Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Back on medicare, we will have to agree to disagree Baloo, and I can see why. There is no doubt in my mind the campaign had merit. And there is no doubt in my mind that the Libs idea of 'tweaks' is cutting it, slowly but surely, to the bone.

The Big New Tax, Axe the Tax attak campaign ate it for breakfast. Bigger issue, (for me, I understand a lot of people don't care that much about climate change) bigger lie.
 
tigersnake said:
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Back on medicare, we will have to agree to disagree Baloo, and I can see why. There is no doubt in my mind the campaign had merit. And there is no doubt in my mind that the Libs idea of 'tweaks' is cutting it, slowly but surely, to the bone.
Click to expand...

Sure, but accept its your opinion, not a fact.
 
tigersnake said:
Baloo said:
To me it's a very easy distinction. Privatisation would be picking it all up, lock stock and barrel, and selling it to the highest bidder, or floating it. Think Telstra. Outsourcing parts is looking at what functions of an organisation, like medicare, would be better managed by a specialised firm and give them the contract to do it. The
Click to expand...

OK I'll take your point re terminology baloo. I think its one of style rather than substance. Privatisation is flogging the lot, outsourcing, cutting and picking services to charge for is done by section.
Click to expand...

alright Baloo, I'll take your point as well, but you're talking semantics really. outsourcing and privatisation in this example is still in the same ballpark.

FYI, Telstra wasn't privatised fully at first if I remember it correctly. Howard initially sold a third of it, not the whole 'lock, stock and barrel.' Then sold the rest of it after he got control of both houses. I would be very afraid of the future of Medicare of that happened again.
 
Ian4 said:
OK I'll take your point re terminology baloo. I think its one of style rather than substance. Privatisation is flogging the lot, outsourcing, cutting and picking services to charge for is done by section.

alright Baloo, I'll take your point as well, but you're talking semantics really. outsourcing and privatisation in this example is still in the same ballpark.

FYI, Telstra wasn't privatised fully at first if I remember it correctly. Howard initially sold a third of it, not the whole 'lock, stock and barrel.' Then sold the rest of it after he got control of both houses. I would be very afraid of the future of Medicare of that happened again.
Click to expand...

Not semantics at all. One you sell off, the other you pay someone to run certain parts. Privatisation you sell the asset. Outsourcing you pay to get someone else to manage it.

Massive difference. The first its gone and won't be yours again unless you buy it back. Your second you can terminate the agreement and it's yours to run again.

Pretty surprised you guys can't see the clear distinction.
 
I think any of the possible changes to Medicare could open doors to privatising it in the future, which would be a disaster.

Outsourcing might be less bad, but I can't imagine it making things much better.
 
Ian4 said:
OK I'll take your point re terminology baloo. I think its one of style rather than substance. Privatisation is flogging the lot, outsourcing, cutting and picking services to charge for is done by section.

alright Baloo, I'll take your point as well, but you're talking semantics really. outsourcing and privatisation in this example is still in the same ballpark.

FYI, Telstra wasn't privatised fully at first if I remember it correctly. Howard initially sold a third of it, not the whole 'lock, stock and barrel.' Then sold the rest of it after he got control of both houses. I would be very afraid of the future of Medicare of that happened again.
Click to expand...

Yeah Telstra was privatised in 3 sections. To get one of those sections through the senate, Howard promised to spend $1 billion on then environment, climate change initiatives. In a classic Howard move he funnelled it to farmers via land rehab grants. A heap was spent on holding meetings, tractors that were used to slash the roadsides after the money was gone. It was p!ssed up against the wall, and Howards solid constituents got the dough. One of the greatest scandals in Aus political history, for the waste, the porkbarrelling and the fact a big opportunity to make a difference on the environment was lost. But not many people know about it, fewer care.
 
tigersnake said:
Yeah Telstra was privatised in 3 sections. To get one of those sections through the senate, Howard promised to spend $1 billion on then environment, climate change initiatives. In a classic Howard move he funnelled it to farmers via land rehab grants. A heap was spent on holding meetings, tractors that were used to slash the roadsides after the money was gone. It was p!ssed up against the wall, and Howards solid constituents got the dough. One of the greatest scandals in Aus political history, for the waste, the porkbarrelling and the fact a big opportunity to make a difference on the environment was lost. But not many people know about it, fewer care.
Click to expand...

