The Abbott Government

[noco]

Maybe, Scott Morrison is the MP we need behind the steering wheel......He is a champion of success and must have more responsibility placed upon his shoulders.
Maybe a New Year reshuffle is badly needed in the Abbott Government.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...he-purse-strings/story-fnihsr9v-1227132424684

 

[IFocus]

The Coalition know how to handle our finances far better than anyone else

Then this from the Liberal Party Daily

This is the bit like selling Teltra and claiming economic genus

Based on the float price, Medibank will be the 51st largest listed company, which means index funds, which didn’t participate in the float, will need to buy about $500m worth of shares on-market. They might even end up in a nice vicious cycle: driving the price higher and making it a larger proportion of the index so they have to buy even more.

In fact it’s a wonder the Prime Minister didn’t take over the press conference yesterday and have a much-needed bask.

Except that someone might have pointed out (but didn’t) that taxpayers are forgoing a dividend of $231m that grows each year, and could have borrowed that $5.7 billion for $185.4m in interest, fixed for 10 years.

But that would be debt, wouldn’t it, and we can’t have that.

Smiles all around. Except that with the bond rate at 3.2 per cent taxpayers would be better off keeping Medibank and borrowing the money for infrastructure rather than selling a growth asset.

Theoretically that’s true, except that in reality over the past 10 years, in government ownership, the company’s profit has grown from $10.4m to $232m. That’s a compound annual growth rate of 36 per cent, and a real credit to George Savvides, who has been chief executive for 12 years.

It hasn’t been slowing down either: last year’s profit growth was 84 per cent.

Can he achieve better than 36 per cent profit growth with private owners and a bigger salary and bonus incentive?

Maybe, but I doubt it. He certainly has ideas for reducing costs and claims that political owners would find uncomfortable.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ners-many-losers/story-fnp85lcq-1227132605315

 

[sptrawler]

The Coalition know how to handle our finances far better than anyone else

Then this from the Liberal Party Daily

This is the bit like selling Teltra and claiming economic genus

]

That's all fine untill your moronic Labor Party get in, then get rid of private health tax rebate. You know, the one they tried to get rid of for the whole time they were in office.

If they get back in and get rid of the rebate, it will have been a stroke of genious, the mug punters caught again. As they were with Telstra.

They, like some others, don't think it through.

 

[sydboy007]

Thay's all fine untill your moronic Labor Party get in, then get rid of tax private health rebate. That they tried to get rid of for the whole time they were in Government.

They, like some others, don't think it through.

I've yet to see any evidence that the private health care rebate actually reduces costs in the public system.

A guy at a previous employer fell badly out in a small country town and went to the local hospital. The nurse asked him if he had private health insurance, but then said "Before you answer that let me advise you that if you say yes we will bill you for everything and you will likely have some form of excess to pay. If you say no you will get the same treatment and there will be no excess. So, do you have private health insurance?" Anyone going to a public hospital due to some form of emergency would be silly to admit to having private health care, because they will likely end up with a lot of out of pocket costs.

To give you another example, the private sector use DES stents at twice the rate of standard stents when compared to the public system (at least in Victoria though it seems to be a general practice across Australia). DES stents are significantly more expensive than standard stents IIRC 2-3 times the cost. Studies have shown no statistically significant benefits to this extra cost. In fact, the public patients had a slightly lower mortality rate after 12 months in a study done in Victoria.

I'd argue winding back some of the funds going into the private health care rebate would be better off going into improving the public system. The current cost is $3B and it has been the fastest growing cost of the health care budget for the federal Govt.

 

[sptrawler]

I've yet to see any evidence that the private health care rebate actually reduces costs in the public system.

A guy at a previous employer fell badly out in a small country town and went to the local hospital. The nurse asked him if he had private health insurance, but then said "Before you answer that let me advise you that if you say yes we will bill you for everything and you will likely have some form of excess to pay. If you say no you will get the same treatment and there will be no excess. So, do you have private health insurance?" Anyone going to a public hospital due to some form of emergency would be silly to admit to having private health care, because they will likely end up with a lot of out of pocket costs.

To give you another example, the private sector use DES stents at twice the rate of standard stents when compared to the public system (at least in Victoria though it seems to be a general practice across Australia). DES stents are significantly more expensive than standard stents IIRC 2-3 times the cost. Studies have shown no statistically significant benefits to this extra cost. In fact, the public patients had a slightly lower mortality rate after 12 months in a study done in Victoria.

