychologist. I can understand when a person self-harms or becomes so uncapacitated that they cannot function or are a threat to others then yes society needs to be able to provide a way for them to get better, knowing full well that it may never happen. But if the whole purpose of increasing funding for mental health care is to make sure that everyone is Disney happy all the time, we may as well legislate for compulsory drug consumption.

[cadete]

4 hours ago, Tesla said:

I think I mentioned in this thread earlier that I wouldn't mind a GP co-payment with the funds raised going to improved public mental health services. I don't support any new government money going into health care, and it's not realistic to expect any new government money to go into it when both sides of politics are trying to cut health care costs, but financing it through the introduction of a GP co-payment could potentially be a good idea.

There is one thing I don't like about that idea, you'd think the majority of any such increase in funding for mental health care would go to psychologists, and honestly I question the ability of the average psychologist, to the extent that it puts me off any increase in public funds going to them. I'm not trying to put a whole profession down, I'm sure there are many very good ones, but the requirements to become a psychologist are a lot lower than other health care practitioners and it's not like there aren't plenty of dodgy GPs running around who have met these much higher standards than psychologists have to meet. So I don't think I'm being unfair in saying I am sceptical of wether it's worth giving them a substantial amount of public funds. You also have to factor in the better ones would most likely be in the private system, so what you'll have left in the public system would be average and below.

Now of course I'd be the first one to point out that if you did increase public funds to psychologists, they would earn more, and therefore more/brighter people would go into the field and the standard would increase in the long term. Also you can only work with what you've got, and even if the standard is questionable it's all we've got and better than nothing. Both true. I'm just saying it weakens the case for a substantial increase in public funds when there is bound to be a fuckload of dodgy or incompetent psychologists who are going to rake in public money.

Anyway, putting that aside, I think it is an area that would be worth the government exploring. There may even be a pretty good economic case to it, I wonder how many billions in lost productivity there is due to mental illness, it would be a substantial figure.

It can only be a better use of money than providing completely free GP visits so people can go get dodgy medical certificates without paying a cent or satisfy their hypochondria without paying a cent.

Do you know many Psychologists or PPL doing Psychology PHDs?

Because its ultra competitive to be able to get to be able to do Honours in Psychology let alone a PHD in Psychology at any University in Australia these days so it be hard to meet anybody who isn't pretty smart in such a position.

Everyone I have meet doing as such has always struck me as intelligent (bar one person who stands out as an exception). The only thing that does worry me about those doing the course these days is that it is such a female dominated discipline. I would never advocate Positive Discrimination at a University but it would probably be more helpful for society for more men studying in the field these days like there used to be years ago.

[AyeCee]

4 hours ago, NewConvert said:

My major problem with mental health issues is that so many things can be classified as mental health issues. You had a setback of some sort and you got the blues for a while - that is classified as a mental health issue. Sure your productivity declines and you feel pretty miserable for a while but then most people get over it without the need for a psychologist. I can understand when a person self-harms or becomes so uncapacitated that they cannot function or are a threat to others then yes society needs to be able to provide a way for them to get better, knowing full well that it may never happen. But if the whole purpose of increasing funding for mental health care is to make sure that everyone is Disney happy all the time, we may as well legislate for compulsory drug consumption.

Except those basic things aren't clinically diagnosed. You'll never be referred onto a shrink by stating that you've got 'the blues', and in fact, you probably wouldn't even present to the doctor in the first place.

However that doesn't mean that someone has to be bed-ridden with depression or struggling at work to be suffering from serious illness; in fact a large amount find that work can become a comfort zone, and they are at their best there. I can guarantee you though that anyone who has gone through a clinical episode will come out saying that it is much worse than any physical illness they have had. I agree that there are a lot of people out there incorrectly diagnosing themselves for short periods, however your comment above is so far off the mark it's concerning, and a demonstration of the lack of public understanding surrounding such issues.

In terms of funding I don't really have much comment, the 10 subsidised sessions do have an impact, however due to the long-term characteristics of mental illness, they probably aren't the most efficient way of funding. I also don't think medication subsidies are the right way either, and would rather see that money placed in more permanent treatment.

 

On 27/06/2016 at 9:06 PM, NewConvert said:

This is true. Also some will receive treatment and improve and so on. However I could not find any time series to see whether that figure is stable or not. Also the biggest contributor to the increase of severe cases are the defence forces returning from tour of duty.

