staringclown

How long will Tony remain

317 posts in this topic

I am appalled about the treatment of refugees as well. But the masses are agin me on this too.

Me too. We're far too soft on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-cuts-university-support-funds-priests-training-20141204-120a3c.html

 

Taxpayers would subsidise the training of priests and other religious workers at private colleges for the first time under the Abbott government's proposed higher education reforms.  

As well as deregulating university fees and cutting university funding by 20 per cent, the government's proposed higher education package extends federal funding to students at private universities, TAFES and associate degree programs.

Religious teaching, training and vocational institutes would be eligible for a share of $820 million in new Commonwealth funding over three years.

 

 

rasputin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may diagnose that the entire engine needs replacing and this will save me on oil in the long run... It's based on trust and I need to trust her. ^_^

Edit: post was sexist..]

Yes, gender neutral language becomes difficult in certain circumstances. Apparently some people use the word nim in place of him / her...

I can still recall being marked down in an assignment for calling "the contractor" a him when after writing the contractor once in that sentence it seemed unnatural to continue to refer to the contractor as the contractor and it was more natural to say he...

The difficulty in economic science which at its heart appears to be the study of people following their self interest, is that sometimes it is difficult to ascertain what people will think it is in their best interest to do.

Goveremts seems to frame everything in terms of how it will affect people on an individual level and yet sometimes I think society roses above this and will vote for the collective good.

I think the caveat in this though is that they will vote for the collective good if the individual pain is small.

Unfortunately for tony abbot and his party they spend too much time trying to explain why $7 is really just a beer or a few smokes or that poor people don't use much fuel rather than explaining the positive side of their policies.

Oddly enough it is precisely because of people following their self interest for the main that makes a $7 go co-payment a good policy. When things are offered for free people act in strange ways... Speaking of which is anyone else collecting the woolworths animal cards. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. We're far too soft on them. 

 

And a merry christmas to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty in economic science which at its heart appears to be the study of people following their self interest, is that sometimes it is difficult to ascertain what people will think it is in their best interest to do.

Goveremts seems to frame everything in terms of how it will affect people on an individual level and yet sometimes I think society roses above this and will vote for the collective good.

I think the caveat in this though is that they will vote for the collective good if the individual pain is small.

Unfortunately for tony abbot and his party they spend too much time trying to explain why $7 is really just a beer or a few smokes or that poor people don't use much fuel rather than explaining the positive side of their policies.

Oddly enough it is precisely because of people following their self interest for the main that makes a $7 go co-payment a good policy. When things are offered for free people act in strange ways... Speaking of which is anyone else collecting the woolworths animal cards. ;)

 

 

People will follow their own self interest without exception, when they actually understand what is in their self interest.

 

The job of politicians seems to have changed to one of misrepresenting where self interest lies. The $7 co-payment was rejected rightly as unfair by the overwhelming amount of the populous because it was a thin end of a wedge. It applied to everybody across the board regardless of economic circumstance. The policy was an attack on not only poor people but poor, sick people. Now you can have a view about poor, sick people. They're smokers, drug takers, whatever...

 

That view doesn't even require proof or rationality. Just a political bias. Universal health care has been opposed by Liberals for ever. The co-payment is the latest tactic in it's destruction. 

 

The proof of ideology over reason is that the funds raised wouldn't be returned to medicare but placed into an off the books medical research fund... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't doctors take a pay cut???

I'm pretty sure they could live on $7 per appointment less, and still be making 6 figure salaries.

This is where our whole social structure is skewed towards the wealthy.

They are making hay while the sun shines and ensuring their buddies palms are well and truly greased.

If they get chucked out of office, they will still have the processes in place to ensure their ongoing surety.

If Labour try to reverse the legislation they will face a backlash from doctors.

Ask Campbell Newman what that's like.

A bit different to upsetting the plebs. These are significant players.

I think the co-payments are here to stay, and they will just slowly incrementally increase them across the years. They know the baby boomers are getting older and will require more and more healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't doctors take a pay cut???

I'm pretty sure they could live on $7 per appointment less, and still be making 6 figure salaries.

This is where our whole social structure is skewed towards the wealthy.

They are making hay while the sun shines and ensuring their buddies palms are well and truly greased.

If they get chucked out of office, they will still have the processes in place to ensure their ongoing surety.

If Labour try to reverse the legislation they will face a backlash from doctors.

Ask Campbell Newman what that's like.

A bit different to upsetting the plebs. These are significant players.

I think the co-payments are here to stay, and they will just slowly incrementally increase them across the years. They know the baby boomers are getting older and will require more and more healthcare.