I'd argue winding back some of the funds going into the private health care rebate would be better off going into improving the public system. The current cost is $3B and it has been the fastest growing cost of the health care budget for the federal Govt.

Firstly, whats that story got to do with, the point I made regarding Medibanks fiscal performance?

Secondly, if most jump out of private into public, it will be like the U.S where you can't get into a public hospital. Then if you just have to go to a private, it cost an arm and leg, that you have to pay up front.

What you are describing, is very much in line with the abuse, the doctor co payment is trying to adress.
See your hospital example, really isn't any better than scamming financial planners. You are scamming the taxpayer.

 

[sydboy007]

Firstly, whats that story got to do with, the point I made regarding Medibanks fiscal performance?

Secondly, if most jump out of private into public, it will be like the U.S where you can't get into a public hospital. Then if you just have to go to a private, it cost an arm and leg, that you have to pay up front.

What you are describing, is very much in line with the abuse, the doctor co payment is trying to adress.
See your hospital example, really isn't any better than scamming financial planners. You are scamming the taxpayer.

Don't grasp your point.

Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits? Same result at a higher cost. How does that benefit the Australian public?

If the same level of extra $$$ into the public system could treat more patients than the same level of funding in the private sector, then isn't that the best way forward? It gets around the increase in patient numbers because you can afford to treat more people.

As for medibank's fiscal performance, what will the Govt invest the sale proceeds in? Will it generate a higher return than what they were receiving in dividends each year?

 

[Tisme]

I want to know why, if the reduction in debt is so compelling and urgent, why the govt feels it is necessary to sell a highly profitable business to finance new "infrastructure"?

It's not like the LNP have infrastructure in their DNA, like the ALP does, unless it is John Howard pork barrelling and racking up huge future debts before his last tilt at the polls. At least the NBN will be a massive asset in the future, even if it is going to be a kiddie's version (even dark fibre leases might not be viable on our system).

I would really like to know what it is that drives the LNP men in power the need to sell off the farm? Is it lack of vision, hate for anything Labor initiated, wrecking for the sake of wrecking, power for the sake of power, ...whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sound economics for a pissant country with a pissant population that wants everything the majors have IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

I would really like to know what it is that drives the LNP men in power the need to sell off the farm? Is it lack of vision, hate for anything Labor initiated, wrecking for the sake of wrecking, power for the sake of power, ...whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sound economics for a pissant country with a pissant population that wants everything the majors have IMO.

Market fundamentalism.

Government's are a distortion in the free market, and so their influence must be removed.

It's all cr@p of course, but that's blind ideology for you.

 

[sptrawler]

Don't grasp your point.?

Well I guess that comes down to personal moral compass.

Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits? Same result at a higher cost. How does that benefit the Australian public??

For one, it saves the Government having to build twice as many hospitals and equip and staff them.

If the same level of extra $$$ into the public system could treat more patients than the same level of funding in the private sector, then isn't that the best way forward? It gets around the increase in patient numbers because you can afford to treat more people.?

You still have to be able to handle the extra number of patients and pay for the infrastructure to handle them.

As for medibank's fiscal performance, what will the Govt invest the sale proceeds in? Will it generate a higher return than what they were receiving in dividends each year?

Who knows? Who is to say they will recieve the same dividend? From what your saying it should be all Public, then there wouldn't be a dividend.

 

[Julia]

Don't grasp your point.

Why is it efficient to spent public money to subsidise some patients to go into the private system and get higher priced health care that has no mortality benefits? Same result at a higher cost. How does that benefit the Australian public?

You're making a considerable assumption there. Perhaps because you live in inner city Sydney with access to the country's best hospitals. It's a very different story in many regional hospitals where the level of facilities and skills of medical personnel are often second rate.
That is why many people are prepared to pay for private cover, so that they may at least choose a properly qualified doctor.

I don't see what this has to do with the thread topic, however.

 

[Tisme]

Market fundamentalism.

Government's are a distortion in the free market, and so their influence must be removed.

It's all cr@p of course, but that's blind ideology for you.

We talking about professional public servants who call themselves Honourable Members? People who have never really been in private sector profession that isn't closed shop? Talk about wannabe kings.