Yup. The Ole "thin end of the wedge". I can see the merit in contracting a third party to administer the billing system. But I can also see the gradual undermining of public health care when the conversation is increasingly steered towards economics and profits and away from public good and the need for government to provide services that the private sector won't.

Look at the ridiculous deals Kennett did to build a road that was unfit for purpose within 2 years while the contractor is protected from honest competition and the public suffers without public transport for 34 years. This is what consetvatives think government is about. Selling off public infrastructure and saying "it wasn't me" when the thing goes belly up. They just keep renegotiating and changing contracters and the costs spiral. This is where medicare is headed with conservatives at the helm. Mark my words.
 
Baloo said:
Not semantics at all. One you sell off, the other you pay someone to run certain parts. Privatisation you sell the asset. Outsourcing you pay to get someone else to manage it.

Massive difference. The first its gone and won't be yours again unless you buy it back. Your second you can terminate the agreement and it's yours to run again.

Pretty surprised you guys can't see the clear distinction.
Click to expand...
You're all over it Baloo. If medicare was to be privatised, it would become a charity.
 
Fair points Baloo but the other side of it is "user pays". You can bet that over the next few years the Libs will find ways to make the user pay more for the services medicare provides. Already happening.
 
Is it too much to ask someone on average household income to pay $10 to see a Doctor ?
 
antman said:
Fair points Baloo but the other side of it is "user pays". You can bet that over the next few years the Libs will find ways to make the user pay more for the services medicare provides. Already happening.
Click to expand...

I bloody hope so. Otherwise my kids will be paying for the obesity epidemic and the pension for the burgeoning group of 85 year olds who only planned to live to 75.
 
Giardiasis said:
You're all over it Baloo. If medicare was to be privatised, it would become a charity.
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier, healthcare in the US, a mostly private system, is hugely profitable.
 
tigersnake said:
As I posted earlier, healthcare in the US, a mostly private system, is hugely profitable.
Click to expand...

Yes. Prices would skyrocket, as would the cost of private health insurance. You'd have the unsavoury spectacle of hospital staff checking unconscious accident victim's wallets for evidence of insurance before admitting them.

Surprised Giardiasis doesn't understand this given his subscription to Mises.com
 
Australia will never go the way of the US. Neither government will allow it as neither would remain in government if they did.
 
tigersnake said:
As I posted earlier, healthcare in the US, a mostly private system, is hugely profitable.
Click to expand...
Medicare isn't health care, it is money taken from productive people to hand to unproductive people to subsidise their health costs. If Medicare didn't exist, public health wouldn't disappear.
 
Giardiasis said:
Medicare isn't health care, it is money taken from productive people to hand to unproductive people to subsidise their health costs. If Medicare didn't exist, public health wouldn't disappear.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old myth that rich people are "productive" and poor people aren't.
 
With Sonia Kruger's comments today regarding immigration, the Britexit, homeless on the street etc etc.

Why doesn't our government or anyone in polictics share the vision on the population of Australia? I feel that we need a population minister who looks at this complex issue to balance our immigration and infrastructure needs.

How many people would like to see my in Australia? How many people can Australia support at a standard of living we are accustomed to? Can we direct population growth in a way that didn't make Sydney and Melbourne any more conjested?

So what I would like to see is clear political policy from the Libs, Nats, ALP, Greens and One Nation on what our population should be. And how they see the vision of Australia. As all I see is name calling and trolling when this issue gets brought up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
State Government >
Top Bottom