Fear of GP fee already biting, says doctors' association

Date
    May 22, 2014


Doctors are already reporting a drop in visits because of concern about a $7 GP visit fee, according to the Australian Medical Association (AMA).      :(

AMA President Steve Hambleton said there was widespread confusion about the fee, which will not be introduced until next July at the earliest.

"We already have some feedback, certainly from Western Sydney, there are practices that are saying that attendances have dropped and now we are getting reports from other part of the country as well," he said.

"Certainly the timing has been a concern and some practices have said in the first few days they have had about a 50 per cent reduction in the first few days.''

Dr Hambleton said bulk-bill GPs were sending text messages to their patients reminding them they could still visit the doctor for free.    

Health Minister Peter Dutton told ABC TV on Wednesday: "I want people that need to go to the doctor to go to the doctor more and for a longer consultation if that's appropriate, but these are issues and decisions for the doctors to make and I want to make sure that we can strengthen Medicare going forward.    

"The Labor Party model of giving everything to everyone for free is not sustainable and I think we strengthen Medicare in this arrangement."

Labor has said it will oppose the GP fee among other measures in the budget.    

The party's health spokeswoman Catherine King said on Thursday that the Abbott government had broken a promise not to make cuts in health.   :(

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fear-of-gp-fee-already-biting-says-doctors-association-20140522-38q0e.html#ixzz32QXR6K8u

Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D

wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:33pm:

"We already have some feedback, certainly from Western Sydney, there are practices that are saying that attendances have dropped and now we are getting reports from other part of the country as well," he said. "Certainly the timing has been a concern and some practices have said in the first few days they have had about a 50 per cent reduction in the first few days.''

This is bad news for bulk billing. If it continues - doctors will make up the shortfall by charging the recommended AMA fee of about $70-$80 and cease bulk billing altogether.

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:34pm:

Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D

Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people.

Labor has said it will oppose the GP fee among other measures in the budget.      [smiley=thumbsup.gif]   

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:39pm:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people.

Of course dis information works on stupid people ....Abbott proved that the day he won the election. Some on here still bleieve there is a budget emergency  ;D ;D ;D ;D

wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:41pm:

Labor has said it will oppose the GP fee among other measures in the budget.      [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Of course they will. Which Abbott and Hockey would have know perfectly well when they included it. (which may be the reason it was put in there, in the first place)

There's a lot of confusion out there, especially from people who don't speak English as a first language and from older people that have heard about the co-payment but don't fully understand it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:44pm:

wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41pm: Labor has said it will oppose the GP fee among other measures in the budget.      [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Of course they will. Which Abbott and Hockey would have know perfectly well when they included it. (which may be the reason it was put in there, in the first place)

so now your saying Abbott is lying twice over?

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Some on here still bleieve there is a budget emergency

Some on here still believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction  ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:44pm:

wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41pm: Labor has said it will oppose the GP fee among other measures in the budget.      [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Of course they will. Which Abbott and Hockey would have know perfectly well when they included it. (which may be the reason it was put in there, in the first place)

Given all money raised is going into a slush fund and thus it has zero impact on the budget bottom line, I think you are correct.  It is a Trojan Horse, to be given up/sacrificed so that Abbott can say out loud ~ "See, we listened."

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:44pm: wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41pm: Labor has said it will oppose the GP fee among other measures in the budget.      [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Of course they will. Which Abbott and Hockey would have know perfectly well when they included it. (which may be the reason it was put in there, in the first place) so now your saying Abbott is lying twice over?

Nope. It's a very very basic negotiation tactic to always have something you can give in on, so the other party feels they've won some points.

I guess that means the policy is working even though it hasn't started yet eh.

Just as a little bit of a reminder - in classic economic theory, price and cost are tools to adjust the supply/demand curve to bring demand more into line with the ability to provide.

Increasing cost has a purpose of deterring people from going.

This is shown to be happening.

I'm not seeing an issue....

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:52pm:

I guess that means the policy is working even though it hasn't started yet eh.

It's deterrence though. Most of them time you can bring in demand curtailing by communication of price increases without actually making them!

