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.
I have still to comprehend your use of "ratio" within this debate, also your broad 1 in 3 statement, which without explanation is meaningless, what is the databse, coverage, etc?
"The broad statistics of socio-economic groups do not mention the colour of skin or ethnic background. You seem to be fixated on this."
Actually I am choosing a socio-economic/demographic that is of sufficient size (over 700,000), and well researched, to indicate the failure of this "blanket" 1 in 3 assertion : "The truth is that one in three partners of men in the same socio-economic group which includes politicians has experienced at least one form of domestic abuse."
The above statement (1 in 3) fails when you consider the figures for domestic abuse/violence for the indigenous socio-economic group, as it is far in excess of that! Thus there must be an additional variable in play that contributes to this variation.
Discrepancies in the Incidence of Violence
Although exposure to violence affects all SES groups, lower SES individuals and families appear to have increased exposure.
Browne, Salomon, & Bassuk (1999) found that women who resided in households that earned less than $10,000 annually had a 4-times-greater risk of experiencing violence than women in wealthier households.
Bassuk et al. (1996) found that homeless mothers reported significantly more severe instances of physical and sexual assault over their lifetime than low-income housed mothers.
Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Felton, (2001) found youths from low-income neighborhoods witnessed significantly more severe violence (viz., murders and stabbings) than youths from middle- and upper-income neighborhoods.
"Domestic violence was reported within all socio-economic class groupings but it was most prevalent within the working class and lower middle socio-economic classes. The major perceived cause of domestic violence was alcohol/drug abuse."
Yes, sadly, domestic violence is to be found everywhere, but in order to appreciate the true significance of it, and its effect, Related debate should amplify any significant statistical variables, terms, figures and methodology.
You miss the point: "Related debate should amplify any significant statistical variables, terms, figures and methodology."
A significantly large homologous representation, within a statistical group, having characteristics that range (per capita) from 2 - 5 times that of the remainder of the group will have a noticeable effect on statistics derived from the group taken as a whole. Meaning 1 in 3 is nonsense overall when it contains a large unexplained group with a much higher instance of family abuse within that group.
It thus follows that this statement fails: "The truth is that one in three partners of men in the same socio-economic group which includes politicians has experienced at least one form of domestic abuse" , as the figures for "the same socio-economic group" the indigenous population, are much higher than any non indigenous socio-economic group .
The above finally brings us to the interesting part: Given that the 1 in 3 "rule" does not apply here for "the same socio-economic group" the indigenous population, WHY does it not?
It must be a very slow news day for this type of nonsense to appear, Perhaps the junior shadow minister (Thistlethwaite) is still finding his bearings.
Panton the bounder, is he a boyfriend or partner? or does the former term increase the salivary output of the media/MYOPS? and thus is used?
"He's a property developer.Perfect Lib material."
The bounder, certainly not Lab material earning your own living when there are union members to milk. Thistlewaite's was president of the Australian Workers Union, that with a somewhat murky past and Harvey Shorten starring !
The bounder he actually paid his own travel costs to travel to NY to be with his girl-friend....... (partner?)
