The facts on Medicare don't lie: it's affordable and effective without a GP tax



Another month, another health minister, another reboot of the discredited GP tax, but the same old false arguments.

Health minister Sussan Ley is sticking like a barnacle to the hull of the discredited and dishonest justification for the GP tax advanced by her failed predecessor, who took one year in the job to be declared Australia’s worst health minister for 40 years.

In her first public appearance this week she repeated Peter Dutton’s claims that because Medicare cost more today than it did 10 years ago, this was proof growth in health funding was “unsustainable”.

Despite Ley being unable to produce any data to support her GP tax arguments on RN’s Breakfast program this morning, there is plenty of data out there. It just says the opposite. Three expert reports from impeccable sources have proved in recent months that the argument health spending is “unsustainable” is garbage.

Diagnosis 1 came in September from the government’s own Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which revealed in its Health Expenditure Australia 2012–13 report that health expenditure is actually growing at its lowest level since it began keeping records 30 years ago.

The report found total spending on health goods and services in Australia was just 1.5% higher for the year. When population growth is taken into account, average annual health spending of $6,430 per person was actually down in real terms.

And that is total health spending. The Commonwealth’s health spending in 2012-13 actually fell by 2.4% in real terms.

Diagnosis 2 came in October from the world’s most respected economic body, in the latest OECD comparisons
http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecd-health-statistics-2014-frequently-requested-data.htm of health spending across the developed world.

This was a double whammy for the minister, with:

    Australia’s health outcomes are significantly better than the OECD average.
    Australia’s health spending (as a percentage of GDP) is lower than the OECD average.

According to the OECD, health spending in Australia in 2011 (the most recent year for comparisons) was 9.1% of GDP, below the average of developed nations of 9.3% and just over half the 16.3% the USA spends not keeping a large percentage of its population healthy.


It’s the same story for public health expenditure. Just 6.2% of GDP for Australia, compared to an OECD average of 6.7% and a record 10.1% by the Netherlands. Spain, Italy, the USA, even New Zealand, all spend more than Australia with little evidence of better outcomes, and in many cases, far worse.

In return for that modest outlay (by international standards), Australian women can now expect to live to 84, and men 79.9 – around two years better than the OECD average for both, and close to the best in the world.

And we get this outcome with a universal health system that guarantees all Australians access to a GP or public hospital regardless of their capacity to pay.

Diagnosis 3 was November’s Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (Beach)http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/11883/4/9781743324240_ONLINE.pdf report which exposed the stupidity of the stated aim of the GP tax to cut GP visits by 1 million consultations a year.

The report found Labor reforms to reward longer consultations are working, with GPs spending more time with their patients, and diagnosing an increasingly complex series of health issues.

The average consultation time is now 14.4 minutes, almost a minute longer than just three years earlier.

The authors of the report are clear that spending on GP services is a sound investment that is reducing pressure on the health budget. In an opinion piece for The Conversation entitled Medicare spending is value for money,http://theconversation.com/medicare-spending-on-general-practice-is-value-for-money-33948 the authors declare:

    As GP services are far cheaper than other types of medical services, discouraging GP visits by introducing a standard co-payment for most patients would increase costs to governments, now and later.
In other words, as Labor and most health experts and professionals have been telling the government since day one, cutting frontline GP services is a false saving that costs the health budget much, much more in the longer term.

So, three expert opinions, from three very different, but highly credible and independent sources all reach the same conclusion: Australia has one of the world’s most efficient and effective health systems, with no evidence that spending is unsustainable.

It’s proof that when a government is committed to Medicare it is possible to deliver an affordable and sustainable health system without making pensioners and families pay a tax every time they need a doctor.

It’s also proof that the entire rationale for the GP tax is nothing more than an ideological attempt to gut health and wreck Medicare.

The evidence is in and the figures do not lie. Medicare can continue as a strong, affordable universal health care system and it is perfectly possible to ensure that health spending is sustainable without punishing people with a GP tax version 1, 2 or 3.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/16/the-facts-on-medicare-dont-lie-its-affordable-and-effective-without-a-gp-tax

Quote:

And that is total health spending. The Commonwealth’s health spending in 2012-13 actually fell by 2.4% in real terms.