TBH I am a little concerned as to what gets classified as mental illness and the severity. I seem to recall that one figure was close to 25% of Australians suffer from mental health issues in a year. And that doesn't sit right with me. If that was the case I would expect our suicide rate to be very high to the point that everyone knows someone who has taken their own life, and all sorts of other dramatic issues. If it means that everyone is pissed off with their lot in life at least once a year then the whole thing is meaningless.

I reckon everyone I know has been impacted by a suicide at some point, in fact I would say that other than the complication of old age, it would be the number one cause of death in my social setting/community.

[cadete]

Anyone who thinks Mental Health does not deserve funding should look at what Hospital Care is on offer to PPL with Mental Illness in the Public Sector as its pretty horrific... actually scrap that: it is really fucken horrific.

The reality in this country is that some very serious Mental Illnesses like the best example to illustrate the point of Severe Eating Disorders (Which can and do kill people) can only be treated basically at all in the Private Sector which requires the highest form of Health Cover.

The worst thing is that for many families unfamiliar with Mental Illness only realize this when its too late once their child has already been hospitalised in the Public Sector for what is deemed a long term illness. This then means securing such Health Cover comes at a immense price that often leads to them having to take drastic actions financially just to secure such cover.

Edited June 29, 2016 by cadete

[thisphantomfortress]

38 minutes ago, cadete said:

Anyone who thinks Mental Health does not deserve funding should look at what Hospital Care is on offer to PPL with Mental Illness in the Public Sector as its pretty horrific... actually scrap that: it is really fucken horrific.

The reality in this country is that some very serious Mental Illnesses like the best example to illustrate the point of Severe Eating Disorders (Which can and do kill people) can only be treated basically at all in the Private Sector which requires the highest form of Health Cover.

The worst thing is that for many families unfamiliar with Mental Illness only realize this when its too late once their child has already been hospitalised in the Public Sector for what is deemed a long term illness. This then means securing such Health Cover comes at a immense price that often leads to them having to take drastic actions financially just to secure such cover.

Just FWIW working in the industry the waiting period for psych is only two month (this might feel like a lifetime whilst admitted in the public system) but the $200 odd a month you will pay for cover once you have it will be more than worth it. One pych admission will usually come up to far more more  in cost to the insurere than a person will pay in their life time for premiums.

[cadete]

11 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Just FWIW working in the industry the waiting period for psych is only two month (this might feel like a lifetime whilst admitted in the public system) but the $200 odd a month you will pay for cover once you have it will be more than worth it. One pych admission will usually come up to far more more  in cost to the insurere than a person will pay in their life time for premiums.

My parents from when they had far less money when I was little have always prioritised Health Care and Education above all else so personally I cant really understand why someone would not get Private Health Care myself.

However, a story I have heard more than a few times is a Girl gets an ED but her parents are clueless to what is going on (They can often have zero experience with Mental Health or may be even Immigrants) until its gone way past a point of needing to seek professional help.

She then gets admitted to a Public Hospital for her condition in a really bad state which means if her parents dont have Private Health Insurance for her when they apply to get it the company already knows this girl is probably going to need to spend a long time in an expensive Private Mental Clinic... usually at least a couple of months the first time and more likely for multiple stays afterwards.

Therefore the cost of Insurance is in the highest price bracket - Which they have to pay ultimately because they are not going to get better if they have got to this point without the extensive program that only Private Clinics are capable of offering.

Edited June 29, 2016 by cadete

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, AyeCee said:

Except those basic things aren't clinically diagnosed. You'll never be referred onto a shrink by stating that you've got 'the blues', and in fact, you probably wouldn't even present to the doctor in the first place.

However that doesn't mean that someone has to be bed-ridden with depression or struggling at work to be suffering from serious illness; in fact a large amount find that work can become a comfort zone, and they are at their best there. I can guarantee you though that anyone who has gone through a clinical episode will come out saying that it is much worse than any physical illness they have had. I agree that there are a lot of people out there incorrectly diagnosing themselves for short periods, however your comment above is so far off the mark it's concerning, and a demonstration of the lack of public understanding surrounding such issues.

