The Gillard Government

[sails]

Thanks, wasn't aware of that Sailsy. I'll take it up with my local MLA. Big plank of theirs in the last election. Ridiculous to undermine the frontline care givers -our local GP, it makes no sense.

Thanks Logique - any help would be great...

I was surprised when the GP mentioned it this morning as I hadn't heard that the GPs were going to be cut in funding when treating mental health patients. He will continue to treat my daughter, albeit with less rebate, but I wonder how many GPs will be as caring? Perhaps they will limit the number of new mental health patients - and that is a sad. My daughter was suicidal before and early in her treatment, and I don't know what we would have done without finding this GP.

So, it's not just for my daughter, but I feel for those who are struggling with mental health issues. Unfortunately, these sufferers are often not in a position to fight for their cause, so I feel it is a terrible indictement on this government to risk the well being of a vulnerable section of the community with this bizarre policy to "pay" for about a third of their mental health package. We are being treated as fools, imo.

I'm about to show some ignorance here, Logique, but is the term MLA the same as the local federal MP?...

 

[sptrawler]

I see in todays paper, unless the carbon price is $40, Bob is going to hold his breath and trow a tantrum.
Thats just one day after he swore his undying support for the government, what a dick.

 

[Julia]

I went with my daughter to her GP this morning as he has now been treating her a few years for depression and other health related issues that are often the result of poor choices due to the long term depression.

He is a GP that has had a special interest in mental health for almost 30 years, and now he finds that the money allocated for mental health is partly being paid by stripping GP rebates for mental health consultations.

Maybe look into the details here, Sails. I might be wrong, but my impression from reading about this forthcoming measure is that it is only intended to affect the "Care Plan" a GP does in preparation for referring a patient to a psychologist for a series of six or twelve sessions.

Medicowallet may be able to enlarge on this, but my understanding is that when such a referral occurs the GP is supposed to see the patient for an extended interview during which he/she prepares the 'care plan' which describes the patient's overall situation and the need for various ancillary treatment.
Again, I might be understanding it incorrectly, but such a plan also had to be prepared before referring a patient with a longstanding condition to physiotherapy, dental care, nutritional advice et al.

Your GP may have given you an incorrect impression, or my understanding of the proposed change may be in error.

This is absurd - but what isn't absurd with this government... Swan sprouts off the 1.5 billion injection into mental health, but then partly pays for it by making it difficult for patients to get treatment at the GP level. This is unbelievably stupid, imo.

Indeed if that's what will happen. But I don't think there will be any change in remuneration for a GP treating a patient for a mental illness. Just where it involves making a referral to a psychologist/psychiatrist.
I wasn't able to discover from reading the newspaper report whether the actual six/twelve sessions from a psychologist are still available via Medicare or whether this is actually to also be curtailed.

Again, perhaps you can help here Medicowallet?

I'm about to show some ignorance here, Logique, but is the term MLA the same as the local federal MP?...

Member of the Legislative Assembly

 

[medicowallet]

Maybe look into the details here, Sails. I might be wrong, but my impression from reading about this forthcoming measure is that it is only intended to affect the "Care Plan" a GP does in preparation for referring a patient to a psychologist for a series of six or twelve sessions.

Medicowallet may be able to enlarge on this, but my understanding is that when such a referral occurs the GP is supposed to see the patient for an extended interview during which he/she prepares the 'care plan' which describes the patient's overall situation and the need for various ancillary treatment.
Again, I might be understanding it incorrectly, but such a plan also had to be prepared before referring a patient with a longstanding condition to physiotherapy, dental care, nutritional advice et al.

Your GP may have given you an incorrect impression, or my understanding of the proposed change may be in error.

That sort of sums up my understanding too Julia (but I am not a GP so I am not certain)

I do know that some GPs were happy with the arrangement as they felt it helped address issues of remuneration regarding the paperwork etc that was involved, so I think that it was a worthwhile initiative.

Let's hope this reshuffling, with added money is administered properly and results in better outcomes for patients. Time will tell.

