Ju liar Gillard ruins our health system - worst PM EVER

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by dumbanddumber, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    OMGawd, really? Everyone I know definatly goes to a private hospital if they've got private cover. The quality of service and care is miles apart.
     
  2. Adultmale

    Adultmale Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Patients generally don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Don't mistake service for care. Private hospitals will do whatever is cheapest for them, they won't do tests or run procedures unless they have to. Public hospitals don't have a profit motive, they tend to go the other way and do too many tests and procedures.
     
  3. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Isnt that the doctors decision? Are you suggesting that the private health care providers are leaning on doctors to reduce service??
     
  4. AdrianW

    AdrianW New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are a credit to your species and live up to your screen name.
    1. It actually saves the taxpayer $2.5billion but let's not get bogged down with the facts.
    2. Are you really stupid enough to think that a millionaire is going to go onto a public hospital waiting list, have no selection of a doctor and lay in a four bed ward with the great unwashed.

    Keep coming up with this sort of rubbish because you are a credit to the mad monk.
     
  5. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not talking about millionaires.

    These days acouple who both have a decent education and job would be getting into the 150k mark combined income or more.

    Not millionaires by a long shot.

    Hard working aussies in my books.
     
  6. AdrianW

    AdrianW New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My income hasn't been over $20k for 13 years but if you like I'll take up a collection for all those whiners who make over $150k.
    Are you for real?
    If some fool earns $150k and needs middle class welfare it's probably because they are living way above their means.
    It amazes me how soft people are these days. They whine about not being able to afford a house but they want two 4x4's in the driveway, a TV in every room, portable phone in every room, the latest and greatest mobile so they can make 20 inane phone calls per day, a laptop for every member of the household, Foxtel in every room and the list goes on.
    My first house was a two bedroom fibro. Every stick of furniture and appliance was donated by friends and family and we had to borrow the deposit from family. These days the first house has to be a two storey, four bedroom, brick veneer with a double garage and a pool.

    One day we'll get a government that will have sufficient backbone to cut out all middle class welfare or at the very least, index it. Labor has at least made a start.
    If someone gets $150k a year they're not entitled to welfare and they don't get any sympathy from me.
     
  7. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thats your problem, the health rebate wasnt meant as welfare, its a policy to motivate people to switch from public to private. Calling it welfare is just part of the lies the ALP and unions send out to its followers to form a hatred for the Libs.
     
  8. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No point going private. You pay hundreds each year for your insurance, and you are still out of pocket if you need treatment!
     
  9. AdrianW

    AdrianW New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If a government pays it's citizens an amount of money to help to defray the costs of something it can be classed as welfare.
    Baby bonuses, unemployment benefits, family support bonuses, old age pension etc are all classed as welfare.
    As for having private health funds - we'd be better off without them. If you have a look at numerous studies carried out in Australia and the US you will find that administrative costs of government run Medicare runs to about 2% annually, whereas they are about 17% for the private health funds. From those figures it would seem to indicate that we would get more value for money if the our health fund premiums were paid directly to the health system in the form of a tax and we did away with health funds altogether.
     
  10. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yea and you can call yourself Prince Harry for all I care. Giving someone a health rebate to get them to pay for private insurance does not increase the money that person has, it makes them move from free health to paying for it.... if you can do arithmetic you should be able to work out that it ends up costing the person more money to take the rebate and move to private care - its a long way from welfare.

    The reason for something should determine what it is, not which department provides it. Unemployment, family support, pensions etc have no other reason then ensuring people are able to meet minimum living standards during times of financial duress.... that is what government welfare payments are. Baby bonuses and health rebates are instruments of policy to change peoples behaviour.
     
  11. AdrianW

    AdrianW New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Giving someone a rebate [money] to get them to to pay for private insurance does not increase the money that person has? Well done on the logic front.
    If you're not increasing the amount of money they have then taking the rebate away shouldn't make any difference.
    The mad monk needs you to write his speeches because you probably know more about economics than he does.
     
  12. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hmmm, ok I'll spell it out;
    1. person has $100 to spend on booze and get free health care; so
    2. person is offered $20 to take up $60 private health, so now spending $40 of own money only has $60 left for boooze :( but gets private health care :)

    The moral of the story is its not 'welfare' because its only giving money to people to get them to spend more money to achieve a shift from public to private. Welfare is about increasing the wealth of someone so they can survive. Its a carrot on a stick, the reward is not the rebate, the reward is the private health care - and the reason the rebate is not a reward is because you have to pay more to use the rebate.

    In the above example, taking away the rebate means they either
    3a. pay the full $60 to stay in private and have now only $40 bucks for booze :(
    or
    3b. leave private and rejoin the overcrowded public system and have $100 for booze :confused:

    The ALP policy only achieves an increased pressure on the public health systems for the ONLY purpose of giving the ALP government more cash to stuff into the holes its drilled into the good ship Australia which has only so many bilge pumps. If you think the savings are going into health because they say it is, then you might not know how governments work.
     
  13. bugalugs

    bugalugs Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,289
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is tax payers money being given to people. It is welfare

    No - it was a policy to motivate people to vote for the Liberal Party. The Party that gave them the welfare. Using money they wasted on middle and upper class welfare instead of investing in infrastructure.


    Calling is welfare is calling it what it is. Welfare doled out to buy votes for an incompetent government. A government that wasted mining income on buying votes instead of building infrastructure.

    Got high electricity prices? Blame Howard's waste of money on welfare. That money should have been spent upgrading the grid. Not buying votes for a "lying rodent" (not my words - that is what his party called him)
     
  14. AdrianW

    AdrianW New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is it about conservatives these days? They seem to be totally confused about what they are supposed to stand for.
    They opposed the floating of the dollar which was a market based mechanism.
    Their CO2 policy is a tax based direct action method rather than the true libertarian philosophy of market based methods.
    They want to give incentives (money) to people to get them to use a private business.
    They complained about Labor giving incentives to people to install insulation and then a couple of days ago the mad monk asked why Gillard had stopped the Solar Scheme - another incentive scheme. He said that it was a scheme that Labor introduced to replace the 'failed' insulation scheme. What the idiot conveniently forgot was that it was a scheme introduced by the Howard government and when the Environment minister Malcolm Turnbull announced it he put a time limit of 5 years on it which would be 2012!!

    This is easily the most incompetent and badly led opposition we have ever seen. Julie Bishop, shadow foreign minister, is openly recognised by members of her own party as clueless on foreign policy.
    His own advisors actively tried to gag the opposition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, during a budget response. He actually recently made the ridiculous assertion that parts of the Australian economy are in recession. That got a laugh from every economist in the country.
    Abbott freely admits that economics bores him and you can't believe anything he says unless it's in writing. Paid maternity leave was going to be done over his dead body and then he adopts a policy of introducing the largest most expensive policy in the world that's to be paid by a tax.
    Joe Hockey, shadow treasurer, was against evey measure taken by Labor during the GFC - measures which were applauded by every economic forum on the planet and have made us the envy of the world.
    The shadow environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, did a university thesis on the benefits of a market based mechanism to cut global CO2 emissions and now has a hard time keeping a straight face trying to justify the mad monks latest of many climate policies.
    Malcolm Turnbull doesn't even try to keep a straight face these days and is still one of the few front bench members of the opposition who is universally respected by both sides.
     

Share This Page