Split Thread Australian speaker Harry Jenkins resigns

[Hallo Alfie]

That's all you've got?

Pathetic.

I think you need a sense of humour a transplant. Or at least a check up so that you don't take everything so seriously and/or personally.

You don't like my posts? Stiff!

 

[Legend]

Oh, could I sigh any more laboriously?

You don't like my posts? Stiff!

A textbook cry of the bogan. What has a statement like this have anything to do with anything? Did lionking even say he didn't like your posts? Is he telling you to change how you post? Such a fatuous comment, seriously.

 

[wombatwal]

In other words, it's what I've been saying for years. When you see a politicians lips move, they are telling lies. Howard's Core and Non Core Promises immediately come to mind.
No one will ever shake from my mind that the best government this country has ever had was the Hawk-Keating years. All the prosperity now enjoyed by most is the results of the policies of that government. Since then. All governments, especially the Howard years, apart from dumping a GST on us have been do nothing governments. The Gillard regime will be remembered for doing the same with a not required carbon tax.

I must say Amb I agree with you on the Hawke/Keating governments.
The Howard government was atrocious. A do nothing government indeed.
He did a lot of good/bad for middle class welfare.

 

[amb]

I must say Amb I agree with you on the Hawke/Keating governments.
The Howard government was atrocious. A do nothing government indeed.
He did a lot of good/bad for middle class welfare.

All those tax cuts for people earning mainly above 60k. Oh yes, they'll be remembered.

 

[a_unique_person]

All those tax cuts for people earning mainly above 60k. Oh yes, they'll be remembered.

Tax cuts aren't welfare. The welfare is such policies as the subsidised private health care. Whether it is good policy or not, subsidised private health care only benefits those who can afford private health care in the first place.

 

[amb]

A Howard incentive that I hope Gillard will get rid of soon and save billions. Yes, I admit that this Labor government has a few good points.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Tax cuts aren't welfare. The welfare is such policies as the subsidised private health care. Whether it is good policy or not, subsidised private health care only benefits those who can afford private health care in the first place.

Untrue.

They attract more people into the health funds which in turn reduces the stress on the public system - in terms of costs and service delivery.

More people are employed through the private system again reducing stress on the public system and the tax payer.

Looking past the end of one's nose can be tricky can't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

A Howard incentive that I hope Gillard will get rid of soon and save billions. Yes, I admit that this Labor government has a few good points.

They won't get rid of it, they would like to means test it.

 

[amb]

It needs to be removed, and the money saved put into Medicare.

 

[lionking]

It needs to be removed, and the money saved put into Medicare.

Why, because you don't have private health care? What do you think would happen if there was no private health care in Australia?

 

[nvidiot]

Untrue.

They attract more people into the health funds which in turn reduces the stress on the public system - in terms of costs and service delivery.

More people are employed through the private system again reducing stress on the public system and the tax payer.

Looking past the end of one's nose can be tricky can't it?

Care to back that up with something other than Howard Government talking points Alfie? I'm sure the cost benefit analysis is right there in your bookmarks, saved for such an occasion.

I don't think the public spending money on homeopathy, acupuncture and reiki (as covered by some private health insurers) is anything other than a waste. I don't find multiple health insurers and complex rebate schemes more effective or efficient than having a single insurer (government coverage).

I await your convincing argument and evidence that providing health insurance rebates for privately insured individuals is anything other than a cost to the government and the health system as a whole and a form of middle income welfare.

 

[bit_pattern]

They attract more people into the health funds which in turn reduces the stress on the public system - in terms of costs and service delivery.

That, unsurprisingly, is a complete myth. Creating a two-tiered healthcare system has left public hospitals competing for a smaller pool of funding and resources while providing better outcomes at lower cost.

The benefits of private health care are purely political.

http://www.drs.org.au/wwwboard/messages/101.html

It is often assumed that health care is more efficiently delivered in the private system. At least with respect to costs, this assumption is without basis. The private hospitals offer the convenience of little or no waiting periods and the doctor of choice, but at greatly increased expense. For example, the average cost in the public sector of performing coronary angioplasty is $5500 and of a coronary bypass operation $15,200. Even on the most conservative estimates, these costs are between half and two-thirds of those in the private sector, with no appreciable difference in outcome.

In Victoria, public hospitals are predominantly funded by casemix funding. In general, public hospitals would be financially viable if they were given the full casemix payment for all the cases they treated. Unfortunately this is not the case. The State Government "caps'' total payments to an individual hospital at a level considerably lower than the demand. Hospitals are not given extra funding for work done above this level, even though stringent financial penalties are applied if waiting-list targets are exceeded or patients wait too long in emergency departments because of a lack of beds. Hospitals can ``bid'' to do extra work, but at discounted casemix payments well below the cost of the service. Only a government bureaucracy could devise such a convoluted system of funding, which is a nightmare to administer.

Furthermore, even though all public hospitals have eaten into their capital reserves and some have gone into debt in an effort to meet clinical demands, the State Government continues to impose an annual 1.5per cent "efficiency'' cut.

Looking past the end of one's nose can be tricky can't it?

It is when you're picking it.

 

[nvidiot]

Why, because you don't have private health care? What do you think would happen if there was no private health care in Australia?

I don't think anyone suggests that there be no private health care. They (and I) suggest it should be, you know, privately funded.

ETA: maybe another thread will be appropriate?

 

[lionking]

I don't think anyone suggests that there be no private health care. They (and I) suggest it should be, you know, privately funded.

Before the subsidy private health care membership was going down the toilet. You may not like subsidies to private schools either (I don't), but the reality is that without them the public system simply wouldn't cope, or not cope well at least.

 

[arthwollipot]

This discussion is more about general Australian politics, rather than about Harry Jenkins.

 

[amb]

Why, because you don't have private health care? What do you think would happen if there was no private health care in Australia?

Works pretty darn good in most Scandinavian nations who have universal health care. Why can't it work here. And no, I have no private health care. In an emergency you are sent to a public hospital anyway.

 

[lionking]

This discussion is more about general Australian politics, rather than about Harry Jenkins.

Fair point, and sorry about continuing the derail. You are right, this is a specific topic.

 

[amb]

Slippery is already old news. It only confirms my cynical opinion for politicians of all persuasions.

 

[nvidiot]

Before the subsidy private health care membership was going down the toilet. You may not like subsidies to private schools either (I don't), but the reality is that without them the public system simply wouldn't cope, or not cope well at least.

I'd love to believe that subsidising inefficient systems which promote dangerous and non-evidence based medicine relieves the financial pressure from (if not practically, then potentially) efficient ones. I'm finding it difficult though.

Can anyone back up the idea with some evidence that having multiple private insurance companies subsidized by the public purse is actually better both financially and in medical outcomes for the population?

If we took that thirty percent and pumped it into the parts of the public health system that need it most, and then still allowed those who wanted to insure themselves to do so, would the public healthcare suffer as a result? And if so, what evidence can be brought to show this?

Saying the same thing multiple times here, please forgive me, it's been a long day filled with less than stimulating conversation.

ETA: again, any splitting of this thread would be welcomed if required.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've already requested a split.