Health spending fell? Say it ain’t so Jo, because Longy wiil say it ain’t so  :D

they don't want to cut medicare because we can't afford it, thats just their excuse ...

they want to cut medicare because they object to those less fortunate then them making use of what they see as their taxes .....

all tax expendture should be geared to go to the rich :D :D :D :D (I mean the really rich, not longstupidones new definition of rich at $30k)

I wonder if longie has opened up his engineering maths book to dispute these findings?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

I wonder if longie has opened up his engineering maths book to dispute these findings?

he'll dispute it anyway ... he's an ornery bugger

the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping'


that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping'


accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear,

Context, Longy, context!

I said it, and was proved right, in the context of Medicare.

Now be a big man and apologise for saying I lied about this, eh?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:32pm:

the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear,

Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again? 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?

he can read university level mathematics Alevine, who are you to question him? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?  he can read university level mathematics Alevine, who are you to question him? :D :D :D

I wonder what university level rounding technique he is using to determine that healthcare costs are increasing at an exponential rate?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?  he can read university level mathematics Alevine, who are you to question him? :D :D :D I wonder what university level rounding technique he is using to determine that healthcare costs are increasing at an exponential rate?

Must be this one ...

http://academbot.com/sites/all/themes/academbot/img/school-logos/MA_Logos/18051.gif

Give away free stuff.....it's sustainable...Catherine King, Labor MP for Ballarat says so...and what's more some gullible stupid people actually friggin believe her..... ;D ;D ;D

Catherine holds a degree in social work and a masters in public policy from the Australian National University but can't friggin add 1 + 1 .... ;D ;D

No, this is not from Monty Python.....apparently she is serious... ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

Give away free stuff.....it's sustainable...Catherine King, Labor MP for Ballarat says so...and what's more some gullible stupid people actually friggin believe her..... ;D ;D ;D Catherine holds a degree in social work and a masters in public policy from the Australian National University but can't friggin add 1 + 1 .... ;D ;D No, this is not from Monty Python.....apparently she is serious... ;D

3 reports being cited vs 0 from that idiot ley.  Who to believe?

Let me get this right, medicare cost around $20 billion.. now we pay for medicare thanks to the medicare levy..now the levy has never recently been moved to keep up with the increase cost of heath, so the levy only is currently rising around $10 billion... so that means we are out by 10 billion and this is sustainable?

We either need a doubling of the levy or a Co-payment.

Oh wait its from the the guardian  ::)

Pantheon wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:56am:

Let me get this right, medicare cost around $20 billion.. now we pay for medicare thanks to the medicare levy..now the levy has never recently been moved to keep up with the increase cost of heath, so the levy only is currently rising around $10 billion... so that means we are out by 10 billion and this is sustainable? We either need a doubling of the levy or a Co-payment. Oh wait its from the the guardian  ::)

You need to learn to read.  The reports aren't from the guardian, the guardian is citing the reports.

And the government is arguing Medicare costs will increase to an unsustainable level, but the reports show this to be absolute nonsense.  Hence no need for a co payment.

One way to ensure enough funding for Medicare is to stop paying millionaires a rebate for private health insurance.  Or just end paying people on 150,000 $15 a fortnight for family tax benefits.  You know, remove nonsense ex Howard bullcrap.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?

good grief... are you really suggesting that healthcare costs are dropping?  Are you really that gullible?  And based on a govt CONTRIBUTION level drop?

you'd believe anything.  I can understand George saying this because he is a stupid persons idead of stupid.  But you are not.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:20am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?  good grief... are you really suggesting that healthcare costs are dropping?  Are you really that gullible?  And based on a govt CONTRIBUTION level drop? you'd believe anything.  I can understand George saying this because he is a stupid persons idead of stupid.  But you are not.

So I should instead believe a government minister who is mounting an ideological argument and providing no evidentiary basis?  Right.

And of course healthcare costs increase, hence we look at them on a real terms basis.  And based off that determine whether the costs are sustainable.  Which these reports have done and determined so. In stark contradiction to the idiot mob in government who are just blabbering uncontrollably.

Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt.

Is compounding debt sustainable? 

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:53am:

Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?

they don't need to ... cut the perks to those that don't need them and their is more than enough money to pay for medicare for everyone

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:53am:

Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?

So Medicare is the reason we are in debt?

Id suggest it's because of

Family tax benefit nonsense
Capital gains tax reductions
Negative gearing subsidies
Paid parental leave payment by government
No tax on super contributions > 100,000 a year
Fringe benefit tax
Low corporate taxation
Diesel rebates for Gina


They have engaged themselves in a hated year long debate about Medicare, claiming the $1 billion they may save at the cost of people's health will somehow restore the budget to a good shape, and remove the structural problems within it.

