The Abbott Government

[Logique]

I just hope he's up to what should now be the much less onerous task of caretaking immigration.

Ditto, and I hope he's not too proud to pick up the phone and speak to Scott Morrison. There's some hard-won ground there, that shouldn't be ceded.

 

[SirRumpole]

Ditto, and I hope he's not too proud to pick up the phone and speak to Scott Morrison. There's some hard-won ground there, that shouldn't be ceded.

Mr Dutton seems so incompetent it's a wonder he's in the Cabinet at all.

 

[Tisme]

That was the Abbott promise. We're still waiting to see how he coudl increase spending, reduce the deficit and cut taxes.

Not sure if any believed it when he said it, but that was what he offered voters, so he should at least be held accountable for it.

It was well known at the polls that Treasury had forecast a $70 - $90bn blackhole in the LNP promises. Credit to the ALP for holding them to that promise ... see, parties can work to the same goal.

 

[Tisme]

I just hope he's up to what should now be the much less onerous task of caretaking immigration.

I hear he's looking at imposing an attendance fee of $7/day on the refugees.

 

[Tisme]

Government scraps proposed Medicare rebate changes: Health Minister Sussan Ley reiterates commitment to GP co-payment

Like I have said before, they are up against the most militant union in Australia when they take on the AMA.

Of course if they really wanted to save money in health they could abolish the nonsense referral system.

 

[drsmith]

I hear he's looking at imposing an attendance fee of $7/day on the refugees.

The serious question of how to make Medicare sustainable though hasn't gone away.

If a 1.5% levy raises $10b against expenditure of $20bn then obviously it would need to be doubled immediately to cover the costs and then some into the future bearing in mind as it presently stands, costs are projected to rise faster than what a fixed percentage levy would raise.

A doubling would result in a total Medicare levy of 3.5% bearing in mind the recent 0.5% increase for the NDIS. It's in this context that changes such as a co-payment need to be considered.

 

[SirRumpole]

Like I have said before, they are up against the most militant union in Australia when they take on the AMA.

Of course if they really wanted to save money in health they could abolish the nonsense referral system.

Funnily enough, I can see some logic in their defunct Medicare rebate changes. If short consultations include medical certificates (for which the employer should contribute as well) and repeat renewals then maybe the patients should either pay more or the GP, as some do, not require a consultation for writing repeats or in simple cases of flu or gastro where the patient has recovered after a few days off and now just needs to satisfy their employer.

The government's problem, as usual is just charging in without consultation or any explanatory justification and trying to bluff their way through instead. There may be some logic in what they are doing, but without explanation and taking the public with them, they are on a hiding to nothing in the polls.

 

[basilio]

Well it didn't take long to realise what a sxxx sandwich the administrative changes to Medicare was. Trying to reduce payments for short consultations by $20 was just lunacy.

How do we pay properly pay for health care and control costs? Certainly a fair question but the current ideas are just dumb. By the way the Medciare levy wasn't in itself supposed to cover all the costs. It was part of the budget.

If the Government was intent on trying to rein in costs perhaps they could consider things like

1) Establishing a government run blood/ illness testing service. The current service providers are exceedingly profitable. There is also a risk of tie ins with doctors which encourages extra usage

2) Reconsideration of a national drug research company. When we sold CSL we lost the capacity to develop and produce important drugs and control the costs . The private drug companies do exceptionally well at pricing drugs for full commercial advantage.

3) Have a close of look at most cost effective practices for common operations ie hip replacements and so on. There actually are techniques and methodologies which are just as successful as the common procedures but which cost far less and far less invasive. Why aren't they used more frequently ? Perhaps the players using the current methods have too much invested in them ?

 

[Julia]

Funnily enough, I can see some logic in their defunct Medicare rebate changes. If short consultations include medical certificates (for which the employer should contribute as well) and repeat renewals then maybe the patients should either pay more or the GP, as some do, not require a consultation for writing repeats or in simple cases of flu or gastro where the patient has recovered after a few days off and now just needs to satisfy their employer.

I congratulate you for having the objectivity to understand what the government were trying to do (as well as, presumably, help their own Budget).
It's much easier to just join the groupthink which - politically motivated - just objects for the sake of it.

 

[drsmith]

By the way the Medciare levy wasn't in itself supposed to cover all the costs. It was part of the budget.

A critical element now is also the rate at which those costs are escalating but the above too is perhaps part of the problem and the same problem that will plague the NDIS upon full rollout.

The Australian Government will provide funding of $11.7 billion to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2019-20, the first year after the full national rollout. This is 53 per cent of the $22.2 billion total cost of running the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with the States and Territories providing the remaining funding.

A 0.5% Medicare levy increase isn't going to raise anywhere near $11.7bn in 2019-20.

http://www.ndis.gov.au/about-usgovernance/federal-funding

 

[basilio]

The political lunacy of trying to slip in the $20 payment for short doctor visits (and many of these are important but brief) is cringe worthy.

It's down over Christmas by regulation. It was going to be difficult to implement as many doctors were away. Patients would be very, very upset. The Senate would go bananas and throw it out in February.

So you would have a month of political riot for what purpose? I just cannot believe Abbott was so dumb

 

[luutzu]

Well it didn't take long to realise what a sxxx sandwich the administrative changes to Medicare was. Trying to reduce payments for short consultations by $20 was just lunacy.

How do we pay properly pay for health care and control costs? Certainly a fair question but the current ideas are just dumb. By the way the Medciare levy wasn't in itself supposed to cover all the costs. It was part of the budget.

If the Government was intent on trying to rein in costs perhaps they could consider things like

1) Establishing a government run blood/ illness testing service. The current service providers are exceedingly profitable. There is also a risk of tie ins with doctors which encourages extra usage

2) Reconsideration of a national drug research company. When we sold CSL we lost the capacity to develop and produce important drugs and control the costs . The private drug companies do exceptionally well at pricing drugs for full commercial advantage.

