This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Change of pace....what influence does Peta Credlin have and does she have too much of it as some media sources imply?

I'm not talking Pru Goward style accusations of pillow talk with a prime minister, or Olivia Wirth and her bedfellow, but nonetheless if she provides sound advice to Abbott or if she drives her own agenda that is the reason for the awkward situations Abbot finds himself in (e.g. talking $7 co payments to G20 leaders)?
 

Who knows what influence Ms Credlin has. Tony Abbott doesn't seem to be full of visionary ideas himself, he just goes to IPA meetings and agrees with everything they say.

Frankly I don't think he has the brains to do much critical thinking, it's too much trouble for him, so he lets others do the thinking for him.
 
Have you noticed that Newscorp are starting to turn against the Prime Minister?
He has been effectively given a deadline in August next year to turn around the polls otherwise Newscorp (Rupert?) will actively work to change the leader.
His papers are also advocating against the Treasurer (as posted by Noco). I predict Joe will lose treasury after Christmas in the silly season.

Also today in the Age it was revealed by a retired Treasury whistleblower that the taxation department has effectively quartered the staff looking at the behaviour of large companies and it is a free for all now for avoiding taxes with all the large accounting consulting companies arranging tax havens.

Do you feel that maybe the big end of town is calling the shots in the Abbott government? I do, and I think that Abbott is being forced to do things he doesn't agree with, hence Sir Rumpole's comment above.
 

I'd agree with that assessment, smurph, no one party has a monopoly on intellegence. Just answering the one sided criticism, to hopefully add balance.

As happened in the Rudd Gillard years.
 
Knobby22 said:
Do you feel that maybe the big end of town is calling the shots in the Abbott government? I do, and I think that Abbott is being forced to do things he doesn't agree with, hence Sir Rumpole's comment above.
Click to expand...

So what do you base that reasoning on?
 
Tisme said:
Well that's not what they have been saying afaik. If the sale hadn't proceeded the associated infrastructure wouldn't either.
Click to expand...
What I've understood to be the intent is the proceeds of the Medibank sale goes to the States to assist them with 'asset recycling'. I'm unsure of the definition of said asset recycling but gather it translates roughly to "here's some money to encourage you to sell off e.g. power companies currently owned by Qld state govt, and put those funds into new infrastructure".

sptrawler said:
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?
Click to expand...
The ABC employees who have lost their jobs will still be sooking over it years from now. Irrelevant that all other media organisations have been downsizing for some time now.

I'm more concerned about what effect the privatisation of Medibank Private will have on premiums and services for customers.

SirRumpole said:
Who knows what influence Ms Credlin has. Tony Abbott doesn't seem to be full of visionary ideas himself, he just goes to IPA meetings and agrees with everything they say.
Click to expand...
And you know this how?

Frankly I don't think he has the brains to do much critical thinking, it's too much trouble for him, so he lets others do the thinking for him.
Click to expand...
Right. It's of course usual that Rhodes scholars demonstrate this lack of intelligence and capacity to think.

sptrawler said:
So what do you base that reasoning on?
Click to expand...
Perhaps just a simple dislike of Tony Abbott?

And perhaps don't underestimate the value of Peta Credlin, Olivia Wirth et al because they are women and are in a subsidiary role. These women are smart and very experienced, often with more talent than their bosses.
That's why they are there in just such an advisory role.
 
Julia said:
Right. It's of course usual that Rhodes scholars demonstrate this lack of intelligence and capacity to think.
Click to expand...

So what is his vision for this country ?

* stop the boats

* get rid of the carbon and mining taxes, but keep the spending associated with them

* discourage people from getting tertiary education, and therefore reduce professional services available to the community

* blame the unemployed for not being able to get non existent jobs

* blame and tax the elderly for having to see the doctor more often

Yes, I would say that demonstrates a capability for not being able to think straight, apart from the asylum seeker issue.
 

I watched Question time today and how Bill Shorten raved on about Abbott's broken promises under suspension of standing orders.

Before the 2013 election, Wayne Swan and Gillard told voters 500 times there would be a surplus of $2 billion and lots of people believed it, but alas, it was all a big lie...... now correct me if I am wrong, but I should imagine Swan believed he was going to bank $124 billion from the mining tax he did not receive.....What a "GOOSE".

