Just wow . Never knew abott can get so low . And yet not a peep from the Murdoch papers . I wonder ehy?

I live in Townsville lol.

The highway has no bicycle lanes, motorway doesn't allow bicycle access.

Not including the weather that doesn't permit such things.

-PB

Yeah well as someone who gets paid by Medicare I can tell you that bulk billing is unsustainable at the current below CPI fee increases that we get every year. One in 4 GP's have abandoned it, and more will follow unless more money is made available.

The government can't afford to increase the fee schedule to reflect the cost of the service, no-one wants increased taxes, medical clinics are not going to absorb these cost forever, so who pays?

Besides it might make the ones who come in with trivial complaints or want a certificate for their "sickie" think twice.

The biggest obstacle will be convincing people who do not know a life without free healthcare, that it really isn't "free".

Here is a solution. Tax rich people and big companies more. Give more money to the doctors.

Edited by macktheknife: 30/12/2013 11:34:26 PM

Isn't the levy going up 2% this year? CPI was only 1.2% so it's above CPI this year.

Medicare is tricky, but making a populace start paying for their medical care when the cost of living index is increasing 1.8% (more than CPI) makes it hard to justify making families pay for their doctor visits while financial corporations are reporting record profits.

Hell, if you want a solution to generating funding, tighten the loopholes and tax structures for financial corporations.

But the rich people and big companies trickle money down to us. We won't even notice the $5 when they get a richer.

Increase the top tax bracket by 0.1% and you could fund the entire nation's $5 doctor fees. Instead they expect the poor to pay 1% of their income. Go figure.

Err no. CPI is by how much the the Medicare levy should be increasing, year on year to keep things on even keel. The Levy was fixed at 1.5% of a person's taxable income for a long time, despite CPI increasing in those years. Over time, the Schedule Fee fell further and further behind what the service was actually worth, usually increased by 0% to 1.25% despite practice costs increasing. And if it is bulk billed, only 85% of the fee is payable to the practitioner (meaning the practice only received 85% of the fee increase anyway.)

I suppose you could argue the Levy has increased by 25% this year. I can say with 100% certainty that the Schedule Fee will not increase by 25%![/quote]




I don't believe in taxing our way to prosperity. Its a question of priorities. Believe it or not, Health is something like the fourth biggest expenditure, behind family handouts.

We pay an enormous amount of money for people to have babies and to have them looked after. I don't agree with this. Baby bonuses, Paid Parental Leave. Why do people suddenly need all these payments that previous generations didn't? Most people are in the workforce for several years before they have a baby- how about saving some money instead of pissing it up clubbing or travelling, or on clothes or a flash new car. Whose fault is it if you have no money when the baby comes along? Why do you need to be paid to have and look after YOUR baby? (and yes in Sweden women are literally being paid for the hours they spend looking after their baby)

Pensioners and health care card holders will be exempt.

Just to reiterate how ridiculous this decision is, this is a government which wants to increase the maternity leave threshold to $170,000 but expects everyone to start paying for their doctors visits.

Health might be the fourth biggest expenditure but given that it's a necessity for THE ENTIRE POPULACE it should be the single biggest.

Broken vows pile up as Coalition's pledge of 1 million new jobs refuted
Date
January 2, 2014
Read later
David Wroe

The Abbott government faces further pressure over broken promises with a new analysis showing it will fall well short of its pledge to create 1 million jobs over five years.

Despite Tony Abbott's repeated vows as opposition leader to ''under-promise and over-deliver'' in government, new parliamentary research based on the government's own economic forecasts indicates the Coalition will fall at least 200,000 jobs short.

The analysis, carried out by the Parliamentary Library at the request of Labor, was backed by a range of economists.

In the run-up to the election, Mr Abbott repeatedly vowed to create 1 million new jobs over five years, and 2 million over a decade, by scrapping the carbon and mining taxes, cutting red tape for business, and boosting productivity, among other measures.

Advertisement
By combining employment data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics with Treasury's jobs growth forecast in last month's mini-budget, the library calculated the Australian economy would add about 620,000 jobs over the next four years. Even allowing for a fifth year, the figures show the government will fall well short of 1 million new jobs.

The mini-budget, or midyear economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO), was the government's first major economic statement.

The analysis follows broken Coalition promises on school funding and the roll-out of the National Broadband Network, as well as hints at changes to paid parental leave, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Medicare. It also comes as the government battles the political fallout of job losses with the planned pull-out by Holden and lay-offs by SPC Ardmona.

Acting Treasurer Mathias Cormann stood by the government's jobs pledge, blaming Labor for the modest jobs growth forecast in the MYEFO.

''It is no secret that we inherited an economy growing below trend, rising unemployment, and a budget in very bad shape,'' he said. ''MYEFO is a reflection of that.''

But shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the shortfall looked set to become Mr Abbott's ''biggest broken promise''.

''We cannot continue to see the poor performance on jobs continue with mass lay-offs, particularly in manufacturing, as the government abandons any meaningful role in fostering innovation and the high-skills and high-wage jobs that come with that,'' he said.

