Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Julia said:
And what exactly did Labor do to address the enormous problem of obesity?

Obesity alone is a massive cost to the health system with all the diseases it leads to. Almost everything that can go wrong with us is caused by or exacerbated by obesity.

Raising the issue of Coca Cola is a bit of a red herring. Are you going to remove from the market place all products containing sugar? All fried foods? Shut down all the fast food outlets which appear to provide the foundation diet for some families?
Click to expand...

It was the current Govt that canned the food rating website that would allow people to more easily see how (un)healthy their diet is. The Abbott Govt went against a system that had been designed over many months with input from medical specialists as well as the states.

The web site was something the Gillard Govt fought pretty hard for. Considering the number of Liberal Govts they had to negotiate with it was a pretty good achievement to get that kind of consensus between Govt and the public health groups.

Julia said:
You are apparently refusing to acknowledge that a chemist is simply not qualified or trained in any way to make medical diagnoses.
Click to expand...

And your saying an individual will know when they should and shouldn't go to their GP for assistance. At least a pharmacist has some knowledge, will have seen a good deal of illnesses. If you think an individual has enough knowledge to know if they do or don't need to see their GP, then they should also be able to know if the cold they have needs a GP visit or seeing their pharmacist for an MC is more appropriate.

My mum gets her blood pressure done by her local pharmacist, and this works better for her because when she's at the doctors she's stressed herself out and gets a high reading. When she's at her local pharmacy having a chat to the staff while they do the reading she's only mildly high.

We have a system that financially penalises sick workers and tax payers. There's 11.6M employees in Australia. If we factor in just 1 MC each a year at $60 that's getting close to $700M. It wouldn't surprise me if the cost is much higher due to people unable to see a GP through none available or not able to afford the cost and going to a hospital emergency admissions.
 
The Abbott Govt went against a system that had been designed over many months with input from medical specialists as well as the states.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear some justification from the Coalition supporters as to why this website was canned, and also why when in Opposition the Coalition opposed the alcopops tax, when they now seem so keen on "price signals" to deter antisocial behaviour like visiting the doctor.

Are you going to remove from the market place all products containing sugar? All fried foods? Shut down all the fast food outlets which appear to provide the foundation diet for some families?
Click to expand...

The Abbott government is so keen on "price signals", so put a tax on sugar , salt and fat products and let the market make their choice.
 
sydboy007 said:
...At least a pharmacist has some knowledge, will have seen a good deal of illnesses. If you think an individual has enough knowledge to know if they do or don't need to see their GP, then they should also be able to know if the cold they have needs a GP visit or seeing their pharmacist for an MC is more appropriate.

My mum gets her blood pressure done by her local pharmacist, and this works better for her because when she's at the doctors she's stressed herself out and gets a high reading. When she's at her local pharmacy having a chat to the staff while they do the reading she's only mildly high.

We have a system that financially penalises sick workers and tax payers. There's 11.6M employees in Australia. If we factor in just 1 MC each a year at $60 that's getting close to $700M. It wouldn't surprise me if the cost is much higher due to people unable to see a GP through none available or not able to afford the cost and going to a hospital emergency admissions.
Click to expand...
Yes good points. Pharmacists are increasingly coming into play in the health mix. It's a welcome development for mine, I find my local very helpful and forthcoming with health info.

The doctors on the other hand are edging you towards the door with a script.

A general point on the Abbott government. If they get back next time, look for an expansion of the GST to currently excluded items, eg food. It fits their governing style.
 
I can't believe Abbott played the misogynist card in defence of Credlin, even against his own party. Here was I thinking that even if he is losing in the polls, he will not stoop to the level of Gillard to defend himself or his policies, but there he goes mimicking the worst of Gillard and belying those who believed he was above all that. I can only conclude his is politically inept and though changing leader is never a good thing, he should go. He is now a huge liability.
 
sydboy007 said:
It was the current Govt that canned the food rating website that would allow people to more easily see how (un)healthy their diet is. The Abbott Govt went against a system that had been designed over many months with input from medical specialists as well as the states.

