on 20-03-2015 08:17 AM
Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh shifts position on previous support for a GP fee
Labor's shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh was once a strong supporter of a compulsory fee for visits to the doctor - a policy now slammed by the opposition as a “GP tax” that would hurt the community’s most vulnerable.
But in a 2003 Sydney Morning Herald article Dr Leigh, then a PhD student in economics at Harvard University, argued a Medicare co-payment was “hardly a radical idea”.
“As health researchers have shown, cost-less medical care means that people go to the doctor even when they don't need to, driving up the cost for all of us," Dr Leigh and co-author Richard Holden wrote.
“But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all.
“As economists have shown, the ideal model involves a small co-payment - not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc."
Dr Leigh argued the fee should be enough to deter “frivolous GP visits”, but not enough to limit genuine preventive care. The fee should apply to everyone, including pensioners, except those who are chronically ill, he wrote.
Dr Leigh, who has opposed the proposal in media appearances over recent weeks, told Fairfax Media: "Since 2003, a lot has changed in the health care system, and I've changed my view on co-payments.
“A GP co-payment was originally a Hawke government proposal led by Brian Howe, a member of the Left faction,” he said.
“As long as it is applied fairly across the community, a co-payment is a perfectly valid policy measure. If Andrew Leigh, before he had to toe the party line, recognised that then I welcome his contribution to the debate. I respect Andrew Leigh as a sensible economist.”
On Saturday, Dr Leigh, a former professor of economics at the Australian National University, distanced himself from an article he wrote in 2004 supporting fee deregulation for universities – another policy opposed by Labor.
Yes, it’s the very well respected ALP whey-faced Dr Andrew Leigh who virtually declared his previous books and speeches as mere works of fiction. This brings into sharp focus Dr Leigh's economics degree.
05-05-2016 09:53 AM - edited 05-05-2016 09:54 AM
It;s very odd, especially when you delve into it a bit further and find that the costings were done by the (independent??) Parliamentay Budget Office who also gave the same costings ( as they gave to the Lab Party) to David Lleyenhjelm just a few weeks ago
Perhaps something 'fishy' going on??
Modelling of higher tobacco taxes completed just five weeks ago by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has placed a question mark over the Turnbull Government's budget-eve claim of a "black hole" in Labor's policy costings.
The Liberal Democratic Party asked the office to model an increase in the tobacco excise of 12.5 per cent over four years between 2017 and 2020 - similar to Labor's stated policy.
The result the office came up with was a forecast of $47.8 billion in increased receipts over a decade - a figure that's just $100 million different from Labor's policy costing.
The costing for the Liberal Democrats, obtained by Fairfax Media, was delivered by the office on March 24 and used the most up-to-date tobacco consumption figures.
on 05-05-2016 04:13 PM
on 05-05-2016 09:00 PM
on 06-05-2016 07:10 AM
Is Mr Shorten as stupid as he looks? He says his team is all about people and looking after their interests then he announces that loans to students are to be capped. Aren't students people. Mr Shorten comes across as a blithering idiot.
on 06-05-2016 08:53 AM
on 06-05-2016 08:54 AM
06-05-2016 09:36 AM - edited 06-05-2016 09:37 AM
Yes it's a rort and so is the Job Network
06-05-2016 05:19 PM - edited 06-05-2016 05:23 PM
@esayaf wrote:
So it's much better to have a rich man that is dead set on cutting education and health spending.
Don't mention that word 'dead'.
Kevin Rudd wastes $40 million paying stimulus bonus to dead, expats
THE Rudd Government has wasted $40 million by paying the $900 stimulus bonus to tens of thousands of dead people and expats.
[...]
Do you know that in spite of spending lots of money on dead people not one of them was raised from the dead.
What should we do; vote for a party that believes in miracles like bringing the dead back to life or voting for a party that cuts spending on health and education? What a choice.
on 06-05-2016 06:32 PM
on 06-05-2016 06:35 PM