Can you imagine Australia now if govt hadn't borrowed big, nationalised the failed banks, nationalised communications, bought the railways, built big things, etc? We'd be a giant shanty town of hand to mouth labour, like many in the LNP seem to desire ...of course they themselves wouldn't have any power because we would be part of some Asian country by now and they would be working 7 days a weeks until they drop dead of exhaustion at 50 years old.

If we are to go market forces, I volunteer the Liberal party tragics be the first to refund the benefits they have received from the by and large Fabian taxpayer, including pensions, super, allowances, pensioner discounts, et al. It will be tough and it will hard, but it's something I'm prepared for them to do for the sake of our national debt and free enterprise.

 

[IFocus]

I want to know why, if the reduction in debt is so compelling and urgent, why the govt feels it is necessary to sell a highly profitable business to finance new "infrastructure"?

Its actually worse than that its a business thats growing its profit margins hence dividend to the government.

 

[sptrawler]

I want to know why, if the reduction in debt is so compelling and urgent, why the govt feels it is necessary to sell a highly profitable business to finance new "infrastructure"?.

I guess it is to try and limit the interest payment, on ever increasing debt.

At least the NBN will be a massive asset in the future, even if it is going to be a kiddie's version (even dark fibre leases might not be viable on our system). .

That is an assumption, currently it's return, isn't looking great.

I would really like to know what it is that drives the LNP men in power the need to sell off the farm? Is it lack of vision, hate for anything Labor initiated, wrecking for the sake of wrecking, power for the sake of power, ...whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sound economics for a pissant country with a pissant population that wants everything the majors have IMO.

I would really like to know, what drives Labor to always make promises that they can't pay for. For the sake of a social agenda, that sends us broke, every time.

 

[Tisme]

I guess it is to try and limit the interest payment, on ever increasing debt.


.

But they aren't using the proceeds to reduce debt!?

 

[sptrawler]

But they aren't using the proceeds to reduce debt!?

No, but they aren't borrowing more to fund infrastructure build, that should produce income.

It's a bit like Westfarmers, selling off assetts then buying more assetts, they feel will give better returns or build the company.

 

[sptrawler]

Its actually worse than that its a business thats growing its profit margins hence dividend to the government.

What's the saying? "don't rely on past performance, as an indicator of future earnings".lol

Maybe the Government knows something you don't, no that couldn't happen.

 

[Tisme]

No, but they aren't borrowing more to fund infrastructure build, that should produce income.

.

Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either.

Lets hope the money is redirected to another high yield growth prospect that can return an immediate benefit to the community to offset the $1/4 billion loss of annual income. I just hope it isn't another Howard style warchest that will be spent on the flagging rural sector to shore up the flagging NP voter base.

I know I will now be looking for a different provider, knowing my dollars aren't helping the taxation base.

 

[sptrawler]

Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either.

Lets hope the money is redirected to another high yield growth prospect that can return an immediate benefit to the community to offset the $1/4 billion loss of annual income. I just hope it isn't another Howard style warchest that will be spent on the flagging rural sector to shore up the flagging NP voter base.
.

Well it will produce some jobs, the people who work for medibank are still working, and the ones required to build the new infrastucture get jobs.

Maybe the ones that lose their jobs from the ABC?

 

[Tisme]

Well it will produce some jobs, the people who work for medibank are still working, and the ones required to build the new infrastucture get jobs.

Maybe the ones that lose their jobs from the ABC?

Yes perhaps it gives reason to shed more PS jobs ....$250 million/annum equates to what...about 1000 superannuated Canberra jobs?

 

[Smurf1976]

I would really like to know, what drives Labor to always make promises that they can't pay for. For the sake of a social agenda, that sends us broke, every time.

I think it has more to do with the broader economic circumstances at the time than with who is in power.

At the national level, Liberal messed up in the early 1980's and more recently it was Labor who messed up.

At the state level, Labor sent Victoria practically broke in the 1980's whilst Liberal did the same thing in Tasmania. More recently, the Liberals have made promises they can't afford here in Tas which is just what Labor did federally.

There's a cycle to all of this, it comes and goes. Labor and Liberal have both messed up in a big way at various times either nationally or at the state level. And both have also cleaned up the mess left by the other.