So after the election and when an audit is done, Abbott finds he is stuck with not a $2 billion surplus but a $122 billion deficit in the budget.

Yes Abbott made some promises which he should not have made and he is paying dearly for it today as the Green/Labor socialist left wing coalition flog it to death....What a grubby lot these Fabians are.

So after the election he finds this massive lie put up by the Labor Party...What is he supposed to do?....go on borrowing $100,000,000 per day to finance Labor's lie or does he now find he has to break some promises by cutting back on expenditure including $6 billion of Labor's own cuts which they now have reneged on..

If Labor had been honest in September 2013, perhaps Abbott may have had a different view.

But we all know Labor are economic vandals who have no idea how manage our our finances whether it be Federal or State and Labor has the audacity to say "Every thing fine....what does it matter that we pay a $1billion a week in interest"....let our children and grand children pay it back......who cares?......Well, I tell you what, the Liberal Party cares and are trying to do something about it only to have to it sabotaged by a wreckless bloody minded Labor Party who only have self interest and no interest whatsoever in the National interest. .
 
Julia said:
Right. It's of course usual that Rhodes scholars demonstrate this lack of intelligence and capacity to think.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest what has Abbott done in his political career that demonstrates his high level of intellect?

Abbott has been the macho hit-man, bully boy.


Perhaps just a simple dislike of Tony Abbott?
Click to expand...

I think he certainly lacks appeal but has form in being particularly nasty piece of work.


I think Abbotts success in winning government is completely due to his staff as he changed dramatically after Credlin started who I rate very highly a great political operator.

Howards staff started to resign towards the end of his last term and the wheels completely fell off as a result.
 

I hear they're planning to upgrade the Adelaide Darwin rail line to allow even more excess capacity.
 

No assumption necessary Julia

In relation to heart stents, a fairly common procedure, standard stents are $8000 while DES stents cost around $20K. These figures may be a bit old, but it gives you a rough idea of the cost difference.

In Victoria the private system does it's best to limit the use of DES stents to a maximum of 30% of patients. The private system uses DES stents at up to twice the rate of the public sector.

So to treat 20,000 patients in the public system with a maximum of 30% using DES and the rest standard stents, you come to a total cost of $232M.

Compare this to the private sector who at 50% DES and 50% standard and you treat 20,000 people for a total cost of $280M.

If you read the study done in Victoria you can see that there was a slight increase in mortality rates in the private sector for patients receiving stents. Not statistically high enough to be worried about, but certainly showed there was no patient benefit for the extra $48M as the above scenario shows.

So the cost difference could provide nearly 4000 extra patients with an operation within the public system when compared to the private, with slightly better mortality rates. Surely treating the highest number of patients with available funding limits should be the goal of Govt policy?

As to relevance, SP said in reply to IFocus


My argument is that it's debatable if the private healthcare rebate actually improves waiting times and health care in general. Further research needs to be done to actually show what it has achieved, and since healthcare is so wrapped up in the looming aging tsunami, you'd think we should be trying to reduce costs as much as we can. So is it sensible policy to be spending millions extra in the private system when there's no improved patient outcome, while also providing extra tax payer subsidies for this? Maybe it is, but maybe we'd be better served cutting back on the $3B cost of the private health care rebate and using those funds to increase the number of patients the public system can cope with.

I'd argue further means testing changes in relation to the private health care rebate would be one way to help balance the budget, but it is a current Govt stated policy to eventually remove any form of means testing on it.
 

Well if they remove the rebate as was mooted a few years back, I know three seperate individuals on low incomes, who were going to drop private cover. The rebate was remained and they stayed in, you obviously don't know many people on the $40 - $60k bracket.

sydboy007 said:
I'd argue further means testing changes in relation to the private health care rebate would be one way to help balance the budget, but it is a current Govt stated policy to eventually remove any form of means testing on it.
Click to expand...
I'd argue, that people who have private health insurance are made to use it, rather than abuse the public system.
 
I am going stick my neck out here and no doubt will cope some flax about it.

IMHO, I believe two seniors members of the LNP have to made sacrificial lambs to pull the LNP out of the quagmire they find themselves in.

Abbott has to replaced with Scot Morrison and Hockey with Turnbull followed by a double dissolution before mid 2015.....This will give time for them to settle in and to get the broken promises monkey off their backs.