There is only a one word assessment that can be made about this government: idiots.

wrong Alevine, those things are sustainable, it's medicare that is unaffordable  :D :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

wrong Alevine, those things are sustainable, it's medicare that is unaffordable  :D :D :D :D :D

Yes, and not to mention that we also know this government can save $5 billion just by looking at the inefficiencies of running Medicare, but instead focus on cutting the actual service to people.  Because how dare people see a gp.

What a bunch of arse sniffing, flea infested, rabid m0rons.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:01am:

One way to ensure enough funding for Medicare is to stop paying millionaires a rebate for private health insurance.  Or just end paying people on 150,000 $15 a fortnight for family tax benefits.  You know, remove nonsense ex Howard bullcrap.

Or stop paying rebates for private health insurance altogether. The fastest-growing area of health expenditure is the private health insurance rebate, tripling in 15 years. Why should this be quarantined from cuts?

At the very least a razor gang should be looking closely at the rebate. 30% rebate? Out come the razor ... slice ... the rebate is now 25%, saving about $700 million a year.

All this rebate does is fatten the profits of the private health insurance industry. The private health insurance industry has become fat and bloated on taxpayer-funded largesse. It needs to become leaner and more efficient. Abolishing the rebate would produce a net saving of about $2 billion a year.

Here we go again.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Agingpop.jpg

source:


Quote:

[Wayne Swan Intergeneration report 2010]Australia’s population is ageing (Chart 1). The proportion of working age people is projected to fall, with only 2.7 people of working age to support each Australian aged 65 years and over by 2050 (compared to 5 working aged people per aged person today and 7.5 in 1970).

Less taxpayers to pay for greater welfare and health expenses.

Labor's own report shows current levels of public expenditure is unsustainable without massive taxation increases.

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Here we go again. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Agingpop.jpg source: Quote: [Wayne Swan Intergeneration report 2010]Australia’s population is ageing (Chart 1). The proportion of working age people is projected to fall, with only 2.7 people of working age to support each Australian aged 65 years and over by 2050 (compared to 5 working aged people per aged person today and 7.5 in 1970). Less taxpayers to pay for greater welfare and health expenses. Labor's own report shows current levels of public expenditure is unsustainable without massive taxation increases.

How does that refute what I said before or even suggest that Medicare needs to be slashed and burned?  Are you suggesting it may be a government attempt at reducing the average life expectancy to drop the cost to them of paying pensions?

Here's a better way:  introduce the ability for people to loan money from the goverent against their assets to pay for their retirement.  Bang, you'll slash pension costs immediately. 

But how dare we not fund the inheritance of the wealthy.


Or, another simple cut: Cut expenditure to private sxhools, which we KNOW has been a dismal failure in its original stated aims.

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:01am: One way to ensure enough funding for Medicare is to stop paying millionaires a rebate for private health insurance.  Or just end paying people on 150,000 $15 a fortnight for family tax benefits.  You know, remove nonsense ex Howard bullcrap. Or stop paying rebates for private health insurance altogether. The fastest-growing area of health expenditure is the private health insurance rebate, tripling in 15 years. Why should this be quarantined from cuts? At the very least a razor gang should be looking closely at the rebate. 30% rebate? Out come the razor ... slice ... the rebate is now 25%, saving about $700 million a year. All this rebate does is fatten the profits of the private health insurance industry. The private health insurance industry has become fat and bloated on taxpayer-funded largesse. It needs to become leaner and more efficient. Abolishing the rebate would produce a net saving of about $2 billion a year.

This government has no balls.

One would think that a government that is on the ropes should gamble with big reforms, as typically big reforms pay off at the polling booth.  But this one is completely lacking any ambition.  It's as if they are simple intent on destroying.

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Less taxpayers to pay for greater welfare and health expenses. Labor's own report shows current levels of public expenditure is unsustainable without massive taxation increases.

Paul Keating saw this problem coming, 30 years ago. Keating introduced compulsory superannuation to bring down pension costs.

The idiots in the Coalition have consistently opposed compulsory superannuation and have not increased the compulsory threshold, not even once, despite being in office for half the time it has been in existence.

We are now paying the price for the Coalition's inaction.

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:23am: Less taxpayers to pay for greater welfare and health expenses. Labor's own report shows current levels of public expenditure is unsustainable without massive taxation increases. Paul Keating saw this problem coming, 30 years ago. Keating introduced compulsory superannuation to bring down pension costs in the future of 30 years ago. The idiots in the Coalition have consistently opposed compulsory superannuation and have not increased the compulsory threshold, not even once, despite being in office for half the time it has been in existence. We are now paying the price for the Coalition's inaction.