 

[sails]

Here's another article on it and the excerpt below is Abbott's take on it. I have added the bold which explains about the rebates for GPs and ties in with what the GP said this morning which is simply rebates being cut for long consultations with mental health patients. Having sat in on them, I believe it would be hard to deal with most mental health issues in a ten minute consultation:

'When you look into the figures, they're actually cutting other mental health expenditure like the Medicare-funded psychologist consultations, like the rebates for GPs to do long consultations with mental health patients,'' he said.

Full story from The Age: PM has broken pledge on mental health: opposition


Thanks Julia - Yes, I knew that MLA = Member of the Legislative Assembly, but when googling it, only state MLA info seemed to come up. So is it the same thing as our federal MPs?

 

[sptrawler]

I think the Gillard government are just about to move into the departure lounge. The issue with W.A has the potential to absolutely blow up in their face.
Coming out of the corner throwing threats and punitive action against W.A . It rings of exactly the same bullying methods they adopt with anyone they think it can intimidate.
Australians don't like bullies, especially ones that fold when they are confronted ala the super profits tax and miners.
The juries out on their bullying of Telstra, time will show if they were outsmarted by Telstra.
This has the makings of a national display of Gillards and Swans lack of nous.
Also if it becomes a national debacle the independents will definitely jump ship. There is one thing hanging out with the bullies, but when they keep loosing you have to hang out with someone else. LOL LOL LOL
This is really becomming the comedy company show.

 

[Julia]

Can they do what they're threatening, and reduce infrastructure funding and GST revenue to W.A.?
(I have no idea how all this stuff works).
Mr Barnett seems very confident he has the Feds over a barrel.
Is his confidence justified?

 

[noco]

Can they do what they're threatening, and reduce infrastructure funding and GST revenue to W.A.?
(I have no idea how all this stuff works).
Mr Barnett seems very confident he has the Feds over a barrel.
Is his confidence justified?

I believe Colin Barnett is a very astute politician and I'm sure he would have carried out 'home work' before making that decision. He certainly has put Gillard and Swan into a rage.
If the Feds do cut back his GST, it will back fire on them and I would not be surprised if Barnett mounted a legal challenge over it all.
IMHO I reckon Gillard and Swan are bluffing. It certainly won't win them any votes in WA.

 

[sptrawler]

Can they do what they're threatening, and reduce infrastructure funding and GST revenue to W.A.?
(I have no idea how all this stuff works).
Mr Barnett seems very confident he has the Feds over a barrel.
Is his confidence justified?

Noco, is spot on, I am guessing Barnett will make fools of Gillard and Swan but that obviously isn't hard.
They have already blown their feet off by threatening punitive measures against a States rights.
Doesn't look good on the national stage.
I am sure they will make a movie about this government in the future its sure to be a great comedy.

 

[joea]

Can they do what they're threatening, and reduce infrastructure funding and GST revenue to W.A.?
(I have no idea how all this stuff works).
Mr Barnett seems very confident he has the Feds over a barrel.
Is his confidence justified?

Julia.
Yeaterday, Royal Dutch Shell announced it has approved its 1st Prelude floating LNG project off WA. Capital costs of up to $US12.6B.

I have two sons working on a 26,000 tonne platform in South Korea. That is coming to waters off WA. Woodside Petroleum has 3 big projects off WA.

I think you will find Barnett has a second office to deal with the LNG & mining projects coming his way.
So yes, he is probably confident, that Swan cannot hurt him. After all, Swan is all talk and no action that I have seen.

Cheers

 

[trainspotter]

Well you can't say they didn't know about it ! Taken from here ---------------> http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/gillard-government-threatens-wa-infrastructure-ove

25th March 2011

Gillard Government threatens WA infrastructure over mining royalty rates

The Federal Government has stated that $2 billion in funding for infrastructure upgrades could be under threat if WA tries to increase mining royalty rates under the Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT).

Federal resources minister Martin Ferguson and treasurer Wayne Swan said that pledges, including infrastructure funding for Western Australia, is at risk if the Opposition or State Government deviated from the MRRT, according to The West.

Swan explained that there were mechanisms in place for the Government to be able to stop the States increasing royalty rates.