I am seeing an issue.    This will cost Mr Abbott votes, at the next election.      :)

wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:04pm:

I am seeing an issue.    This will cost Mr Abbott votes, at the next election.      :)

Only IF it is implemented...

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:52pm:

I guess that means the policy is working even though it hasn't started yet eh.

If you call dissuading sick people from getting themselves checked out and almost certainly creating further load on our hospitals later on a "working policy" - then yeah.

And before you bring up that "too many people are visiting the doctor" crap again, thats already been debunked - we are actually below the OECD average for doctor visits.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:00pm:

Just as a little bit of a reminder - in classic economic theory, price and cost are tools to adjust the supply/demand curve to bring demand more into line with the ability to provide. Increasing cost has a purpose of deterring people from going. This is shown to be happening. I'm not seeing an issue....

Tell me Andrei, does anything even closely resembling human blood run through your veins. Where on your price cost curve do you plot the people who need to go to the doctors but dont (or worse still don't send their kids to the doctors) because they are "deterred" by the cost.   There's no way to make a community with "things" like you. You really are a dead weight on the rest of us.   

Let me get this right - raising the price will not affect the number of doctors available, so again - it is highly likely that reduced 'trade' will mean those docs will raise their prices.....

Sounds like a serious win win for everybody but the ill.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:39pm:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people.

So lets get this clear. Are you saying that shorten is on a disinformation campaign because he is not saying to the Aust people that when Abbott says he wants to introduce a co-payment Abbott doesnt really intend to introduce one.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people. So lets get this clear. Are you saying that shorten is on a disinformation campaign because he is not saying to the Aust people that when Abbott says he wants to introduce a co-payment Abbott doesnt really intend to introduce one.

Pretty much. Shorten (or Labor) have been carrying on about it like it's ALREADY been implemented, knowing full well that they and the Greens are never going to let it pass the Senate without it being either heavily modified or dropped completely.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:00pm: Just as a little bit of a reminder - in classic economic theory, price and cost are tools to adjust the supply/demand curve to bring demand more into line with the ability to provide. Increasing cost has a purpose of deterring people from going. This is shown to be happening. I'm not seeing an issue.... Tell me Andrei, does anything even closely resembling human blood run through your veins. Where on your price cost curve do you plot the people who need to go to the doctors but dont (or worse still don't send their kids to the doctors) because they are "deterred" by the cost.   There's no way to make a community with "things" like you. You really are a dead weight on the rest of us.

And we are all getting a bit sick of carrying that dead weight, but you've got to see it from Andrei's perspective. His children will be going to the doctor when they get sick.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:30pm:

Let me get this right - raising the price will not affect the number of doctors available, so again - it is highly likely that reduced 'trade' will mean those docs will raise their prices..... Sounds like a serious win win for everybody but the ill.....

I doubt they will raise any prices.

Its more a case of on the supply-demand curve the demand outweighs the supply.
You need to adjust it down so it becomes in sync.

Price and cost is the most effective mechanism for syncing the economic curve. Always has been - unless that curve is inelastic.
Which this one is not.

You do all this in 1st year economics.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:49pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:00pm: Just as a little bit of a reminder - in classic economic theory, price and cost are tools to adjust the supply/demand curve to bring demand more into line with the ability to provide. Increasing cost has a purpose of deterring people from going. This is shown to be happening. I'm not seeing an issue.... Tell me Andrei, does anything even closely resembling human blood run through your veins. Where on your price cost curve do you plot the people who need to go to the doctors but dont (or worse still don't send their kids to the doctors) because they are "deterred" by the cost.   There's no way to make a community with "things" like you. You really are a dead weight on the rest of us.    And we are all getting a bit sick of carrying that dead weight, but you've got to see it from Andrei's perspective. His children will be going to the doctor when they get sick.

My children will go to the doctor WHEN they are sick and not waste their time from the excessive hypochondria which exists in waiting rooms these days.
It is these folk that will be deterred by a price.

Why do you think we have a price on things like fast track airport lines, valet parking, 4/5 star hotels - so everyone doesn't use it!!