 

I think you need to see doctor's expenses before jumping to that conclusion. I don't know how much it is for a GP, but I read that specialists pay >$250,000/year in professional indemnity insurance premiums. When you add the level of training required, they're entitled to earn well above the average wage. RE agents on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to see doctor's expenses before jumping to that conclusion. I don't know how much it is for a GP, but I read that specialists pay >$250,000/year in professional indemnity insurance premiums. When you add the level of training required, they're entitled to earn well above the average wage. RE agents on the other hand...

+1

PI insurance is not that much for a GP ~ $5-10k pa (unless they have restricted registration). But there are a heap of other expenses and they are essentially self employed. Typically a GP hands over ~40% of their fee to the practice to cover reception, rent, running costs etc. They don't get paid for holidays, sick leave, training etc like a typical employee. They do work behind the scenes that they don't get an hourly/consult rate for.

 

A typical employee works 44 weeks in a year (4+ weeks annual leave, 2 weeks public holidays, 2 weeks sick leave = 8 weeks). A GP may need to take off another 1-2 weeks for 'continuing medical education (CME)' to retain their registration. 

 

Case study 1 - a bulk billing GP seeing 6 pts an hour:

$36.30*6 = $217.80 ph less the practices cut = $130.68 ph *6.5hrs per day = $850 pd. or $4200 pw. 42 weeks billing = $176k less insurance, less CME costs, less, less. Lucky to be making $140k pa - twice the median income. Is that worth it?

 

Case study 2 - my GP seeing 4 pts per hour @ $80 per consult.

Stay tuned...

 

Re agents on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cobran20 and zaph,

So the answer is?

Keep gouging money from the wage earner?? (Keep increasing the co-payment until what happens!!)

Move towards a user pays system like in the States!!

I'm sorry but I am missing something here. Yep, I'm slow....

 

I pay private health insurance cover at the highest level. Very rarely nowadays can I go to the doctor where I get the entire appointment cost rebated. In my lifetime the gap has gone from "0%" to sometimes as much as "30%".

Now either the doctors are charging too much, or the health insurance companies are not keeping pace with the doctors requirements and providing too little in the way of benefits!!

I wish I could say the same for premiums.

I have been in the same health insurance company for over 30 years. Premiums have increased by +400%

 

This would seem to me to be the same issue with bulk billing and the need for a co-payment.

I am not talking about elective surgery like boob jobs, or face lifts.

I am talking about essential healthcare.

Why the need for these payments? Why are the government implementing them?:huh:

 

I guess this illustrates the divide we seem to be developing in our society.

There seems to be those who think there is an endless supply of money and the whole purpose of life is to extract it from those who don't deserve it to give it to those who do? We are all connected. If we do keep driving up costs like this, to the point where a significant proportion of the population simply can't afford to go to the doctor, we start creating an industry of quackery. Death rates rise and the work-force become diminished by the lack of adequate healthcare.

In the meantime all the doctors lose their jobs or the downturn in healthcare requires them to charge less.

 

In the USA, because their system almost operates on this principle, employers were forced to take out their own medical insurance to ensure their workforce were fit and healthy and capable of working. There are probably other stated reasons.

 

I guess I am seeing this as the thin edge of the wedge towards a user pays system.

Even now if you go to a private hospital emergency they will not see you unless you can pay $200 - $300, or are in private health insurance.

 

I am well aware of the costs involved with providing high range healthcare.

I am also well aware of what certain specialist surgeons incomes are!!

Many of them are easily able to pay $250,000 for their car every couple of years.

Many of them take their whole family on overseas skiing trips every year.

I am not begrudging them these luxuries because I acknowledge the skill base that they possess, but there then seems to me to be something immoral in the governments moves to create indirect taxes that enable them to achieve that. Servants or Masters?

 

Its interesting that a significant proportion of surgeons rent their lodgings, from about $2000 - $5000 per week.

I'm sure the RE Agents are pleased with the commissions derived from that level of rentals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solomon,

 

My view is that free universal health care is a nice thing but totally unaffordable by a government unless it taxes its people to death. Basically every government overseas that affords it to its citizens (UK, northern europe) is trying to undo it due to its cost. The nature of human beings is such that if something is 'free' then it is abused. If you want to reduce costs, then the government will need to do something about changing the ability to sue doctors (which impacts professional indemnity), look at ways of controlling the cost of drugs via more use of generic brands. I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but there is no such things as a free financial lunch - every doctor's appointment should attract a fee for otherwise the service will be abused by a section of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solomon,

 

My view is that free universal health care is a nice thing but totally unaffordable by a government unless it taxes its people to death. Basically every government overseas that affords it to its citizens (UK, northern europe) is trying to undo it due to its cost. The nature of human beings is such that if something is 'free' then it is abused. If you want to reduce costs, then the government will need to do something about changing the ability to sue doctors (which impacts professional indemnity), look at ways of controlling the cost of drugs via more use of generic brands. I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but there is no such things as a free financial lunch - every doctor's appointment should attract a fee for otherwise the service will be abused by a section of the community.