Of course, because a much better approach is to reduce life expectancy by slowly destroying Medicare.

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:53am:

Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?

This argument is inaccurate. The reality is different. All government expenditure is funded out of consolidated revenue with appropriation bills in accordance with the Constitution. Consolidated revenue includes government bonds (the so-called "debt") but these bonds are not the main source of government revenue.

It is therefore inaccurate to point at one area of expenditure and say "that is funded with debt" while ignoring two realities: (1) debt isn't the main source of government revenue, and (2) all government expenditure is funded out of the same source of funds.

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:23am: Less taxpayers to pay for greater welfare and health expenses. Labor's own report shows current levels of public expenditure is unsustainable without massive taxation increases. Paul Keating saw this problem coming, 30 years ago. Keating introduced compulsory superannuation to bring down pension costs. The idiots in the Coalition have consistently opposed compulsory superannuation and have not increased the compulsory threshold, not even once, despite being in office for half the time it has been in existence. We are now paying the price for the Coalition's inaction.

The Reaper also wanted a GST to broaden the tax base to assist countering the aging of the population demographic and then hypocritically and idiotically campaigned against one to get one last grasp at political power.

We are now paying the price for Labor's hypocrisy and perpetual over expending.

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:54am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:53am: Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?  This argument is inaccurate. The reality is different. All government expenditure is funded out of consolidated revenue with appropriation bills in accordance with the Constitution. Consolidated revenue includes government bonds (the so-called "debt") but these bonds are not the main source of government revenue. It is therefore inaccurate to point at one area of expenditure and say "that is funded with debt" while ignoring two realities: (1) debt isn't the main source of government revenue, and (2) all government expenditure is funded out of the same source of funds.

It doesn't matter what expenditure item you want to add to the equation,  spending more than one earns on them is unsustainable.  Perpetual budget deficits are unsustainable.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:20am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?  good grief... are you really suggesting that healthcare costs are dropping?  Are you really that gullible?  And based on a govt CONTRIBUTION level drop? you'd believe anything.  I can understand George saying this because he is a stupid persons idead of stupid.  But you are not. So I should instead believe a government minister who is mounting an ideological argument and providing no evidentiary basis?  Right. And of course healthcare costs increase, hence we look at them on a real terms basis.  And based off that determine whether the costs are sustainable.  Which these reports have done and determined so. In stark contradiction to the idiot mob in government who are just blabbering uncontrollably.

that was my point.  costs are INCREASING and in real terms as well.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:53am: Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?  So Medicare is the reason we are in debt? Id suggest it's because of Family tax benefit nonsense Capital gains tax reductions Negative gearing subsidies Paid parental leave payment by government No tax on super contributions > 100,000 a year Fringe benefit tax Low corporate taxation Diesel rebates for Gina They have engaged themselves in a hated year long debate about Medicare, claiming the $1 billion they may save at the cost of people's health will somehow restore the budget to a good shape, and remove the structural problems within it. There is only a one word assessment that can be made about this government: idiots.

ironically, all of those things existed well before labor came to power under a booming economy.  the only thing labor did was add parental leave thus making it WORSE.

Actually, some were but a LOT were put in by Howard.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:20am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:32pm: the quote was 'healthcare costs are dropping' that's not even in the same postcode as 'fed govt spending on health is dropping' accuracy with words can make a huge difference in outcome as the two above TOTALLY DIFFERENT statements make clear, Healthcare costs in total are dropping, as explained that cost increase for total healthcare was 1.5% and in real terms is a decline.  Did you forget how to read?  Or were you doing your rounding again?  good grief... are you really suggesting that healthcare costs are dropping?  Are you really that gullible?  And based on a govt CONTRIBUTION level drop? you'd believe anything.  I can understand George saying this because he is a stupid persons idead of stupid.  But you are not. So I should instead believe a government minister who is mounting an ideological argument and providing no evidentiary basis?  Right. And of course healthcare costs increase, hence we look at them on a real terms basis.  And based off that determine whether the costs are sustainable.  Which these reports have done and determined so. In stark contradiction to the idiot mob in government who are just blabbering uncontrollably. that was my point.  costs are INCREASING and in real terms as well.