Price is a classic mechanism to reduce down demand. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:49pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:00pm: Just as a little bit of a reminder - in classic economic theory, price and cost are tools to adjust the supply/demand curve to bring demand more into line with the ability to provide. Increasing cost has a purpose of deterring people from going. This is shown to be happening. I'm not seeing an issue.... Tell me Andrei, does anything even closely resembling human blood run through your veins. Where on your price cost curve do you plot the people who need to go to the doctors but dont (or worse still don't send their kids to the doctors) because they are "deterred" by the cost.   There's no way to make a community with "things" like you. You really are a dead weight on the rest of us.    And we are all getting a bit sick of carrying that dead weight, but you've got to see it from Andrei's perspective. His children will be going to the doctor when they get sick. My children will go to the doctor WHEN they are sick and not waste their time from the excessive hypochondria which exists in waiting rooms these days. It is these folk that will be deterred by a price. Why do you think we have a price on things like fast track airport lines, valet parking, 4/5 star hotels - so everyone doesn't use it!! Price is a classic mechanism to reduce down demand. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp....

That is a false analogy.  Access to medical treatment is hardly akin to any of your examples.  Further, unless things have changed over there, your kids can rock up to a Hospital and get absolutely free treatment as often as they like.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 7:13pm:

Further, unless things have changed over there, your kids can rock up to a Hospital and get absolutely free treatment as often as they like.

And the result?

‘NHS should fine time-wasting patients’

It is demanding an overhaul of National Health Service funding and will also argue that common painkillers and cold remedies should no longer be available on the NHS and that patients are encouraged to pay for the best treatment.

Julia Manning, chief executive of 2020Health, said: “The demands on healthcare are rising every day and too many people are still treating the NHS like it’s a bottomless pit.

“We need to deter those who abuse the system and encourage people to look after themselves more through self-care and information.” The report found patients who consult their GPs rather than going to a chemist for treatment are costing the NHS £380million a year.

2020Health will send copies of its publication to key politicians including health secretary Andrew Lansley.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 7:17pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 7:13pm: Further, unless things have changed over there, your kids can rock up to a Hospital and get absolutely free treatment as often as they like. And the result? ‘NHS should fine time-wasting patients’ It is demanding an overhaul of National Health Service funding and will also argue that common painkillers and cold remedies should no longer be available on the NHS and that patients are encouraged to pay for the best treatment. Julia Manning, chief executive of 2020Health, said: “The demands on healthcare are rising every day and too many people are still treating the NHS like it’s a bottomless pit. “We need to deter those who abuse the system and encourage people to look after themselves more through self-care and information.” The report found patients who consult their GPs rather than going to a chemist for treatment are costing the NHS £380million a year. 2020Health will send copies of its publication to key politicians including health secretary Andrew Lansley.

Let me guess.  The link will be to some conservative, right wing mob who all seem not to like the concept of universal health care.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:49pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:00pm: Just as a little bit of a reminder - in classic economic theory, price and cost are tools to adjust the supply/demand curve to bring demand more into line with the ability to provide. Increasing cost has a purpose of deterring people from going. This is shown to be happening. I'm not seeing an issue.... Tell me Andrei, does anything even closely resembling human blood run through your veins. Where on your price cost curve do you plot the people who need to go to the doctors but dont (or worse still don't send their kids to the doctors) because they are "deterred" by the cost.   There's no way to make a community with "things" like you. You really are a dead weight on the rest of us.    And we are all getting a bit sick of carrying that dead weight, but you've got to see it from Andrei's perspective. His children will be going to the doctor when they get sick. My children will go to the doctor WHEN they are sick and not waste their time from the excessive hypochondria which exists in waiting rooms these days. It is these folk that will be deterred by a price. Why do you think we have a price on things like fast track airport lines, valet parking, 4/5 star hotels - so everyone doesn't use it!! Price is a classic mechanism to reduce down demand. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp....

This is called making up economics as you go. You believe what you want to believe even though you have absolutely no way of knowing how many people in that waiting room are hypocondracs.  And besides hypocondria is a medical condition.

