The single most decisive factor why you will vote for who you do

[Starcraftmazter]

You don't want any public healthcare???
Do you want to close down all the public hospitals?

What are you proposing as an alternative?

Well the private healthcare system? I definitely do not want to close down any hospitals. Public health assets would simply be auctioned off to the private sector. The proceeds could be invested into medical research and development at universities.

If you are wondering about emergency services, we could have very simple regulation to ensure hospitals are not allowed to deny service - the patient would simply be billed afterwards if they don't have adequate insurance.

And of course as the theory says....a lack of a government bidding up the cost of healthcare on behalf of everyone will make it cheaper for everyone, especially given that they will not need to pay the taxes associated with healthcare.

This will also create fairness, as healthy people do not have to subsidise unhealthy people through a system of wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive known as taxation. This in turn will create an incentive for everyone to live healthier lives and will improve productivity and will once again improve the healthcare services for all.

Really, I could go on and on.

 

[drsmith]

Really, I could go on and on.

You better not.

The Greens view on healthcare is, well, a little different.

From the proposition offered above, you might have to give them -10 on that one alone.

 

[Calliope]

Really, I could go on and on.

Of course you could, and you probably will. I have seldom heard such immature ideas and juvenile nonsense.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Of course you could, and you probably will. I have seldom heard such immature ideas and juvenile nonsense.

Better warm to it buddy, it will be the reality within your lifetime

 

[Julia]

Well the private healthcare system? I definitely do not want to close down any hospitals. Public health assets would simply be auctioned off to the private sector. The proceeds could be invested into medical research and development at universities.

If you are wondering about emergency services, we could have very simple regulation to ensure hospitals are not allowed to deny service - the patient would simply be billed afterwards if they don't have adequate insurance.

Oh, right. Good luck with that. I can just imagine all the drunks, accident victims etc etc paying the bills they are sent after the event.

Who would look after all the people who either cannot afford health insurance, or to pay the bills of the magnitude they'd be without government subsidy?

One of the great saving graces of Australian/NZ is the public health system imo.

 

[McLovin]

This will also create fairness, as healthy people do not have to subsidise unhealthy people through a system of wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive known as taxation. This in turn will create an incentive for everyone to live healthier lives and will improve productivity and will once again improve the healthcare services for all.

You do realise that any insurance program needs a large enough pool of healthy people to subsidise the cost of treating the unhealthy ones.

Go and spend some time in America. See what happens when you have people who can't afford insurance through no fault of their own. Aside from the lives that are literally destroyed, the cost to the health system is actually higher than if they were treated. Got a heart condition? We won't treat you with medication but we will have to admit you and keep you in intensive care at $50,000/day once your heart gives out. Or the poor soul earning minimum wage who gets fired and has to leave his employee health plan. If he's over 45 with kids there is a high likelihood that he won't be able to ever get insurance again. It's a horrible system, that means the wealthiest country in the world has millions of people who have no access to anything above basic third world healthcare.

No system is perfect but it's purely fantasy to claim a private system is a solution. It's the most expensive system in the world and it doesn't have better outcomes than the better public health systems (Australia, Japan, Singapore).

Guess what, even when you have private health insurance in Australia the government pays most of your health bill.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Go and spend some time in America.

I am extremely well versed with all aspects of the US of A, including it's healthcare system. It is a very very special case, and also most certainly not an example of a proper private healthcare system. I would tell you much, but that is not for this thread.

Oh, right. Good luck with that. I can just imagine all the drunks, accident victims etc etc paying the bills they are sent after the event.

Who would look after all the people who either cannot afford health insurance, or to pay the bills of the magnitude they'd be without government subsidy?

One of the great saving graces of Australian/NZ is the public health system imo.

Just to be clear, I am not so much debating the principle that it would be great if everyone had public healthcare - because I realise there are two points of view to this, neither being incorrect. Rather I am rationalising the economic fact that it is impossible heading into the future

Being very forward looking, I would appreciate a government which made pivotal decisions for the welfare of future generations, and thus I would like a government who would abolish this unsustainable fiscal black hole in Australia before it becomes out of control like in the rest of the developed world.


Moving on...which party has the best foresight - LNP, ALP or the Greens, based purely on present policies - and why?

My opinion would again have to be the Greens. This is because they are willing to take action, no matter how unpopular or economically negative in the short-run to address significant future problems.

I would rate ALP second. ALP has shown that they are capable of investing money into a long-term infrastructure project which will pay dividends long into the future and permanently increase the productivity of the nation, at least 3 election cycles from when the policy was conceived. Three election cycles is quite a lot these days!

What of the LNP? It is true that they have had the foresight to create a Future Fund to meet the government's pension obligations. This is okey, but it does not really serve the productive economy - only government employees. So in a way this is inconsequential other than to say the government will possibly spend a less taxpayer dollars (by a little bit) on government pensions at some future point in time.

