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.
Did you notice though that the opening post there does not say who the author is or show a source... So how come you never commented on it?
Because I never read the thread until now , and never would have being from NB, who like his namesake Bolt is a nut.
Find me a current ongoing thread that I have contributed to, please, as I think a reference is a good idea with a post, and a C&P sans comments indicative of no original thought whatsoever.
You'd better not complain about anyone else's sources again then, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
beside's if you look at your own image,you can clearly see that it is a magazine cover.
That is nonsense logic,
I post an image which I consider is a cartoon, not a link or an article open to discussion and that is the same?
As for: "you can clearly see that it is a magazine cover." again, I viewed it as a joke because I had never even heard of the magazine.
New rule: "You'd better not complain about anyone else's sources again" If you spend a microsecond considering that, you might realise that you have now complained about the source, your right (possibly even old "Acts") and I will continue to question others sources as I see fit.
Finally apropos magaqzine covers "you can clearly see that it is a magazine cover."
And I picked ones that are easy to spot.