The web site was something the Gillard Govt fought pretty hard for. Considering the number of Liberal Govts they had to negotiate with it was a pretty good achievement to get that kind of consensus between Govt and the public health groups.
Click to expand...
It's not my responsibility to provide a defence for Coalition policy. Even before any notion of a colour coded label on some foods, there has been for a long time full nutritional information on most products. The reality is that people decline to take any notice of it, for the most part. I don't see why that would change if there were some pretty colours as well.

And your saying an individual will know when they should and shouldn't go to their GP for assistance.
Click to expand...
Yes. Most people will appreciate the difference between a simple virus eg a cold, and something more serious, eg parotitis.

Of course a pharmacist can measure BP. We can all do that. It's one of the most simple procedures ever. Modern diagnostic equipment doesn't even require the operator to have to recognise when systolic peak and diastolic base occurs. Rather, it just gives it in a read out screen.
Why do you think it's possible to buy such equipment at around $50 so the patient can do it themselves at home?
Surely doesn't need any professional qualifications. Where those professional qualifications do come in is with understanding - taking into account all the underlying factors of that patient's overall health - when it needs treating or not. A doctor is the only person qualified to make that decision.
At least a pharmacist has some knowledge, will have seen a good deal of illnesses.
Click to expand...
Pharmacists see people who bring in a script to be filled, their doctor having made the diagnosis and determined the right treatment. They just dispense what's on the piece of paper. Doesn't confer on them any real understanding of either the illness or the patient's underlying problems.

My mum gets her blood pressure done by her local pharmacist, and this works better for her because when she's at the doctors she's stressed herself out and gets a high reading. When she's at her local pharmacy having a chat to the staff while they do the reading she's only mildly high.
Click to expand...
See above. So your mum feels good because someone chats to her and reassures her. She could achieve the same end with a small piece of equipment at home.

bellenuit said:
I can't believe Abbott played the misogynist card in defence of Credlin, even against his own party. Here was I thinking that even if he is losing in the polls, he will not stoop to the level of Gillard to defend himself or his policies, but there he goes mimicking the worst of Gillard and belying those who believed he was above all that. I can only conclude his is politically inept and though changing leader is never a good thing, he should go. He is now a huge liability.
Click to expand...
Yes, a serious misstep on his part to play the sexist card. You'd think he'd be mightily aware of the need never to do that, given the misogyny issue with Gillard.
 
SirRumpole said:
why when in Opposition the Coalition opposed the alcopops tax,
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not necessarily a Coalition supporter, and neither is it my responsibility to justify any decision by the government, but on alcopops what actually happened when they were subjected to what you describe as a price signal, certainly sales dropped. But instead sales of whole bottles of spirits increased, as the consumers simply decided to mix their own, almost certainly in the process consuming more alcohol.

Sometimes it's necessary to think through the likely consequences of any action, rather than just reacting with the cliched knee-jerk response.
 
bellenuit said:
I can't believe Abbott played the misogynist card in defence of Credlin, even against his own party. Here was I thinking that even if he is losing in the polls, he will not stoop to the level of Gillard to defend himself or his policies, but there he goes mimicking the worst of Gillard and belying those who believed he was above all that. I can only conclude his is politically inept and though changing leader is never a good thing, he should go. He is now a huge liability.
Click to expand...

I suppose at least Gillard attacked the Opposition and their forces rather than her own party.

I'd really hate to think of Abbott as a tactician in times of war, he can't even govern his own party let alone the nation.

I doubt if he will last through the next year as PM, his political and organisational skills are abysmal.
 
Julia said:
It's not my responsibility to provide a defence for Coalition policy. Even before any notion of a colour coded label on some foods, there has been for a long time full nutritional information on most products. The reality is that people decline to take any notice of it, for the most part. I don't see why that would change if there were some pretty colours as well.
Click to expand...

Well for a start, most people aren't nutritionalists. They have no idea if 18mG Na per G is good for them or not.

Added to that these details are in such fine print that most people have trouble reading them anyway and therefore they don't bother.

Add that to the fact that most people are already fairly busy doing their shopping esp. if they are carting a few kids around with them that they don't have time to read every label and calculate what the effects on their diets will be.