In terms of funding I don't really have much comment, the 10 subsidised sessions do have an impact, however due to the long-term characteristics of mental illness, they probably aren't the most efficient way of funding. I also don't think medication subsidies are the right way either, and would rather see that money placed in more permanent treatment.

 

I reckon everyone I know has been impacted by a suicide at some point, in fact I would say that other than the complication of old age, it would be the number one cause of death in my social setting/community.

You are right about self diagnosis. However if you were to look at media reports and the statistics of about 1 in 5 suffering from mental health issues, I don't think that I am as far off as you say. And as you say public understanding is quite low but it is also an issue with the organisations that treat patients because all I ever hear about is to call lifeline for those who are suicidal or how much it is under diagnosed or that it needs more funding. Which is why I have doubts about what is classified as mental illness and the best form of treatment.

Having been through the system myself I quite agree that having a mental health issue does not always incapacitate the patient - I never stopped working nor did it prevent me from learning or having a life.

And in my life I have known two people who have attempted suicide. The first time was about 25 years ago when a friend of mine broke of with her then boyfriend and he was quite distressed. I was the bloke who stopped him. The second one was one my best mates who does suffer from depression but he survived that nasty episode (I was living overseas at the time). So perhaps you may be right as to the number of people who do attempt suicide and the number of people affected by it.

[thisphantomfortress]

the sex party just lost my vote. No different from Australian Liberty Alliance but this is ok because it's Christians not Muslims... 

@cadete I would love to hear your thoughts on this. 

[cadete]

44 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

the sex party just lost my vote. No different from Australian Liberty Alliance but this is ok because it's Christians not Muslims... 

@cadete I would love to hear your thoughts on this. 

How is that not Hate Speech... It be front page news if it was about Muslims.

I love it how they have to use an old Protestant Church which is clearly now used for secular marriages to film the thing in...

Blatant PC Sectarianism.

 

[HeartFc]

LOL, a bunch of phaggots thinking they're being edgy and controversial but in reality its the equivalent of chucking a dozen eggs at the granny who lives down your street knowing she can't walk and not saving just one egg for the angry looking palestinian dude who screams in arabic at 3am. (replace frozen carp and redfin instead of eggs and thats basically how I spent my mid teens on school holidays, he hated me  )

Totally ok with them being able to do this but the nerve of them using "keep religion out of politics" without mentioning any other religion. Get some balls and chuck in 5 seconds of Muhammad walking past with a fag at knife point and ill pay some respect. 

#Catholiphobia #Racist #EggingGrannys

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, cadete said:

How is that not Hate Speech... It be front page news if it was about Muslims.

I love it how they have to use an old Protestant Church which is clearly now used for secular marriages to film the thing in...

Blatant PC Sectarianism.

 

A few days ago it was on the home page of The Age and The Guardian - so I guess that counts as front page.

[GreenSeater]

3 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

the sex party just lost my vote. No different from Australian Liberty Alliance but this is ok because it's Christians not Muslims... 

@cadete I would love to hear your thoughts on this. 

What the actual fuck. Holy shit

[Tesla]

Voted on Monday morning, can confirm senate paper is fucked.

I've never voted on election day, always early vote, but the benefit to voting early is decreasing since lots of people are now voting early and it's getting just as busy.

Will be good to see the circus end on Satuday.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

Im going in a 7am, I fucking HATE over hearing line chat between people who are basically politically retarded. 

[Deeming]

Best time to vote with no lines on election day is late afternoon ~3pm-5pm but you can't then afford to forget to vote

[cadete]

19 hours ago, HeartFc said:

LOL, a bunch of phaggots thinking they're being edgy and controversial but in reality its the equivalent of chucking a dozen eggs at the granny who lives down your street knowing she can't walk and not saving just one egg for the angry looking palestinian dude who screams in arabic at 3am. (replace frozen carp and redfin instead of eggs and thats basically how I spent my mid teens on school holidays, he hated me  )

Totally ok with them being able to do this but the nerve of them using "keep religion out of politics" without mentioning any other religion. Get some balls and chuck in 5 seconds of Muhammad walking past with a fag at knife point and ill pay some respect. 

#Catholiphobia #Racist #EggingGrannys

Most retarded part is it's makes light of Abuse Victims...

Voted today, it's great being in the seat of Melbourne and having al these early voting booths which u get to pass the line at...