Diary of our stinking Govt.

[boris1gary]

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed.  The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

[monman12]

$6 bulk-billing fee hits poor, spares rich.

That B1G is a novel way to present a somewhat unresearched subject.

A suggested CO-PAYMENT of $6 is for bulk-billed visits to GPs, if your GP does not bulk bill you are charged a higher rate for their services, e.g. 2013

Brief  Consultation                     5mins       $ 40      ($16.60Rebate)     
Standard Consultation             10mins     $ 60      ($36.30 rebate)         
Long Consultation                    20mins      $100    ($70.30  rebate)   

2006: Doctors who charge private fees usually charge around $40 to $45 for a standard consultation (up to 20 minutes). As patients only get a $25.70 rebate from Medicare

The average bulk-billing rate for GP visits in Sydney’s 10 poorest electorates is 96.05 per cent, compared to 74.8 per cent in the ten wealthiest electorates

Meaning the  "rich" ,   using non bulk-billed services  already pay much more for  their medical visits,  and you want more from them?

Of course you do B1G

nɥºɾ

[boris1gary]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/6-bulkbilling-fee-hits-poor-spares-rich-20140425-zqzmy.htm...

Treasurer Joe Hockey said earlier this week that the cost of Medicare is growing at twice the speed of the economy and reform is needed to ensure the scheme “works for those most vulnerable, the poorest in our community”.

“Now I want to emphasise my electorate of North Sydney has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in Australia and I have one of the wealthiest electorates in Australia,” Mr Hockey told ABC Radio. “To me there is something wrong with that.”

In fact, Mr Hockey’s electorate had Sydney’s fifth-lowest bulk-billing rate, 70.2 per cent, according to 2010-2011 Department of Health data, the most recent available. This is below both the NSW and national averages.

Sydney North Shore and Beaches had the country’s third-lowest bulk-billing rate in the country at 68 per cent, according to the latest data from the National Health Performance Agency. Western Sydney had the country’s highest bulk-billing rate at 96 per cent.

A spokeswoman for Mr Hockey declined to provide any data to support the Treasurer’s comments, saying only: "The electorate has a high rate of bulk billing for affluent areas.”

[boris1gary]

Meaning the  "rich" ,   using non bulk-billed services  already pay much more for  their medical visits,  and you want more from them?

Of course you do B1G

nɥºɾ

monman12, people really shouldn't assume what another poster thinks,  plenty of affluent people use bulk billing GP's, I am not one of them. Please point out where I have said what you state in the above.

What I would like to see in our healthcare though is an end to the private health industry. It is a leach on the public purse. Our health (our as in everyones) should not be a matter of private profit making. The system is ludicrous, people pay money to the privateers then the government takes money out of the public purse, gives some of it back to the people paying the privateers who then if they use the private health services are more often than not hit with a huge bill. Now of course this makes sense to those who prefer private profit over public good and some will argue we can't afford public health for all, I say that's hot air and lies.

Generally speaking, the majority of us very rarely spend any time in hospital, I have spent a small amount of time in a public and a private hospital. The care was exactly the same, the Professor who operated on me in the private hospital also did exactly the same work next door in the public. Yes the private was pretty, food was edible and we got a free newspaper - whooopppee. I had no choice where I went by the way and do not nor will i ever join a private health fund. When I visited the Professor for a follow up, I asked him what the cost of the op and my stay in the private was - when he told me i almost fell off my chair, he also added it was over double of what it would have been next door in the public, why? private profit.

[boris1gary]

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hockeys-bulkbilling-claim-misses-the-mark-2...

Hockey busted lying again............

Hockey's bulk-billing claim misses the mark

Treasurer Joe Hockey's claims that his wealthy constituents enjoyed some of the highest bulk-billing rates in the country are looking a little washed out.

Mr Hockey said last week the cost of Medicare is growing at twice the speed of the economy and that co-payments are ''certainly something that is in the mix'' for the budget.

''Now I want to emphasise my electorate of North Sydney has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in Australia and I have one of the wealthiest electorates in Australia,'' Mr Hockey told ABC radio. ''To me there is something wrong with that.''

In fact, Mr Hockey’s electorate had Sydney’s fifth-lowest bulk-billing rate, 70 per cent, according to 2010-2011 Department of Health data, the most recent available. This is below the national average.