So, yes , people are more likely to take notice of a graphical summary of the overall nutritional value of a food, just as they are more likely to take notice of a red light as opposed to a sign detailing all the reasons why they should stop at a given point.

Time is a factor in our daily lives, and the easier it is for people to understand information, the more likely they will take notice of it.
 
Admired Miranda! Indeed the top of admiration..

Has nailed it again.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...l_cleaner_to_mop_up_labors_mess/#commentsmore
Call a real cleaner to mop up Labor’s mess

Miranda Devine - December 10, 2014

AMID their year-end woes, it might help the government to pin up a photo of Harvey Keitel in the party room, to *remind them why they are in office.

Keitel was The Cleaner in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, whose job it was to clean up the mess after a gangland murder....
Click to expand...
 
Julia said:
Even before any notion of a colour coded label on some foods, there has been for a long time full nutritional information on most products. The reality is that people decline to take any notice of it, for the most part.
Click to expand...

I think nutrition is too complex a subject for most, partly because of the mis-information that has been spread over the years.

Thinking of what I've heard throughout most of my life, we should all be eating lots of things made from grains and that includes pasta and bread. It was only 2 or 3 years ago that, by pure chance, I learned that pasta isn't actually considered to be a "health food".

Then there's the differences in labeling. Eg one brand of product X lists total fat and saturated fat only, whilst another breaks it down into total, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and trans fat. Given that trans fat seems to be by far the worst, logically that's the one that should always be disclosed.

Also the changing advice. First all fats were bad. Then saturated fat was bad but polyunsaturated was good. Then it was monounsaturated that was the good one. Then someone decided that trans fats were the really bad ones and that avoiding saturated fat was, in some cases at least, leading to more trans fat being eaten.

There's really no escaping this one. Simply deciding to eat what people ate 100+ years ago might not be good advice either, given that life expectancy was considerably shorter back then.

Personally, I suspect that nutritionists are a bit like economists. They have an idea what they're doing yes, but aren't really certain about the future thus giving advice that has only a certain probability of being right with no guarantees.

The inherent problem with any food labeling scheme is thus what to base it on? It could be a "red" or a "green" for the exact same product depending on which nutritionist you listen to, or whether it's now or in 5 years time.

About the only real constant is that vegetables are good and white sugar is to be avoided. Everything else there seems no real consensus about when viewed over 10+ years. :2twocents
 
About the only real constant is that vegetables are good and white sugar is to be avoided. Everything else there seems no real consensus about when viewed over 10+ years.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but it sounds like an excuse for not providing any information, ever...

I'm sure there are a lot of illnesses where options on best treatment vary, but there has to be some consensus at a point in time, even if it's not unanimous and even if it's proven to be inaccurate later when more evidence is available.
 
SirRumpole said:
So, yes , people are more likely to take notice of a graphical summary of the overall nutritional value of a food, just as they are more likely to take notice of a red light as opposed to a sign detailing all the reasons why they should stop at a given point.
Click to expand...
OK, it would be interesting to see if there is any effect on obesity if a red/green/black colour label is placed on all (presumably packaged) food. Or do we need to similarly label fresh vegetables and fruit also because people are so ignorant they don't understand that fresh beats processed just for a start?

Perhaps we do expect the government to tell us what to eat. It seems we expect governments to come up with watertight legislation that protects people from themselves in ever losing money. And expensive campaigns to stop people smoking even though it's obvious to the most uninformed individual that smoking isn't actually going to enhance your health, so why not extend the nanny state into making it clear by coloured pictures what constitutes healthy choices?

I'm not sure at all that it's lack of education that's the problem, rather that people just decline to take responsibility for their own lives in many instances.

I was waiting for a friend at a cafe a few days ago and got chatting to a morbidly obese woman there on her own. She was tucking into a creamy cappuccino plus a huge piece of cheesecake accompanied by almost a cup of whipped cream and a scoop of ice cream. She said "oh, I know I shouldn't be having this, but it's so delicious".

So now we even have doctors calling for gastric banding type procedures to be more freely available to prevent the exacerbation of obesity related diseases, especially diabetes, so that those patients will be actually physically prevented from overeating. I just don't understand how we have come to such a point.