Not in real terms, learn to READ!!!!!  Not hard!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:53am: Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?  So Medicare is the reason we are in debt? Id suggest it's because of Family tax benefit nonsense Capital gains tax reductions Negative gearing subsidies Paid parental leave payment by government No tax on super contributions > 100,000 a year Fringe benefit tax Low corporate taxation Diesel rebates for Gina They have engaged themselves in a hated year long debate about Medicare, claiming the $1 billion they may save at the cost of people's health will somehow restore the budget to a good shape, and remove the structural problems within it. There is only a one word assessment that can be made about this government: idiots. ironically, all of those things existed well before labor came to power under a booming economy.  the only thing labor did was add parental leave thus making it WORSE.

Your point again?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:53am: Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?  So Medicare is the reason we are in debt? Id suggest it's because of Family tax benefit nonsense Capital gains tax reductions Negative gearing subsidies Paid parental leave payment by government No tax on super contributions > 100,000 a year Fringe benefit tax Low corporate taxation Diesel rebates for Gina They have engaged themselves in a hated year long debate about Medicare, claiming the $1 billion they may save at the cost of people's health will somehow restore the budget to a good shape, and remove the structural problems within it. There is only a one word assessment that can be made about this government: idiots. ironically, all of those things existed well before labor came to power under a booming economy.  the only thing labor did was add parental leave thus making it WORSE.

yes, thats what everyone is saying ... Howard left us with a structural deficit that we cannot afford long term

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

that was my point.  costs are INCREASING and in real terms as well.

I told you that comprehension is a problem with you

When population growth is taken into account, average annual health spending of $6,430 per person was actually down in real terms.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 11:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:53am: Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?  So Medicare is the reason we are in debt? Id suggest it's because of Family tax benefit nonsense Capital gains tax reductions Negative gearing subsidies Paid parental leave payment by government No tax on super contributions > 100,000 a year Fringe benefit tax Low corporate taxation Diesel rebates for Gina They have engaged themselves in a hated year long debate about Medicare, claiming the $1 billion they may save at the cost of people's health will somehow restore the budget to a good shape, and remove the structural problems within it. There is only a one word assessment that can be made about this government: idiots. ironically, all of those things existed well before labor came to power under a booming economy.  the only thing labor did was add parental leave thus making it WORSE. yes, thats what everyone is saying ... Howard left us with a structural deficit that we cannot afford long term

Yes I think he is utterly confused with whatever point he was trying to make.  It must be getting really hard for longy to defend the idiots.  Which is hopefully a good sign that common sense is returning to him.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Yes I think he is utterly confused with whatever point he was trying to make

I would have thought that he'd be used to his constant state of confusion by now

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:49pm:

Howard left us with a structural deficit that we cannot afford long term

Labor had 2 terms to correct this and what did they do? 

https://ngdagency.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/captain_print_blog.jpg

:D

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:49pm: Howard left us with a structural deficit that we cannot afford long term Labor had 2 terms to correct this and what did they do?  https://ngdagency.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/captain_print_blog.jpg :D

And the liberals said they would and have they?

What's the aim here?  To have as bad a government as the previous ones?  This line of argument is so redundant!

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:49pm: Howard left us with a structural deficit that we cannot afford long term Labor had 2 terms to correct this and what did they do?  :D

every attempt by labor to kerb this spending was shouted down by the libs.

Labor sill managed more in a hung parliament than the libs can do with a majority  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

every attempt by labor to kerb this spending was shouted down by the libs

Really.....all zero of them... ;D


John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

Labor sill managed more in a hung parliament than the libs can do with a majority

Yes they managed to boot 2 Prime Ministers....

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/ass-kicking.gif http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/ass-kicking.gif

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 11:31am:

Bam wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:39am: Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:23am: Less taxpayers to pay for greater welfare and health expenses. Labor's own report shows current levels of public expenditure is unsustainable without massive taxation increases. Paul Keating saw this problem coming, 30 years ago. Keating introduced compulsory superannuation to bring down pension costs. The idiots in the Coalition have consistently opposed compulsory superannuation and have not increased the compulsory threshold, not even once, despite being in office for half the time it has been in existence. We are now paying the price for the Coalition's inaction. The Reaper

Who's the Reaper?

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

Really.....all zero of them

zero? what about the changes to tax concessions on super , changes to how you claim car expenses .. they're two of the top of my head, I'm sure there were many more :D :D :D


Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

Yes they managed to boot 2 Prime Ministers

just think how much more they could have accomplished of Rudd wasn't busy being a snake in the grass

Swagman wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

Bam wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 10:54am: Swagman wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:53am: Labor sustain Medicare with debt when in Govt. Is compounding debt sustainable?  This argument is inaccurate. The reality is different. All government expenditure is funded out of consolidated revenue with appropriation bills in accordance with the Constitution. Consolidated revenue includes government bonds (the so-called "debt") but these bonds are not the main source of government revenue. It is therefore inaccurate to point at one area of expenditure and say "that is funded with debt" while ignoring two realities: (1) debt isn't the main source of government revenue, and (2) all government expenditure is funded out of the same source of funds. It doesn't matter what expenditure item you want to add to the equation,  spending more than one earns on them is unsustainable.