[bella_again]

Ummm actually I think its my fault BG1.  A few posts back I had referred to what Joe Hockey had mentioned on the news and wondered why according to him some of the richest electorates had the highest bulk billing rates or something along those lines.  Can't be bothered scrolling back.   Yet some of the poorer suburbs can't access bulk billing so easily.  I am a firm believer that people should be charged according to what they are able to pay.

It worries me that many who are already below the poverty line will find it difficult to come up with the extra funds as many doctors require you pay the full fee at the time of the appointment.  The other concern is that since Hockey said that on the news, it's clear he was wrong, yet  this is the man that is in charge of the nations finances!! 

[boris1gary]

---

@bella_again wrote:

Ummm actually I think its my fault BG1.  A few posts back I had referred to what Joe Hockey had mentioned on the news and wondered why according to him some of the richest electorates had the highest bulk billing rates or something along those lines.  Can't be bothered scrolling back.   Yet some of the poorer suburbs can't access bulk billing so easily.  I am a firm believer that people should be charged according to what they are able to pay.

It worries me that many who are already below the poverty line will find it difficult to come up with the extra funds as many doctors require you pay the full fee at the time of the appointment.  The other concern is that since Hockey said that on the news, it's clear he was wrong, yet  this is the man that is in charge of the nations finances!! 

---

No matter, Hockey has been caught out lying about it anyway, one the one hand Hockey and co like to paint Labor, workers and the poor as envious and jealous of the wealthy, then Hockey lies in the media clearly trying to whip up some of this "envy" by lying about the wealthy and their use of bulk billing. I don't want any kind of means testing or a $6 co payment for medicare, universal public health system for everyone, that's the best way. Once we start tinkering with medicare it will be the beginning of the end. We will end up with a two tier health system - a private, high end for some and a run down public one for everyone else.

There are plenty of tax rorts (legal ones) that could be stopped that would add billions to the public purse but this government aren't interested. They want lower taxes and less public services. 

[monman12]

"Meaning the  "rich" ,   using non bulk-billed services  already pay much more for  their medical visits,  and you want more from them?
Of course you do B1G"

"monman12, people really shouldn't assume what another poster thinks,  plenty of affluent people use bulk billing GP's, I am not one of them. Please point out where I have said what you state in the above."

I wrote that you would want more B1G, not that you said it.  However, the comment stands regardless, based upon your past somewhat red flag waving posts epitomised by:  "What I would like to see in our healthcare though is an end to the private health industry. It is a leach on the public purse."

Leeches? interesting,  so instead of a the throw-away comment some economics would be welcome as to why, unless it is just more a part of the  red flag waving  privatising manifesto.!
Did you know that in 2009 the Rudd Labor government decided that Medibank would become a 'for profit' business

Hockey's bulk-billing claim misses the mark
In fact, Mr Hockey’s electorate had Sydney’s fifth-lowest bulk-billing rate, 70 per cent, according to 2010-2011 Department of Health data, the most recent available. This is below the national average.

Would you not applaud that B1G because it means there are a lot more RICH people paying more for their medical treatment? If you privatise the lot the RICH will pay less,  and then you will have to wave the red flag even harder.

This would be right up your collective alley B1G: a couple of years ago I needed a MRI, I headed off to the Monash Medical Centre nearby to be told that there was about a 3 week wait, but, I said, I am happy to pay what  it costs,  2 hours later I had my scan, the hospital received payment which it could use for others,   and I was scanned!  You would take that away from myself B1G ?  It must be  all that red you find in hospitals which colours your opinions !

nɥºɾ

[boris1gary]

---

@monman12 wrote:

"Meaning the  "rich" ,   using non bulk-billed services  already pay much more for  their medical visits,  and you want more from them?
Of course you do B1G"

"monman12, people really shouldn't assume what another poster thinks,  plenty of affluent people use bulk billing GP's, I am not one of them. Please point out where I have said what you state in the above."

I wrote that you would want more B1G, not that you said it.  However, the comment stands regardless, based upon your past somewhat red flag waving posts epitomised by:  "What I would like to see in our healthcare though is an end to the private health industry. It is a leach on the public purse."