Wikipedia: "Hypochondriasis or hypochondria (sometimes referred to as health phobia or health anxiety) refers to excessive preoccupancy or worry about having a serious illness. This debilitating condition is the result of an inaccurate perception of the condition of body or mind despite the absence of an actual medical condition." And for the other 99.9% in a waiting room to see the doctor you choose to believe that they just do it for the fun of it. Why would you do that.  Not because you care what the truth is but you're always busy counting $$$$$.  Like I said, while we are all trying our best to support each other to build a community (because that's what humans are, gregarious) you are a dead weight burden on humanity. 

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 7:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 7:17pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 7:13pm: Further, unless things have changed over there, your kids can rock up to a Hospital and get absolutely free treatment as often as they like. And the result? ‘NHS should fine time-wasting patients’ It is demanding an overhaul of National Health Service funding and will also argue that common painkillers and cold remedies should no longer be available on the NHS and that patients are encouraged to pay for the best treatment. Julia Manning, chief executive of 2020Health, said: “The demands on healthcare are rising every day and too many people are still treating the NHS like it’s a bottomless pit. “We need to deter those who abuse the system and encourage people to look after themselves more through self-care and information.” The report found patients who consult their GPs rather than going to a chemist for treatment are costing the NHS £380million a year. 2020Health will send copies of its publication to key politicians including health secretary Andrew Lansley. Let me guess.  The link will be to some conservative, right wing mob who all seem not to like the concept of universal health care.

Hardly, its from the Daily Express reporting the thoughts of a Government think tank working to reduce down the cost of healthcare and the waste of public money in the NHS.

And yes i am against universal healthcare for free.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 5:39pm:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people.

You mean this disinformation campaign?

Quote:

When Korey Gunnis - sufferer of rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, chronic asthma, hearing loss, anxiety disorder and clinical depression - asked Joe Hockey on the ABC’s Q and A program how he was supposed to cope with the new “heartless” $7 Medicare co-payment, the treasurer’s answer was unequivocal. Gunnis would not have to pay it. “Well from what you said you wouldn’t be hit by the so-called medicare co-payment, you wouldn’t be affected,” Hockey said. “Initially I would”, Gunnis interjected from the audience, presumably referring to the fact that even concession card holders are required to pay the co-payment for their first 10 visits to the doctor each year. “No you wouldn’t because you would be on a care plan with your doctor, obviously you have a number of chronic diseases, in that situation you would not be affected by the co-payment,” Hockey insisted. But according to the Australian Medical Association, Gunnis is very probably right. The budget does exempt doctors’ visits listed as “chronic disease management items” from the co-payment, but these are likely to be only a very small proportion of the visits to the doctor by someone with chronic health problems like Gunnis. “Chronic disease management items” include an initial consultation to develop a chronic disease management plan and another consultation with other health professionals - for example with a diabetic educator and a podiatrist for a sufferer of diabetes. But if a chronic disease sufferer gets sick, or needs a new prescription, or has any other health problems their visit to the doctor counts as a standard consultation and attracts the $7 co-payment - for the first 10 visits if they are hold a concession card, or indefinitely, if they do not. AMA president Dr Steve Hambleton said “people with chronic disease are likely to pay the co-payment for most of their normal visits to the doctor, which would be considered standard consultations.” He said his organisation was not “against” the co-payment overall, and for most people it would pose no problem for their health care. But he said doctors were worried about its impact on the most disadvantaged patients they saw - very low income earners especially those with chronic conditions, some aged care or dementia payments and some patients in indigenous communities. “There are definitely people who are going to struggle and we need to talk to the minister about how we are supposed to handle those people, because the system as it stands discourages doctors from bulk-billing or waiving the co-payment for those in greatest need,” he said. “If the co-payment means very low income earners, or the very sick, defer getting medical care and then present when their condition is much worse it will be a bad outcome for them and potentially a net cost for the health system,” he said. “There is definitely more work to be done on this new system.” Hambleton has said doctors could lose 12-25% of their current income if they do not adopt the co-payment when it is due to come into effect next July.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/joe-hockeys-qa-interrogator-right-co-payments

