Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
Send Topic Print
private health insurance (Read 28452 times)
Dooley
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 345
Re: private health insurance
Reply #75 - Apr 1st, 2008 at 12:22am
 
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s994830.htm

MARK COLVIN: A new report has blown a hole in the myth that homeowners with big mortgages are the Australians who are suffering most from debt. It's found instead that it's the unemployed and low wage earners who are at the heart of the debt crisis. Many of them are running up huge credit card bills to pay for essentials like food, rent and medical expenses.

The report by the University of Newcastle and the Financial Counsellors' Association says that as levels of consumer debt continue to rise, those finding themselves in trouble are also getting younger, some are just 18.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18766207-2702,00.html


Cut to the bone: working poor on the rise

    * Font Size: Decrease Increase
    * Print Page: Print

Elisabeth Wynhausen and Tracy Ong | April 10, 2006

EVEN before they and their workmates were sacked by Cowra Abattoir last week, Vicki and Terry Rawiri supplemented their earnings from the meatworks with casual jobs at the Bi-Lo supermarket.
They were trying to get ahead by paying off the mortgage of their $365,000 home in Cowra in eight years.

By day they worked at the supermarket, while at night Vicki, 42, weighed carcasses and Terry, 43, classified as a labourer, worked as a slaughterman.

The couple are still agonising about going back to the meatworks, which has withdrawn the dismissal notices. But compared with an increasing number of Australian workers, the Rawiris are in clover.

New research suggests a period of unrivalled prosperity in Australia has coincided with an alarming rise in worker poverty, with growing numbers of employees facing what Barbara Pocock, director of the Centre for Work and Life at the University of South Australia, described as a "a pervasive sense of struggle and deprivation".

The number of working Australians who make less than two-thirds of median earnings - $533 a week or $27,716 a year - has risen from 1.2 million to 1.8 million, a rise of 50 per cent in about a decade, Ms Pocock said.

In a project funded by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Australian Research Council, universities and trade unions, researchers investigating the experiences of low-paid workers interviewed 18 childcare workers and 23 cleaners.

By the time they have paid the rent or met mortgage payments, many low-paid workers find they have no money left for basics such as dental care and school excursions for their children.

Some can afford phones that take only incoming calls. Some say even visiting friends is beyond their means - they cannot afford the petrol.

But poverty imposes its own irrational exigencies.

"I have to drive an unregistered car," one woman, a 29-year old childcare worker with three children, told researchers. "Then you get caught. Then you get a fine from the cops ... and then you can't afford to pay court fines. So it's basically a web that slowly ... eats you up."

Conscious of their isolation, some workers spoke to researchers about living in a different world from other Australians.

"I can't afford ... everyday things that people might take for granted. I sort of think, 'Oh no, if I go to the pictures, it means that's $20 less for the food ... or bills to be paid'," said another woman, a 55-year old cleaner raising two children on her own.

John Buchanan, from the Workplace Research Institute at Sydney University, said statistics of consumption patterns in the wider population showed the fast-growing legions of low-paid workers spent $30 a week less on food and half as much on clothing and footwear.

negative earnings occur where low income earners are Forced to subsidse their income with debt against credit cards and pawning their possesions.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: private health insurance
Reply #76 - Apr 1st, 2008 at 6:42am
 
Dooley wrote on Mar 31st, 2008 at 9:36pm:
Four Corners cited statistics from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), showing that almost half a million people, or 42 percent of those defined as poor, were trying to live on wages that were so low that they remained below the poverty line. NATSEM’s head, Professor Ann Harding, said the number of low-wage earners had doubled between
the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s
.
Moreover, child poverty in wage and salary earning households increased by almost 40 percent between 1996 and 1998.





Though this has little to do with the tax take, who pays it or how the rich actually subsidise the poor, the figures you are quoting here support my statements that Liebor give the poor hell and Johnny fixes it.