But what of their current policies? What do they want to do which will benefit Australians long into the future after one election cycle? Infrastructure? Productivity reform? Do they want to make structural changes to the budget to eliminate unnecessary expenditure such as negative gearing or capital tax concessions for housing?

Merely reversing the previous government's policies is not a forward-looking policy in itself.


Do people not care about the government's investment in our future? I would argue it is amongst the most important factors when deciding for who to vote.

 

[McLovin]

I am extremely well versed with all aspects of the US of A, including it's healthcare system. It is a very very special case, and also most certainly not an example of a proper private healthcare system. I would tell you much, but that is not for this thread.

So you don't know anything about it then.

 

[Calliope]

Do people not care about the government's investment in our future? I would argue it is amongst the most important factors when deciding for who to vote.

A long-winded rant just to tell us that you would vote Green. Your immaturity shows.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

So you don't know anything about it then.

Go ahead, start a thread about it.

A long-winded rant just to tell us that you would vote Green. Your immaturity shows.

You think reasoning is ranting?

 

[McLovin]

Go ahead, start a thread about it.

This...

I am extremely well versed with all aspects of the US of A

Is all the proof I need.

 

[Calliope]

You think reasoning is ranting?

Your "reasoning" has led you to the conclusion that a party which elects Christine Milne, a complete and utter bore, as their leader is the one for you.

I agree. You were meant for each other.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Your "reasoning" has led you to the conclusion that a party which elects Christine Milne, a complete and utter bore, as their leader is the one for you.

I agree. You were meant for each other.

Haha, so if you don't agree with someone then they are not reasoning? Even worse, you would elect someone based on whether they are a 'bore' to you? Jesus Christ, may as well move to USA.

 

[Calliope]

Haha, so if you don't agree with someone then they are not reasoning?

HaHa indeed! This seems like gibberish to me. I don't remember saying that if I didn't "agree with someone then they are not reasoning" That is a product of your own irrational version of "reasoning."

Jesus Christ, may as well move to USA

Goodbye and good luck. Fortunately you are "extremely well versed with all aspects of the US of A"

 

[Starcraftmazter]

HaHa indeed! This seems like gibberish to me. I don't remember saying that if I didn't "agree with someone then they are not reasoning" That is a product of your own irrational version of "reasoning."

Your "reasoning" has led you to the conclusion that a party which elects Christine Milne, a complete and utter bore

What you said implies that if one chooses to elect Christine Milne then they are not reasoning for she is not a bore. What if one disagrees that she is a bore? Are they still not reasoning? Thusly you imply that anyone disagreeing with you is not reasoning.

Of course an intellectual such as myself does not choose a party based on the personalities of it's leader or other members - but rather based on their policies. It is a little thing called substance.

 

[Smurf1976]

Moving on...which party has the best foresight - LNP, ALP or the Greens, based purely on present policies - and why?

My opinion would again have to be the Greens. This is because they are willing to take action, no matter how unpopular or economically negative in the short-run to address significant future problems.

Which "significant future problems" have the Greens actually addressed in a manner which solves them, or at least meaningfully improves the situation?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Which "significant future problems" have the Greens actually addressed in a manner which solves them, or at least meaningfully improves the situation?

Well that's another issue isn't it? My point was that they are "willing to take action, no matter how unpopular or economically negative in the short-run to address significant future problems.". The effectiveness of the actions taken thus far is surely up for debate, but it is a separate issue.

I don't think we will see conclusive results about the effectiveness for some time yet.

 

[Calliope]

What you said implies that if one chooses to elect Christine Milne then they are not reasoning for she is not a bore. What if one disagrees that she is a bore? Are they still not reasoning? Thusly you imply that anyone disagreeing with you is not reasoning.

Of course an intellectual such as myself does not choose a party based on the personalities of it's leader or other members - but rather based on their policies. It is a little thing called substance.

When I was younger the word "blatherskite" was in common use for people like you. It has now been supplanted by;

Urban Dictionary: Bull**** Artist
1) Someone with a talent for convincing lies 2) Someone who lies/boasts incessantly, usually to comedic effect, intentional or accidental

 

[Starcraftmazter]

When I was younger the word "blatherskite" was in common use for people like you. It has now been supplanted by;

So in other words you are not man enough to admit that if you don't agree with someone then they are not reasoning.

 

[wayneL]

Well that's another issue isn't it? My point was that they are "willing to take action, no matter how unpopular or economically negative in the short-run to address significant future problems.". The effectiveness of the actions taken thus far is surely up for debate, but it is a separate issue.

I don't think we will see conclusive results about the effectiveness for some time yet.

Incorrect action is worse than no action at all, if indeed an action was necessary in the first place.

Action that damages economies and supplants production to less enlightened jurisdictions makes the global problem worse.