The notion of individual responsibility seems to have largely become a discarded concept.

Smurf: if I remember correctly the urging from nutritionists to consume virtually unlimited quantities of bread, pasta, etc started about twenty years ago. God knows what it was based on, as pretty obviously devotees would add heaps of butter or margarine, plus jams etc, rich sauces on pasta, so that not only did you have minimal nutrition in what's not much more than just flour and water in those recommended starchy foods, you're going to add lots of fat and sugar as well.
That pretty much coincided with people getting fatter.

You're right in suggesting the message became too complicated when all the different types of fats were recommended, then cancelled, then re-recommended etc. Olive Oil is worth mentioning. It seems widely accepted by all the so called experts that it's a source of 'good fat'. So then we have every celebrity chef using massive quantities of it, completely ignoring the fact that it's laden with calories. I've just looked up a nutrition website and 100 mls of olive oil contains 835 calories! Relativity = about 12 oranges or about 40 tomatoes.

A simple message would be to base daily intake on generous amounts of fresh vegetables, somewhat less of fruit, about 100 - 150g of protein, small amount of fat, and much less starchy carbs than many people consume now.

And I do hear this quite often in food recommendations but if people are determined to eat rubbish while avoiding exercise, there's a limit to how much governments can really do.

I'm interested to hear from others who do expect governments to hold people's hands to the point of telling them what they should eat, ie how exactly are you going to ensure they listen and act?
 
I'm interested to hear from others who do expect governments to hold people's hands to the point of telling them what they should eat, ie how exactly are you going to ensure they listen and act?
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing nanny state-ism with supplying information which is what you suggested when advocating education campaigns like Slip-Slop-Slap. What else is clear food labelling, but an education campaign along the same lines ?

No education campaign will affect all people. I once saw an obese woman in a supermarket with an entire trolly full of Coca Cola. It's then we have to decide how many stupid people like her there are and start slapping taxes on unhealthy foods.

Such taxes may at least help pay to treat such people when they have strokes, diabetes or heart attacks. Unless you want our medical bills to keep piling up which is what will happen if people keep eating and drinking rubbish.
 
Sloppy Joe must be reading his Keynes:

Treasurer Joe Hockey says the federal budget will be used as a "shock absorber" to protect the economy from the largest fall in the terms of trade since 1959, while insisting he never set a firm date for the economy to return to surplus.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...0year-terms-of-trade-hit-20141214-126qsi.html

I wait for the usual conservative crowd to demand an immediate return for surplus. Somehow I think they will shut up now that a liberal government is in power.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I think nutrition is too complex a subject for most, partly because of the mis-information that has been spread over the years.
Click to expand...


My daughter is doing nutrition in uni at the moment and its complexity is far beyond any rational thinking gives me a headache if I help her prepare for exams and I don't understand any of it.

Personally I think there is far to much sugar in refined foods full stop.
 
Been interesting watching the implosion, basically the front bench are at each others throats with no direction other than blame Labor.

The back bench are just shell shocked at he stupidity happing on the front bench.

Watching the last day in the house the Coalition looked totally broken.

One thing I see here and in the media and from the Coalition is about Labors wasteful spending.

OK Labor were wasteful............so its easy just stop those wasteful spending policy's.........why hasn't this happened?
 
banco said:
Sloppy Joe must be reading his Keynes:

Treasurer Joe Hockey says the federal budget will be used as a "shock absorber" to protect the economy from the largest fall in the terms of trade since 1959, while insisting he never set a firm date for the economy to return to surplus.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...0year-terms-of-trade-hit-20141214-126qsi.html

I wait for the usual conservative crowd to demand an immediate return for surplus. Somehow I think they will shut up now that a liberal government is in power.
Click to expand...

And this class stupidity didn't they keep the carbon tax extra payments?

Mr Hockey said the underlying budget position was better than it would have been had Labor remained in power, strengthened by the removal of the carbon and mining taxes.

He claimed that under the previous government’s budget settings, unemployment would have jumped above 7 per cent with 110,000 fewer Australians in work.
Click to expand...
 
Top