The dates Professor Ann Harding is talking about are when Bob Hawke and Paul Cheating ran the tyranny and ensured the poor suffered the most - this is standard Liebor operating procedure.

They rooted the poor between the mid 80s and the mid 90s.  John Howard began to address it in 1996 and by the early part of this century had gone a long way towards repairing the damage - as my figures demonstrate.

Thanks for further proof.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dooley
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 345
Re: private health insurance
Reply #77 - Apr 1st, 2008 at 3:40pm
 
you'll find no argument from me that lieberal or labour are any better than one another on this issue dt as they're both rightwing smitten with the ideal that company and corporates need more rights, privileges and welfare than humans.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: private health insurance
Reply #78 - Apr 1st, 2008 at 5:45pm
 
Dooley wrote on Apr 1st, 2008 at 3:40pm:
you'll find no argument from me that lieberal or labour are any better than one another on this issue dt as they're both rightwing smitten with the ideal that company and corporates need more rights, privileges and welfare than humans.  


Once again though while that was the intent during the Hawke/Cheating era it has been levelled out considerably since.   That this was so is evidenced by the boasts of both Cheating and Beazley that it was always their intent to make companies profitable at the expense of workers.

Now, since John Howard's Australia, the low income earner can receive more in benefits than they pay in tax - the corporate dollar (corporate tax) props them up.

This is the reason I always support John Howard.  He protected the poor, the needy and the disadvantaged through dramatic tax revisions whereas his predecessors did not.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dooley
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 345
Re: private health insurance
Reply #79 - Apr 1st, 2008 at 9:44pm
 
i agree that jh has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. keeping more poorly paid workers on benefits due to the anti union laws succesive governments have brought into place over the last 20 years. leaving the burden to non-human (corporation and businesses) entities with no loyalty to nations well-being will only see massive poverty and homeless When the next reccession comes along.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: private health insurance
Reply #80 - Apr 1st, 2008 at 9:51pm
 
Dooley wrote on Apr 1st, 2008 at 9:44pm:
i agree that jh has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. keeping more poorly paid workers on benefits due to the anti union laws succesive governments have brought into place over the last 20 years. leaving the burden to non-human (corporation and businesses) entities with no loyalty to nations well-being will only see massive poverty and homeless When the next reccession comes along.


Huh?  Who said Johnny made the rich richer and the poor poorer?  Who are you agreeing with dooley?  It can't be me because I have been saying all along Johnny helped even it out. 

The period of the mega rich was during the Hawke Cheating years (when all those articles you posted are from) when moguls like Bond, Skase etc were created and the ordinary rich like the Packers, Murdochs, Holmes a Courts etc became ultra rich.

This is when the poor fell off the edge as far as the government was concerned. Johnny brought them back.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48814
At my desk.
Sydney doctors face surgery 'overload'
Reply #81 - May 16th, 2008 at 9:46am
 
http://news.smh.com.au/national/sydney-doctors-face-surgery-overload-20080515-2enm.html

Doctors at Sydney's main children's hospital regularly face up to 18 hours of booked surgery a day, even before emergency cases arrive, a NSW public health inquiry has been told.

Westmead Children's Hospital head of anaesthesia Dr David Baines said the overload was causing stress for children booked in for surgery who missed out when emergency cases came in.

He said an "overwhelming number of emergency cases" meant doctors often found themselves with almost a day's worth of patients before emergency surgery was even factored in.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48814
At my desk.
Turnbull attacks but ducks queries
Reply #82 - May 22nd, 2008 at 2:04pm
 
You can't claim to support private health care while making those who want it pay for both private and the public system. The tax was not intended to 'target' the rich, but to give people the option of going private or doing their bit to support the public system.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23738717-5013947,00.html

MALCOLM Turnbull has savaged the Rudd Government as ideologically opposed to private health insurance and accused Labor of being determined to undermine it as he stepped up the Opposition's attack on the Government's first budget.