3) Have a close of look at most cost effective practices for common operations ie hip replacements and so on. There actually are techniques and methodologies which are just as successful as the common procedures but which cost far less and far less invasive. Why aren't they used more frequently ? Perhaps the players using the current methods have too much invested in them ?

Yea, seems that when it comes to these sort of issues... all the gov't does is:

Problem:
It costs too much; Unsustainable.

Solutions:
1. Discourage and reduce usage;
2. Co-payment, user-pay.


And that's pretty much it.

A possible third approach? Maybe use your purchasing power and bloody governmental authority and what not to reduce the prices charged.

If tough negotiation and regulation is not the capitalist's way, maybe create more competition and set up new shops to compete.

But I guess that'd be unthinkable. Seems our leaders have tough as steel balls when it comes to the dole bludgers and widows and orphans, but those shrivel like dry grapes when facing Mr. Monopoly.

 

[SirRumpole]

If tough negotiation and regulation is not the capitalist's way, maybe create more competition and set up new shops to compete.

Oh yes,competition. That's why the LNP wants to get rid of Medicare locals, because they compete with private doctors.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-22/medicare-locals-like-to-face-the-axe-in-budget/5402414

 

[sptrawler]

The political lunacy of trying to slip in the $20 payment for short doctor visits (and many of these are important but brief) is cringe worthy.

It's down over Christmas by regulation. It was going to be difficult to implement as many doctors were away. Patients would be very, very upset. The Senate would go bananas and throw it out in February.

So you would have a month of political riot for what purpose? I just cannot believe Abbott was so dumb

I suppose it is just another nail in Labors coffin.

They have publicly rescinded all attempts to rationalise spending. It will be difficult for them, to explain how they are going to fund the deficit, without massive tax increases.

Let's not forget, they have criticised the coalition for cutting the public sector, demanded no cuts to welfare.
I guess that leaves them with the grown up question, how are you going to fund everything.
Maybe a tax on the miners.lol
Maybe an electricity tax, to kill small business.lol

Can't wait to see the media finally wake up to this one, they will have a field day.

 

[boofhead]

Please note some of Abbott's promises and policies relating to what won't be cut, what they will increase spending.

Was it reported where the proposed medicare savings were to be spent on?

 

[sptrawler]

Please note some of Abbott's promises and policies relating to what won't be cut, what they will increase spending.

Was it reported where the proposed medicare savings were to be spent on?

I guess at the moment, the savings just mean less we have to borrow to fund it.

A bit like my missus blowing out the credit card by $1,000 per month.

I say, "you need to pull it in by $200 per month", then she says, "what can I spend the savings on".

I try to explain,"it could be paid off the $500,000 loan, that we aren't making the interest payments on".:1zhelp:

 

[Julia]

Can't wait to see the media finally wake up to this one, they will have a field day.

Don't hold your breath. The majority of the press gallery, at least, have their eyes firmly closed to any questioning of Labor on how they'd plan to fund all the projected spending.

 

[sptrawler]

Don't hold your breath. The majority of the press gallery, at least, have their eyes firmly closed to any questioning of Labor on how they'd plan to fund all the projected spending.

They may be, but I'm sure the coalition, will be asking the question of the media.

Taking cheap shots at the Government, for trying to reign in spending, will come back to haunt Labor IMO.

 

[luutzu]

They may be, but I'm sure the coalition, will be asking the question of the media.

Taking cheap shots at the Government, for trying to reign in spending, will come back to haunt Labor IMO.

If you have a bigger family, you're going to spend more.

So if everything is a cost, and your only solution is to cut it... some and then most will have to go without.

Raising taxes or borrowing is the same thing as cutting it - simply pay for what we can't afford.

Another solution, one we all seem more than capable of doing in our household budget but gov't seems unable somehow... is to control costs.

If brand name food costs too much, go for the homebrands; if veggies costs too much, start a garden patch and all could have their vitamins; if necessity that must be top quality - use your bargaining power; or save and cut unnecessary spending - say, do we need to swim in Hawaii when Brighton le Sands could do?

And if you're the gov't of the country, you aren't exactly a weak and poor price-taking family are you?

Funny how we just let corporations charge us as they like and we'll just have to make do and cut and live within out means - and we here is not you nor I, we here are the big man with the big stick.

Kinda raise the question of costs and efficiency of public enterprises and corporations when it's more efficient, it is claimed, to sell public assets and let the market bring it to shape.... so they can then become good at charging us more and more money.

 

[sptrawler]

If you have a bigger family, you're going to spend more.

So if everything is a cost, and your only solution is to cut it... some and then most will have to go without.

Raising taxes or borrowing is the same thing as cutting it - simply pay for what we can't afford.

Another solution, one we all seem more than capable of doing in our household budget but gov't seems unable somehow... is to control costs.

If brand name food costs too much, go for the homebrands; if veggies costs too much, start a garden patch and all could have their vitamins; if necessity that must be top quality - use your bargaining power; or save and cut unnecessary spending - say, do we need to swim in Hawaii when Brighton le Sands could do?

And if you're the gov't of the country, you aren't exactly a weak and poor price-taking family are you?

Funny how we just let corporations charge us as they like and we'll just have to make do and cut and live within out means - and we here is not you nor I, we here are the big man with the big stick.

Kinda raise the question of costs and efficiency of public enterprises and corporations when it's more efficient, it is claimed, to sell public assets and let the market bring it to shape.... so they can then become good at charging us more and more money.

Or leave it in Government hands and charge more and more taxes, to pay for it?

Funny that no one is asking the Government to spend taxpayers money, to open a supermarket, in competition against Coles and Woolies?