So let's increase taxes then, that will fix the budget. We don't even need to increase the headline tax rates. Abolishing a large pile of expensive tax loopholes could bring the budget to surplus without difficulty. We could also cut $20 billion of wasteful spending as well to strengthen the budget further. But the abolition of tax loopholes must be looked at as a source of revenue.


Quote:

Perpetual budget deficits are unsustainable.

Tell that to the grave of Menzies, who had no budget surpluses in his entire time as Prime Minister.

Which government is the only government that had budget surpluses during the entire term of government? Whitlam.

Which government first stated that budget surpluses were a desirable aim? Whitlam.

Since the Liberals first won office in 1949, what percentage of budgets for both major parties have been in surplus? About 26 per cent for both sides of politics.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:06pm:

just think how much more they could have accomplished of Rudd wasn't busy being a snake in the grass

Or how much more could have been accomplished if Rudd had called a double dissolution election early in 2010 when he was still popular. It was his backdown over the ETS that started the slide.

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 3:06pm: just think how much more they could have accomplished of Rudd wasn't busy being a snake in the grass Or how much more could have been accomplished if Rudd had called a double dissolution election early in 2010 when he was still popular. It was his backdown over the ETS that started the slide.

I agree ... that was the beginning of the end for Rudd ... if he'd called a DD Abbott would be history and labor wouldn't have had all the infighting that they ended up having

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 3:23pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 3:06pm: just think how much more they could have accomplished of Rudd wasn't busy being a snake in the grass Or how much more could have been accomplished if Rudd had called a double dissolution election early in 2010 when he was still popular. It was his backdown over the ETS that started the slide. I agree ... that was the beginning of the end for Rudd ... if he'd called a DD Abbott would be history and labor wouldn't have had all the infighting that they ended up having

The ALP's infighting ran much deeper than that.
It wouldn't have spelled the end for Rudd when it did but if you read the memoirs of any number of that front bench he was on borrowed time.
He was intolerable to 90% of his colleagues.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

He was intolerable to 90% of his colleagues.

he may have been, but winning two elections would have, for a few years at least, made him untouchable.

Of course Medicare is affordable. Abbott wouldn't have spent all that money on those  (useless) fighter jets and submarines if the nation's health portfolio was to become unsustainable.

Abbott wouldn't be that irresponsible, surely.

The national defence budget has nothing to do with it.

You may not have noticed but western countries are subject to huge threats recently from radical extremism with volatile countries just to the north of Australia.

This is far from the time to reduce military spending.
We have a fight on our hands against the scourge of radical Islam.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

You may not have noticed but western countries are subject to huge threats recently from radical extremism with volatile countries just to the north of Australia.

you may not have noticed but thats one war you can't win simply by having the bigger toys ....

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:03pm:

Actually, some were but a LOT were put in by Howard.

other than family tax benefit, they were all in place BEFORE howard


try and get something right.  you already look stooopid.

Super tax concessions — put in by Howard

Asset millionaires on the Age Pension — Howard.

Private health care rebate — Howard.


Want me to go on?

Oh,

Too many tax cuts to the rich — Costello

Robbing education, health, infrastructure budgets to show bigger surpluses? John & Pete’

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

Super tax concessions — put in by Howard  RUBBISH. Asset millionaires on the Age Pension — Howard.  WRONG Private health care rebate — Howard.  Give you that one/ Want me to go on? Oh, Too many tax cuts to the rich — Costello  NOT AT ALL.  the rich got no more than everyone else Robbing education, health, infrastructure budgets to show bigger surpluses? John & Pete’   JUST YOUR usual drivel and wrong.

hey!  you got one thing right!!!!

.That is one more thing than you then  :D

But everything I stated is true.

Howard used the once in a century boom revenue not for ANY constructive purpose other than being re-elected. What I said above was true.

The rich got huge tax cuts, those on low incomes a few $. The stuff about asset mllionaires on Age Pension, the health care rebate etc etc—all Howard and Costello.

Next financial year the cost of the concessionary tax on super will cost $50Bn, more than the Old Age and Disability pensions combined. Time to reduce this to 9.25%, the rate of award super.