I have lost count the number of times Labor changed leaders in both state and Federal when they found the polls were not in their favor.

I would not like to predict the outcome of a double dissolution but I can see little alternative for parliament to continue to function as it is........I have never seen such disarray in Government in all my born days.
 

Scott Morrison comes across as a thug (and if you believe the leaks from cabinet his public image isn't far off how he is in private). They would lose badly with him.

Turnbull has sullied himself by trying to claim black is white and white is black with regards to Abbott's statements about the ABC.
 

I can't see Abbott being rolled.
In the early days of the coalition government, I thought he may well fall on his sword.
However, when you consider the unabated personal attacks on him since gaining office, you would expect him to be further behind in the polls. I think he is actually doing o.k, Shorten is the one not gaining traction.IMO

For all the hyperbowl, I think the silent majority realise the frustrating situation the coalition is dealing with.

Time will tell, one thing Abbott has shown, he doesn't panic and calls the long game pretty well.
 

Perhaps we need a thug to deal with a thug on the opposite side.

It is a pity Abbott didn't have a bit thug in him as well.
 
sydboy007 said:
No assumption necessary Julia

In relation to heart stents, a fairly common procedure, standard stents are $8000 while DES stents cost around $20K. These figures may be a bit old, but it gives you a rough idea of the cost difference.
Click to expand...
You are responding to my post by picking on one single procedure. I was commenting on your more general question:
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?
Click to expand...
which I took to apply to the subsidy of private cover generally, not just applying to stents.

You might like to put up some proof that there are no mortality benefits in choosing private care in the regions. Even just the last couple of years at Rockhampton and Bundaberg Hospitals show an alarming mortality rate in everyday procedures.
Fine for you on the doorstep of St. Vincents.

My point was that it's especially in the regions where public hospital care is often woeful, private cover at least provides patients with the capacity to choose to have a doctor with proven expertise, rather than some young house surgeon who is learning.
Your whole argument presumes competence on the part of the treating medical personnel. I can assure you this is absolutely not a given in regional hospitals.

They wouldn't even do stents at local hospital. Rather the patient would be flown to Brisbane so ultimately much more expensive if cost is your main concern.
 
Julia said:
You are responding to my post by picking on one single procedure. I was commenting on your more general question:

which I took to apply to the subsidy of private cover generally, not just applying to stents.
Click to expand...

I gave stents as one example to show the private system can cause health care costs to rise. It seems valid to question why the private system uses the more expensive option so much when there's no benefit to patients. It wouldn't surprise me if the private system is padding the costs in a similar way with other procedures. If putting more money into the public system provides an increase in treatments compared to the private system, then isn't that the better way forward?


It's been a decade or so since the private health care rebate was introduced. I've googled many times to see if there's been any studies as to the cost / benefit and I can't really find anything satisfactory.

You'd think a program that's now costing $3B a year, and pretty much the fastest growing cost in the health care budget, that there'd be some form of evidence by now that the money is well spent.

With the current stick and carrot approach, it would be possible to reduce the rebate to below the thresholds where by if you don't have private health insurance you pay the extra tax. Most people would probably find it's cheaper to keep their cover than pay the extra tax. You could then keep the rebate targeted to those on lower incomes.

To sell the scheme the Govt could use some of the savings to increase public funding to try and resolve some of the issues you've highlighted.

Seems a lot fairer way to move towards a balanced budget than making the under 30s wait 6 months for welfare assistance when they're retrenched, especially when youth unemployment is already so high.

We can no longer afford to have large Govt programs that don't show a clear benefit to society. That was able to occur when the ToT keep going up every year and national income was rising fast. Now that process is in reverse, and only half way complete, so we need to be a lot more sensible with the way Govt spending is done. Cuts have to be made somewhere and with the pension and super off limits other options need to be examined.

Other options are land taxes and quarantining negative gearing to the income produced from the asset. maybe pushing the CGT reduction out from 12 months to 5 years to reward longer term investors.

It's a shame our political class don't have this kind of reform on their agendas at present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
948
sptrawler
Tony Abbott - Indigneous envoy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sptrawler
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
The Environmental Nazi Hunter
Replies
6
Views
4K
Glen48
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...