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people. You mean this disinformation campaign? Quote: When Korey Gunnis - sufferer of rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, chronic asthma, hearing loss, anxiety disorder and clinical depression - asked Joe Hockey on the ABC’s Q and A program how he was supposed to cope with the new “heartless” $7 Medicare co-payment, the treasurer’s answer was unequivocal. Gunnis would not have to pay it. “Well from what you said you wouldn’t be hit by the so-called medicare co-payment, you wouldn’t be affected,” Hockey said. “Initially I would”, Gunnis interjected from the audience, presumably referring to the fact that even concession card holders are required to pay the co-payment for their first 10 visits to the doctor each year. “No you wouldn’t because you would be on a care plan with your doctor, obviously you have a number of chronic diseases, in that situation you would not be affected by the co-payment,” Hockey insisted. But according to the Australian Medical Association, Gunnis is very probably right. The budget does exempt doctors’ visits listed as “chronic disease management items” from the co-payment, but these are likely to be only a very small proportion of the visits to the doctor by someone with chronic health problems like Gunnis. “Chronic disease management items” include an initial consultation to develop a chronic disease management plan and another consultation with other health professionals - for example with a diabetic educator and a podiatrist for a sufferer of diabetes. But if a chronic disease sufferer gets sick, or needs a new prescription, or has any other health problems their visit to the doctor counts as a standard consultation and attracts the $7 co-payment - for the first 10 visits if they are hold a concession card, or indefinitely, if they do not. AMA president Dr Steve Hambleton said “people with chronic disease are likely to pay the co-payment for most of their normal visits to the doctor, which would be considered standard consultations.” He said his organisation was not “against” the co-payment overall, and for most people it would pose no problem for their health care. But he said doctors were worried about its impact on the most disadvantaged patients they saw - very low income earners especially those with chronic conditions, some aged care or dementia payments and some patients in indigenous communities. “There are definitely people who are going to struggle and we need to talk to the minister about how we are supposed to handle those people, because the system as it stands discourages doctors from bulk-billing or waiving the co-payment for those in greatest need,” he said. “If the co-payment means very low income earners, or the very sick, defer getting medical care and then present when their condition is much worse it will be a bad outcome for them and potentially a net cost for the health system,” he said. “There is definitely more work to be done on this new system.” Hambleton has said doctors could lose 12-25% of their current income if they do not adopt the co-payment when it is due to come into effect next July. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/joe-hockeys-qa-interrogator-right-co-payments

Ok, yeah that could be it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 6:39pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people. So lets get this clear. Are you saying that shorten is on a disinformation campaign because he is not saying to the Aust people that when Abbott says he wants to introduce a co-payment Abbott doesnt really intend to introduce one.    Pretty much. Shorten (or Labor) have been carrying on about it like it's ALREADY been implemented, knowing full well that they and the Greens are never going to let it pass the Senate without it being either heavily modified or dropped completely.

You really have no right calling anyone else stupid if you think this argument of yours makes any sense.  And whats worse is that you implicitly condone politicians playing these games on the electorate.  What a compliant fool you must look like to them.  They can tell you they intend to do something they don't really intend to do and you want to blame everyone else for taking them at their word. What a lackey. 

A word of warning to those not covered by the HCC/children exemption after 10 trips to the doc.

A "simple" blood test could have a minimum of 5 procedures.
Each procedure is billed separately by Medicare.

SO...
Docs exam....$7
Blood Sample extracted....$7
Blood tests....$7 x 5 = $35
Return to doc for results...$7

$56 and you've barely started.....

:D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 8:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:39pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 6:33pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 5:34pm: Abbott will be proud !!!!! :D :D Shorten is the one who should be proud...it proves that the disinformation campaign is working on stupid people. So lets get this clear. Are you saying that shorten is on a disinformation campaign because he is not saying to the Aust people that when Abbott says he wants to introduce a co-payment Abbott doesnt really intend to introduce one.    Pretty much. Shorten (or Labor) have been carrying on about it like it's ALREADY been implemented, knowing full well that they and the Greens are never going to let it pass the Senate without it being either heavily modified or dropped completely. You really have no right calling anyone else stupid if you think this argument of yours makes any sense.  And whats worse is that you implicitly condone politicians playing these games on the electorate.  What a compliant fool you must look like to them.  They can tell you they intend to do something they don't really intend to do and you want to blame everyone else for taking them at their word. What a lackey.

They (the politicians) are NOT 'playing' games with the electorate. They are negotiating with a somewhat hostile Senate.