Some worthwhile savings:


Quote:

Freedom of information documents reported by Sean Parnell in the Australian this week – and now available on the department’s website – revealed the Health Department’s “strategic policy group” had advised the government could save as much as $15bn a year from cutting “low value” drugs and therapies. Duckett has suggested savings of $1bn a year are available from reducing inefficiency in public hospitals, $500m a year from workforce reform in public hospitals, or $400m to $500m a year from adopting benchmark pricing for generic pharmaceuticals. The Australian Council of Social Service suggests saving $6.6bn a year from abolishing the private health insurance rebate, although given the Coalition’s strong ideological support for private health that would appear unlikely. It says another $400m a year could be saved from scrapping the Medicare safety net, which helps families with out-of-hospital expenses over a certain threshold and largely benefits the better off.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/16/as-sussan-ley-tries-to-patch-the-cuts-to-medicare-the-question-is-why

Abott & ilk would like to to use a technique used successfully in the USA:  make the public believe that those who fall ill are at fault, morally, and if the sick have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills then they are doubly at fault because they were financially unprepared.

AiA wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

Abott & ilk would like to to use a technique used successfully in the USA:  make the public believe that those who fall ill are at fault, morally, and if the sick have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills then they are doubly at fault because they were financially unprepared.

What's wrong with seeking (part) payment for the services of a massively qualified professional?

People pay $20 for a friggin haircut but whinge and bitch about the prospect of having to pay $7 to see a GP?

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:55am:

AiA wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:38am: Abott & ilk would like to to use a technique used successfully in the USA:  make the public believe that those who fall ill are at fault, morally, and if the sick have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills then they are doubly at fault because they were financially unprepared. What's wrong with seeking (part) payment for the services of a massively qualified professional? People pay $20 for a friggin haircut but whinge and bitch about the prospect of having to pay $7 to see a GP?

None. I have no problem with a reasonable co-pay if it doesn't lead to the nightmare the USA is experiencing with its healthcare (not) system.

Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(             

wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(

Because the country will go broke

wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(

I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly.

Call for Senate to stop backdoor changes to Medicare
14 January, 2015 | Media Release Australian Unions call on the Senate to overturn the Abbott Government’s backdoor changes to Medicare rebates that will wipe out bulk billing and signal an end to universal healthcare in Australia.

ACTU President Ged Kearney said unions have today written to the Greens, Labor and crossbench Senators asking them to disallow the regulation Tony Abbott snuck through before Christmas.

“After failing to kill off Medicare with his GP co-payment, Tony Abbott is trying to do the same thing with this sneaky backdoor change that will see many patients slugged with a $20 fee to visit the doctor,” said Ms Kearney.

“The Senate has the power to reverse these changes with a disallowance motion and unions are urging all Senators to protect universal health care and ensure all Australians can access medical care – not just those who can afford it.”

Ms Kearney said the backdoor tactics show it is business as usual for the Abbott Government.

“If there is a need for changes to Medicare, then it should be driven by and in consultation with the community.

“We should not pretend that a crude budget cut, driven by ideological opposition to universal health care, is really about improving patient care.

“When he was scraping off the barnacles last year, Tony Abbott promised to consult with the community in 2015 – less than two weeks into the new year and those words are already proven false.

“Nothing has changed – it’s a new year but the same old Abbott Government with its agenda to drive down the living standards of all Australians, whether by dismantling Medicare or slugging university students with mortgage sized debt.”

As well as writing to the Senate, the ACTU today launched a petition urging Senators to disallow the changes to the Medicare rebate regulations when the Parliament resumes.

AiA wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly.

We are on the same page.  It's truly an insignificant payment politicized by the Senate.

It is in no way destroying Medicare.  In fact, it would have been propping it up.

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.      :)

Quote:

The Australian Council of Social Service suggests saving $6.6bn a year from abolishing the private health insurance rebate

The actual savings will be smaller, due to some people ditching their health insurance policies once they have to pay full price. Modelling suggests about half of the savings will need to be reinvested into health, especially public hospitals, to make up the shortfall.

I expect the loss of customers will be limited. The private health insurance industry would fight hard to keep customers. They would cut their prices or offer basic policies with the unnecessary crap cut out of them (eg: homeopathy, running shoes). The industry has become fat and bloated on taxpayers' largesse, and abolishing the rebate would make them leaner and more efficient.

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              Because the country will go broke

No it won’t! Not from Medicare, rubbish decisions from Abbott will cause us problems, not Medicare.