Under the change, which Treasury expects will cause more than 480,000 people to abandon private health insurance, the surcharge threshold for single people will rise from $50,000 a year to $100,000, and the threshold for families will increase from $100,000 to $150,000.

Mr Turnbull said the decision made no sense, and would increase pressure on public hospitals and make private insurance more expensive for people who retained the cover.

"The changes to the Medicare levy surcharge are the most misguided and potentially the most dangerous in this budget," Mr Turnbull said.

"This is a Government that hates private health ... and that is seeking to undermine it. There are no winners from that."

But Kevin Rudd hit back at the attack last night, insisting his Government supported a dual system of public and private health services, with each sector "strong and complementary".

Mr Turnbull's attack came as he delivered the Opposition's traditional post-budget speech at the press club.

Dr Nelson, campaigning in Victoria for the Gippsland by-election, joined the attack on Labor's private health policy, accusing the Government of bias against the private sector.

"They don't like people with private health insurance, in the same way they don't like private education," Dr Nelson said.

But Mr Rudd, also in Victoria yesterday, said the health insurance decision was aimed at relieving middle-income earners from a tax originally designed to target the rich.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said Labor supported both the public and private sectors.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Turnbull attacks but ducks queries
Reply #83 - May 22nd, 2008 at 2:19pm
 
freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:04pm:
You can't claim to support private health care while making those who want it pay for both private and the public system. The tax was not intended to 'target' the rich, but to give people the option of going private or doing their bit to support the public system.



Can you explain that in greater detail?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48814
At my desk.
Re: private health insurance
Reply #84 - May 22nd, 2008 at 2:25pm
 
yes
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: private health insurance
Reply #85 - May 22nd, 2008 at 2:27pm
 
freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:25pm:
yes


Thanks
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Verge
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male
Re: private health insurance
Reply #86 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 1:07pm
 
A private Health thread by imcrook.

Has he ever bumped his own threads?
Back to top
 

And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13
 
IP Logged
 
imcrookonit
Ex Member
*



Re: private health insurance
Reply #87 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 5:06pm
 
I take very little notice of fools.   Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Kat
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female
Re: private health insurance
Reply #88 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 9:38pm
 
Quote:
I take very little notice of fools.   Grin



And there's plenty of them posting on this topic.

I really can't be bothered with engaging them.
Back to top
 

...
 
IP Logged
 
imcrookonit
Ex Member
*



We Cant All Afford Private Health Insurance.
Reply #89 - Nov 18th, 2010 at 6:28pm
 
MORE than 10 million Australians have private health insurance, the highest level in a decade.

And Health Minister Nicola Roxon is using that growth to urge the Senate to approve her means test of the 30 per cent subsidy for insurance.

An extra 243,000 people took out private health cover over the past year, according to figures released by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. And the largest growth in the past three months occurred among 20 to 24-year-olds: the least likely to use health insurance.





A Gillard Government plan to save $1.9 billion by means-testing access to the 30 per cent tax break on health-fund premiums was meant to take effect in July, but has been blocked in the Senate, adding to the Government's budget woes.

The Opposition and Independent senators fear the means test applying to singles earning more than $75,000 and families earning more than $150,000 could force people to drop their cover as it becomes more expensive.



But Ms Roxon said the latest figures indicating a large growth in health fund membership over the past year showed this was a furphy.

The membership growth came despite another set of Government changes in 2008 that axed a tax penalty applying to middle-income earners who did not take out health insurance.

Health funds fought this measure, arguing it would encourage one million Australians to drop their health cover; instead, Ms Roxon said, 670,000 people took out health insurance.

"The proportion of Australians with private hospital insurance has also increased to 44.8 per cent, up from 44.6 per cent in the June quarter, the highest rate since March 2001."

She said the Government would push ahead with plans to take the Private Health Insurance Tax Rebate off the richest Australians.

"If the changes do not go ahead, Treasury modelling indicates this will cost the budget $100bn over the next four decades," Ms Roxon said.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
Send Topic Print