Abbott to sell Medibank

[i-need-a-martini]

There goes the benchmark that keeps our insurance premiums at a decent level.

I don't even understand why this is even necessary given that Medibank makes a profit? It's as if decisions are being made without any thought goig into it other than they promised to do it in 2007 so this is their way of punishing voters for not voting for them in at that time.

What other reason could there be?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-moves-towards-medibank-private-selloff-...

[monman12]

Economists have recently stated that the government should not sell off its remaining businesses, because the former sale of Telstra, Qantas and Sydney Airport was not a good deal for the Australian public.

Really? Qantas  (and the CBA) were ALP sales.  Qantas was necessary as "flag carrying" airlines (red flag waving  B1G?) were becoming passé, I have none of their shares. Regarding the CBA it has 1,611,928,836 shares on issue and in the past (and now)  have proved very profitable for Australian shareholders and superannuation funds, I have a big parcel of them !  As for Telstra the FF return on capital has been excellent, I have them also.

Sydney airport has about $ 8 billion in corporate debt at the moment, but that is another economic debate!.

B1G: "....the Coalition government has allowed private insurance premiums to rise by a generous 6.2% this year (inflation is 2%)"     Allowed yes, but only after    the Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC) has examined the  applications  for  premium increases.

The 6.2 % you mention is actually an AVERAGE of all the funds and ranges from 2.98% to 7.99%.

"(inflation is 2%)"    Actually it is 2.75% B1G, and has not been at or below 2% for over a year

B1G,  another quote from your  John Quiggin :

"Professor Quiggin said Australia Post was a natural monopoly and ought not to be privatised.

In the case of Medibank Private - which is likely to be sold - the case was ''less clear cut''

   

"It's not actually legal for sheep or goats to vote"

[lakeland27]

i have a different opinion. the public who use the services should be considered in any sale of public assets before considering the opportunities available to investors. investors ought to be a secondary consideration. regardless of the political leanings of the government. the government exists to serve all citizens, not just the speculators and carpet baggers

[boris1gary]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

i have a different opinion. the public who use the services should be considered in any sale of public assets before considering the opportunities available to investors. investors ought to be a secondary consideration. regardless of the political leanings of the government. the government exists to serve all citizens, not just the speculators and carpet baggers

---

well i think we can all rest assured that only the speculators and carpetbaggers will be considered of any importance to a govt made up of rorters, theives, liars, economic dunces and goats.

[lakeland27]

we'll one tends to favour those who put you in office. rather than lead .. pander to them.   they thought it best to encourage the vested interest in everybody as it favors them electorally..  my fathers generation largely didn;t rely on investments for retirement but more on  savings and more tangible assets.

[boris1gary]

The question of privatisation is argued by some conservatives as an "economic necessity", when in fact it is driven by ideology, not sensible economic management. While the ALP managed to steer Australia successfully through the GFC, the LNP seem committed to creating our own homebrand recession.

[lakeland27]

I'd agree. after accusing the centre-right labor government of economic   largesse and vandalism they show considerable disdain for the welfare costs  that will rise with their policies and the revenue that will undoubtedly fall . 

[boris1gary]

lakeland, I still find it hard to believe that some people are still convinced by the LNP scare campaign re: Budget Crisis - and that the ALP were money waster's - beggars belief really, (of course i am not referring to any poster's on these boards)

from Inependent Australia -

They claim the cupboard is bare. That Australia is in a diabolical fiscal crisis or "budget emergency". That savage cuts are needed to avert imminent disaster.

He has obviously been taking acting lessons because he is becoming more and more convincing. The sincere voice. The concerned look on his face. The hands on the mouth. The laboured heavy sighs. The pauses for impact.

But nobody's buying it.

The Coalition have a bizarre affection for cuts and a fetish for surpluses at all costs. In my experience it verges on pathological.

It must stem from their unending devotion to "lower taxes", "smaller government", "less regulation", "less red tape" and "free enterprise".

They seek to run government how they would run a small business: for profit motive.

It's all about money with these people. Anything else comes a distant second.

Howard presided over years of ever increasing record revenue from the mining boom in a world free from a major economic crisis and left nothing to show for it. Nothing whatsoever. Except for some money from the various firesales of public assets for which no "mandate" was ever sought.

Tony Abbott talks about the last 6 years of Labor "profligacy". I would point him in the direction of the recent report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that found the only times the Australian government was profligate was during the Howard Government, when he was in Cabinet.

Let's get real. There is no crisis.

Hockey is trying to paint the picture of debt reaching $667 billion. This is a fantasy. A self serving projection that would never have come to pass under Labor had they won.

Debt obviously can't keep rising. There are structural issues with the budget, mainly hangovers from the frivolous Howard years.

[lakeland27]

they simply hit the public over the head with the claims hard and often.  swan and rudd received accolades worldwide for the GFC response. all hockey had to do was pretend it didn't happen while piers and bolt re-wrote it into a context that suited the agenda.

[boris1gary]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

they simply hit the public over the head with the claims hard and often.  swan and rudd received accolades worldwide for the GFC response. all hockey had to do was pretend it didn't happen while piers and bolt re-wrote it into a context that suited the agenda.

---

yes, your correct, but then there are those that claim to be much more intelligent than the average punter and yet these seem to be the ones still parroting the bogus "budget crisis", "the cupboards are bare" - maybe they are all on $200.000+ a year, so the lies suit their pocket? Beats me.

[lakeland27]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

they simply hit the public over the head with the claims hard and often.  swan and rudd received accolades worldwide for the GFC response. all hockey had to do was pretend it didn't happen while piers and bolt re-wrote it into a context that suited the agenda.

---

yes, your correct, but then there are those that claim to be much more intelligent than the average punter and yet these seem to be the ones still parroting the bogus "budget crisis", "the cupboards are bare" - maybe they are all on $200.000+ a year, so the lies suit their pocket? Beats me.

---

those that claim to be smarter (i've noticed) fail to display these 'smarts' over and over again. how smart can a parrott be ?