Leeches? interesting,  so instead of a the throw-away comment some economics would be welcome as to why, unless it is just more a part of the  red flag waving  privatising manifesto.!
Did you know that in 2009 the Rudd Labor government decided that Medibank would become a 'for profit' business

Hockey's bulk-billing claim misses the mark
In fact, Mr Hockey’s electorate had Sydney’s fifth-lowest bulk-billing rate, 70 per cent, according to 2010-2011 Department of Health data, the most recent available. This is below the national average.

Would you not applaud that B1G because it means there are a lot more RICH people paying more for their medical treatment? If you privatise the lot the RICH will pay less,  and then you will have to wave the red flag even harder.

This would be right up your collective alley B1G: a couple of years ago I needed a MRI, I headed off to the Monash Medical Centre nearby to be told that there was about a 3 week wait, but, I said, I am happy to pay what  it costs,  2 hours later I had my scan, the hospital received payment which it could use for others,   and I was scanned!  You would take that away from myself B1G ?  It must be  all that red you find in hospitals which colours your opinions !

nɥºɾ

---

monman12, again don't jump to conclusions about what I may or may not think. You obviously did not bother to read my last 2 posts on my opinion on healthcare but never mind carry on with your jumping,  exercise is supposed to be good for you.

[boris1gary]

http://www.independentaustralia.net/

The environment

Greg Hunt, the Minister for the environment, released his white paper outlining his much-derided Direct Action plan for emissions reduction.

In short, it is to pay selected polluters not to pollute ‒ pretty please ‒ and to impose no penalties, to reach the meagre target of five per cent emissions reduction by 2020.

The Climate Change Authority has, by the way, deemed this target to be inadequate.

But no worries, they are on the Libs abolition hit list.

Also on the hit list are renewable energy targets, with arch climate change sceptic Dick Warburton heading the advisory committee.

It just gets more wacko at every turn. Warburton is currently under investigation for allegations of foreign bribery. This is known to the Prime Minister.

The plan to remove the carbon tax and replace it with Direct Action has been criticised by the UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres as a lot more expensive and less effective than a price on carbon.

On top of that, eminent professor Ross Garnaut has bagged Direct Action as being

‘…like a Martian beauty contest.’

It is a white elephant that will not achieve the necessary emissions reduction as it stands. It is costly both for the environment and the economy and is described here in IA by Jeff Schiller.

Direct Action has even been denounced by Clive Palmer, who has called it dead, hopeless and a waste of money — although it must be remembered that Palmer is a mining magnate, who has withheld his carbon tax.

Indeed, Palmer has threatened to take a case to the high court, on the grounds that the mining tax is unconstitutional. Palmer, who has now reinvented himself as an MP, has had various positions on abolition of the mining and carbon tax. His position consistently trends towards abolition — surprise, surprise.

The glaring conflict of interest is his giant interest in fossil fuels and the Galilee Mine – a $6.4 billion dollar potential white elephant recently approved by Greg Hunt.

Despite his voiced concern for the orphans of veterans, Palmer and his Palmer United Party are hinting at threatening to block the repeal of the mining and carbon tax in the Senate.

Of course, Palmer is merely shadow boxing with his old foe, Tony Abbott to get what he wants. His stated scientifically ignorant belief is that only three per cent of emissions are caused by humans and 97 per cent is caused by nature.

So why act on human emissions? Get nature instead.

Makes sense — if you are a big polluter.

[boris1gary]

http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/icacs-reality-politics-better-than-reality-tv-20140427-zr0b8.html

  ICAC's reality politics better than reality TV

Developer donations were banned by then Labor premier Nathan Rees in 2009. But the month-long corruption inquiry is expected to uncover underhand methods by which some developers subverted this process in return for favourable treatment from Liberal Party MPs.

 "Operation Spicer is mainly concerned with political fund-raising in the Liberal Party and the way in which unscrupulous businessmen sought to buy political influence," said Geoffrey Watson, SC, counsel assisting the ICAC, recently.

The stars of the show will be three central coast state MPs – former resources minister Chris Hartcher, Darren Webber and Chris Spence. The inquiry will examine whether the trio and former staffers Tim Koelma and Ray Carter "corruptly solicited, received and concealed payments from sources in return for certain members of Parliament favouring the interests of those responsible for the payments".