WA premier Colin Barnett slammed the Government threat to hamstring the State if it increased the royalty rates, adding that it reserved the right to do so.

This comes after Fortescue Metals Twiggy Forrest also attacked the MRRT, saying that it was unfair tax that was essentially designed by BHP.

 

[Julia]

apologies for diversion from topic: joea have you checked your PM inbox?

 

[IFocus]

So you can raise royalties (dinosaur tax) if you are Liberal but cannot have a mining tax if you are Labor?

 

[sails]

Money, money, money - labor seems to have a never ending money tree when it's something they want.

• $11 million furniture makeover for parliament
• Chairs, desks, shelves in 226 offices changed
• Change will take place regardless of condition

HUNDREDS of perfectly good desks, chairs and other office equipment will be discarded in an $11 million-plus furniture makeover in federal parliament.

Full article from News.com: An $11 million furniture makeover for Australia's seats of power

 

[noco]

Money, money, money - labor seems to have a never ending money tree when it's something they want.


Full article from News.com: An $11 million furniture makeover for Australia's seats of power

They borrow $140 million every day. $11 million on new furniture is just peanuts to Gillard and Swan.

 

[Julia]

The funds directed to Tony Windsor's New England electorate are blatant bribery.
No wonder he continues to profess his support for the government.
So disproportionate compared to other electorates.
(Though maybe Mr Oakeshott's electorate has been similarly favoured?)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...royally-rewarded/story-fn59niix-1226059968485

 

[Calliope]

Gillard has spoken. Man-made climate change is real. And Gillard never lies.

JULIA Gillard has responded to Barnaby Joyce's claim that Australia cannot effect climate change saying the country does not have time for false claims.
The Prime Minister told reporters that she accepts the government's peer-reviewed report on Climate Change which warns that people are to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record.

"We don't have time ... for false claims in this debate," said Julia Gillard.
"The science is in, climate change is real. The science is clear - man-made carbon pollution is making a difference to our planet and our climate.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/cli...it/story-e6frfkvr-1226060763269#ixzz1N9veEpjQ

 

[wayneL]

The Prime Minister told reporters that she accepts the government's peer-reviewed report on Climate Change which warns that people are to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record.

The tax take in the last decade is also the highest on record.

What does Dullard intend to do about that?

 

[IFocus]

The tax take in the last decade is also the highest on record.

What does Dullard intend to do about that?

Didnt see a link with your comment?


The fiscal stimulus over which Swan presided in 2008-09 was arguably too great and poorly targeted, but it is unarguable that Australia did not have a recession while the rest of the West did. Obviously China's continuing demand for raw materials contributed as well, but the series of fast decisions in Swan's portfolio in 2008 were undoubtedly important in keeping thousands of Australians in work.

This morning's Australian contains an analysis by George Megalogenis of Government spending growth under various Treasurers since John Howard in 1978-79, which shows that if the projections in last week's budget come to pass Swan will be the lowest spending Treasurer, with 1 per cent per annum.

That's a big if. Spending growth in 2008-09 was 12.7 per cent; in 2009-10, 4.2 per cent. But those were special times (see point 1 above).

According to George Megalogenis, average annual spending growth under Treasurer John Howard was 2.3 per cent, under Paul Keating it was 2.2 per cent, in Peter Costello's first four budgets, spending growth was 1.9 per cent and in the last seven budgets it was 3.3 per cent.

BTW what is the current unemployment rate in Australia?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/16/3217469.htm

 

[sails]

It seems that one of the biggest differences between the left and the right is that the left only look for the "now" with little or no concern what the spending and decisions of this Rudd and now Gillard government will have on the country in future generations.

Those from the right seem to have more concern for the next generations who may be saddled with huge debt, potential religious/political interference in our way of life and an economy with high unemployment.

Employment might be OK for now, but what are the longer term effects of the Rudd and Gillard "policies on the run"? What will be the longer term effects on the country's economics if/when a carbon tax is forced on us?

Sure, we can be selfish and not care, but I have growing grandchildren and there is no way I want to see them with massive taxes paying off this government's seemingly mindless spending sprees and find themselves under restrictive laws of certain religious/political groups.