 

The unaffordability argument is not supported by evidence. I agree all that can be done to make health spending more efficient needs to be done but the co-payment push is idealogical.

 

http://theconversation.com/australias-unsustainable-health-spending-is-a-myth-26393

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unaffordability argument is not supported by evidence. I agree all that can be done to make health spending more efficient needs to be done but the co-payment push is idealogical.

 

http://theconversation.com/australias-unsustainable-health-spending-is-a-myth-26393

 

The health spending represents a substantial component of the federal budget. This is why those northern european countries are looking at undoing the free health care policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System

 

 

Features of the Swiss health sysetm

Swiss citizens buy insurance for themselves; there are no employer-sponsored or government-run insurance programs. Hence, insurance prices are transparent to the beneficiary. The government defines the minimum benefit package that qualifies for the mandate. Critically, all packages require beneficiaries to pick up a portion of the costs of their care (deductibles and coinsurance) in order to incentivize their frugality.

The government subsidizes health care for the poor on a graduated basis, with the goal of preventing individuals from spending more than 10 percent of their income on insurance. But because people are still on the hook for a significant component of the costs, they often opt for cheaper packages; in 2003, 42% of Swiss citizens chose high-deductible plans (i.e., plans with significant cost-sharing features). Those who wish to acquire supplemental coverage are free to do so on their own.

99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance. Because they can choose between plans from nearly 100 different private insurance companies, insurers must compete on price and service, helping to curb health care inflation. Most beneficiaries have complete freedom to choose their doctor, and appointment waiting times are almost as low as those in the U.S., the world leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The UK has the best health care system in the world according to this report. Switzerland is number 2. Australia comes in at number 4. The US is dead last.

 

The total costs of health care are also instructive with Switzerland and the US in the top three spenders per capita. The consumer pays model doesn't necessarily translate to lower health care costs. Most countries have universal health care systems including Switzerland. Notably, the US has recently moved toward universal healthcare with "Obamacare". 

 

The clear problem for the Abbott government is that they were elected claiming they would make no cuts to health spending. Australians like medicare and I don't think they want to see it weakened. 

 

I'm certainly not arguing against progressive taxation. We already have a two tier system in place. The wealthy pay health insurance if they choose and are encouraged to do so using levies. 

 

I'm arguing against an attack on universal health care that could see increasing numbers of GPs opting out of bulk billing. I'm arguing against the least able to pay being asked to pay more.

 

If the populous want an equitable and accessible health care system, and there is a large amount of evidence that they do, then they will pay for it. 

 

 

TCFchart.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to compare health-care systems

 

and here lies the problem - 'free' health care eventually overwhelms the health budgets. When deficits loom in budgets, you can't tax the population to the point that there is no incentive to work. For a start, I'd like to see a government that has the b@lls to introduce a system similar to life insurance that penalises premiums based lifestyle - smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users and the obese should be primary targets!

 

...What the NHS is good at is providing cost-efficient care. It spends $3,405 per person per annum, less than half America's outlay of $8,508. Alas, that does not mean the NHS is financially secure: a £2 billion ($3.4 billion) shortfall looms from 2015 and NHS England is struggling to implement £20 billion in savings. And some outcomes for serious conditions do not commend the English model, which does worse on serious cancer treatment than Canada, Australia and Sweden, according to data from the King’s Fund, a health-care think-tank based in London. American women have higher survival rates for breast cancer. Mortality rates following strokes also let down the English system....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll never happen because the wealthiest people tend to be heavy drinkers, smokers and overweight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll never happen because the wealthiest people tend to be heavy drinkers, smokers and overweight.

They penalise for life insurance, so I don't think it is a major hurdle to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK has the best health care system in the world according to this report. Switzerland is number 2. Australia comes in at number 4. The US is dead last.

 

TCFchart.png

 

Interesting table. How can UK's "Healthy Lives" category be second last with all that quality health care provision? Weird!

 

Sweden's #3 ranking is not deserved. Access and quality of healthcare is crap (but virtually free). And yet, the "Healthy Lives" ranking is #2? Also weird!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They penalise for life insurance, so I don't think it is a major hurdle to implement.

cigarpictureright-620x349.jpg

Edited by tor
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will follow their own self interest without exception, when they actually understand what is in their self interest.

The job of politicians seems to have changed to one of misrepresenting where self interest lies. The $7 co-payment was rejected rightly as unfair by the overwhelming amount of the populous because it was a thin end of a wedge. It applied to everybody across the board regardless of economic circumstance. The policy was an attack on not only poor people but poor, sick people. Now you can have a view about poor, sick people. They're smokers, drug takers, whatever...