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              Because the country will go broke

Another silly argument from the drunken kangaroo.

AiA wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly.

There is ZERO evidence that people are seeing doctors needlessly.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:00am:

.That is one more thing than you then  :D But everything I stated is true. Howard used the once in a century boom revenue not for ANY constructive purpose other than being re-elected. What I said above was true. The rich got huge tax cuts, those on low incomes a few $. The stuff about asset mllionaires on Age Pension, the health care rebate etc etc—all Howard and Costello.

High income earners got the same tax cuts as you, you big boofhead.

you just don't get ANYTHING right.

AiA wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly.

Can we define this term "needlessly"?  I agree, if I have a cold I don't need to go to the doctor.  Except I'm forced by work if the illness is >1 day.  So clearly I can't help this "needlessness" but similarly no co payment will stop me from going.

Unless you suggest I go to work.  Let's find out the productivity losses as a result of sick people going to work and causing others to get sick.  Tony wants to ruin our economy even further?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:00am: .That is one more thing than you then  :D But everything I stated is true. Howard used the once in a century boom revenue not for ANY constructive purpose other than being re-elected. What I said above was true. The rich got huge tax cuts, those on low incomes a few $. The stuff about asset mllionaires on Age Pension, the health care rebate etc etc—all Howard and Costello. High income earners got the same tax cuts as you, you big boofhead. you just don't get ANYTHING right.

Exact reason why Howard destroyed future budgets. Well done, the structural damage is done because of this stupidity that fair was defined as being everyone. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:00am: .That is one more thing than you then  :D But everything I stated is true. Howard used the once in a century boom revenue not for ANY constructive purpose other than being re-elected. What I said above was true. The rich got huge tax cuts, those on low incomes a few $. The stuff about asset mllionaires on Age Pension, the health care rebate etc etc—all Howard and Costello. High income earners got the same tax cuts as you, you big boofhead. you just don't get ANYTHING right.

I take it then they are happy to accept the same percentage drop in income as Jo the Waitress at Luigi's Cafe?  That should take a hefty bite out of their incomes.... did figures on that for you already....

That oughta start the old economy moving - all those richies with many thousands less per year.. have to find some new tax dodges....   ;D

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

AiA wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly. There is ZERO evidence that people are seeing doctors needlessly.

What about employers who demand that their employees get a sick note from a doctor for every day of sick leave?

I am talking more of hypochondriacs, lonely old biddies visiting the doctor as a social thing, etc.

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              Because the country will go broke

Try thinking outside the Abbott square Swaggie.

How about reducing the salary sacrifice into super lurk that is only utilised by the high income earners that can afford to sal sac.

Also the second , third and fourth investment properties tax lurk could be topped or phased out

Money for jam there in both cases.

Swagman wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:09am:

AiA wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly. We are on the same page.  It's truly an insignificant payment politicized by the Senate. It is in no way destroying Medicare.  In fact, it would have been propping it up.

Its the thin end of the wedge. Thanks god for the good people in the Senate.

Touch Medicare at your peril twit Abbott.

(God I hope I dont get banned for a couple of days like last time I used that word)

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

(God I hope I dont get banned for a couple of days like last time I used that word)

"God"?  :D

Bam wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:30am: AiA wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 9:00am: Now here is a good idea, whats wrong with leaving medicare, and bulk billing the way it is.  No Co-Payment.      :(              I think a reasonable co-pay could discourage those from seeing a physician needlessly. There is ZERO evidence that people are seeing doctors needlessly. What about employers who demand that their employees get a sick note from a doctor for every day of sick leave?

Our policy down in Australia is if you have more than two days off consecutively then it must be accompanied by a doctors note.
Otherwise it gets taken as annual leave.
I don't think that's unnecessary or harsh. If employees had to pay to get it, I'm sure companies could look at a reimbursement. I know I'd use my company card to pay if it were me.

Here ya go - pretty wide open to any exploitation, I'd say.. byt bosses:-

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/sick-and-carers-leave/paid-sick-and-carers-leave/notice-and-medical-certificates

"When evidence has to be given

Employers can ask an employee to give evidence to confirm why they have been away from work at any time. This includes even if an employee has only been off sick for 1 day.

An employee who doesn't give their employer evidence when asked may not be entitled to be paid for their sick or carer’s leave.

A workplace policy or registered agreement can specify when an employee has to give evidence to their employer and what type of evidence they have to give."

Reads like some hand-me-down from Wee Johnie Howard the Wrecker.... little man syndrome....