That view doesn't even require proof or rationality. Just a political bias. Universal health care has been opposed by Liberals for ever. The co-payment is the latest tactic in it's destruction.

The proof of ideology over reason is that the funds raised wouldn't be returned to medicare but placed into an off the books medical research fund...

It is an attack on free health care, because without a price, there is no price trigger. I don't see it as ideological, well at least for me I don't hold the view based on ideology. It's economic theory that shapes my own view on the government offering things for free to the public.

There are certainly matters of fairness that should be addressed. If you are sick it will cost more than if you are not but without any cost to the public there is significant waste as people will use free healthcare when perhaps they do not need healthcare at all but a trip to the pharmacist etc.

These are all things that should have been sorted during the Howard era of growing surplussess, instead of tax cuts. Social welfare could have been increased, offset by user pays. Not necessarily the lot but pays something.

It could be just once a year for one in five people avoided with a $7.00 co-payment. This still amounts to a large saving. The reason I suspect the AMA is against it. It comes out of their revenue. The doctors surgery is still a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cobran20 and zaph,

So the answer is?

Keep gouging money from the wage earner?? (Keep increasing the co-payment until what happens!!)

Move towards a user pays system like in the States!!

I'm sorry but I am missing something here. Yep, I'm slow....

I pay private health insurance cover at the highest level. Very rarely nowadays can I go to the doctor where I get the entire appointment cost rebated. In my lifetime the gap has gone from "0%" to sometimes as much as "30%".

Now either the doctors are charging too much, or the health insurance companies are not keeping pace with the doctors requirements and providing too little in the way of benefits!!

I wish I could say the same for premiums.

I have been in the same health insurance company for over 30 years. Premiums have increased by +400%

This would seem to me to be the same issue with bulk billing and the need for a co-payment.

I am not talking about elective surgery like boob jobs, or face lifts.

I am talking about essential healthcare.

Why the need for these payments? Why are the government implementing them?:huh:

On your private health insurance, I recall you posting on that some years back and I decided to change mine and have been saving about $1500 per annum since. I put my money where my mouth is and went to one that has no free lunch. Ie for ancillaries you always pay exactly 25percent of the cost.

I suspect in my last fund the cost to fund was from people who are clever enough to milk every free lunch out of it, ie two free pairs glasses one five remedial massages and two trips to the dentist.

Yes my one trip to the dentist was always free but for my gigantic premium I got $300 off my dental costs each year.

On the co payment it is a fairly well established economic theory that without a price trigger people act irrationally and take more than they need.

Our local gp costs me $26.00 to see anyway so the $7.00 is the least of people's worries where our "universal" healthcare doesn't extend to. That said the kids are still free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware of the costs involved with providing high range healthcare.

I am also well aware of what certain specialist surgeons incomes are!!

Many of them are easily able to pay $250,000 for their car every couple of years.

Many of them take their whole family on overseas skiing trips every year.

I am not begrudging them these luxuries because I acknowledge the skill base that they possess, but there then seems to me to be something immoral in the governments moves to create indirect taxes that enable them to achieve that. Servants or Masters?

Its interesting that a significant proportion of surgeons rent their lodgings, from about $2000 - $5000 per week.

Apologies for the multiple posts but I find it difficult to multi quote on my phone.

I understand the AMA heavily restricts the supply side. Do you really think that people need to be in the top 0.05percent of the state to be clever enough to be medical professionals? This is the limited number of spaces our universities leave for doctors. Sure I'd like to think they should be from the top 1percent but we bemoan the lack of doctors and train only a small portion of those capable and willing to be docs then wonder why hospitals have to pay 400 dollars plus an hour for consultants.

Upshot is I'm right with you. They do ok. Why doesn't the government look at doctors like every other necessary professional group and open the floodgates on supply when wages brake out? My thought is the AMA will argue against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The health spending represents a substantial component of the federal budget. This is why those northern european countries are looking at undoing the free health care policy.

Yes, I guess our issue in Australia is how can it be sold. It appers it is now a dead duck in Australia the copayment.

They didn't go the road of telling us we are a bunch of hypochondriacs that need a price trigger to curb our excessive doctor visits. Don't know if that would have gone down better or worse than saying a doctors visit will be the equivalent of a couple of latte?

I expect health outcomes are tied closely to economic outcomes. In addition, demographics must play a part. Australia is hard to manage given many live remotely though at least climate is on our side.

On that note progressive taxation and a strong safety net in social welfare would lead to better health outcomes I think than universal health care. Problem is that's even more unaffordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now