Professor Bill Mitchell, head of the University of Newcastle's Centre of Full Employment and Equity, said the jobs promise was ''incredibly far-fetched''. He said the shortfall would be greater even than the Parliamentary Library's figures suggested because Treasury's employment forecasts were overly optimistic.

Employment growth over the past two years had been ''virtually flat'', he said. Deep cuts flagged by the government in its coming May budget would worsen the problem.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch chief economist Saul Eslake said the government would need real GDP growth to be 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent. ''Nobody is forecasting that,'' he said. And Shane Oliver, chief economist at AMP Capital, said the pledge was ''a bit of a stretch'', given Treasury's jobs growth forecast was fairly flat.

John Daley, chief executive officer of the Grattan Institute, said employment growth would depend largely on factors beyond the government's control, such as the global economy.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/broken-vows-pile-up-as-coalitions-pledge-of-1-million-new-jobs-refuted-20140101-3066n.html#ixzz2p9irA65J

Did anyone actually believe they were going to create a million jobs? I mean, it sounds like a policy that someone's just shouted out to distract from the pressure of another line of questioning.

According to the Australian Bureau of statistics there are 712,500 odd people unemployed in this country as of November. So they're essentially promising to eradicate unemployment.

People got told to belive what news Corp tells us to belive . Anything that liberals do is either covered up or its good for australia

Give the three quarter million unemployed/unemployable jobs, then there's a quarter million jobs still to fill, better start the boats again!

I agree and let's drop back cost of living back to 1970s levels where the norm was to be a single income household.

Also let's go back to the days when men were men and can beat their wife's up because they can .Also let's go back to the days when females weren't allowed to vote and not allowed to work

What? :lol:

Just doing a batfink ;)

Yep previous generations certainly were better than us :lol:

I wonder how many jobs would be created by legalizing gay marriage :-k

[youtube]91kdwxFsthI[/youtube]

Those sad rich people and multi-billion dollar companies. Woe is them. Why shouldn't they get tax breaks and freezes while ordinary people have to start paying money to see doctors.

PM Tony Abbott under fire over looming health bill surge

January 2, 2014

Jonathan Swan
National political reporter

Decisions made by Tony Abbott when he was health minister will soon cause a blowout in healthcare costs, dwarfing potential savings from a $6 fee for GP visits, a health workforce expert says.

As health minister in the Howard government, Mr Abbott oversaw a massive expansion of new medical schools, leading to an oversupply of graduating doctors, said Peter Brooks, former director of the Australian Health Workforce Institute and now a professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne.

Australia is expected to have 2811 superfluous doctors by 2025, according to projections in a 2012 report by the government body Health Workforce Australia. The figure assumes a modest 5 per cent increase in productivity in the healthcare system.

Advertisement
Professor Brooks said health lobby groups often say Australia will be short 2700 doctors by 2025, but the figure was misleading because it assumed no productivity gains would be made.

The boom in medical graduates would lead to a blowout in costs, with doctors already giving patients too many unnecessary procedures so they could earn a good living in Australia's fee-for-service system, Professor Brooks said.

At least $20 billion of ''low-value'' medical procedures were being done every year.

Professor Brooks said if Mr Abbott wanted a ''sustainable'' healthcare system he should fix these multibillion-dollar structural healthcare problems rather than ''fiddling'' with fees for GP visits.

The Medicare controversy began at the weekend with reports of a submission to the government's Commission of Audit by Mr Abbott's former health adviser, Terry Barnes. Mr Barnes said the government would save $750 million over four years by forcing bulk-billing patients to pay $6 to visit their GP for the first 12 visits a year.

A spokeswoman for Mr Abbott said the Coalition ''won't be commenting on speculation around what the Commission of Audit may or may not recommend''.

''Labor spent a lot of money on creating huge health bureaucracies,'' she said. ''The Coalition government is committed to directing more of that money back to delivering and improving front-line services for patients.''

Professor Brooks said debate over the $6 fee was obscuring a more important debate over healthcare costs.

Australian governments had become ''doctor obsessed'', ignoring evidence that many tasks performed by doctors could be given to other professionals such as pharmacists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The healthcare system is plagued by waste, according to the CareTrack study published in 2012, with patients getting appropriate care in only 57 per cent of visits to doctors.

Another study published in 2012, led by Adam Elshaug from the Menzies Centre for Health Policy, identified 156 ''low-value'' medical services. Questionable, expensive procedures cited included arthroscopic surgery for knee osteoarthritis, prostatectomy for early-stage prostate cancer, upper airway surgery for sleep apnoea and acupuncture for depression.

In recent years federal governments have allowed new medical schools to open at Deakin University in Victoria, Bond, James Cook and Griffith universities in Queensland, Notre Dame in Western Australia and NSW, and New England, Western Sydney and Wollongong universities in NSW.

Health Workforce Australia reports that in 2003, 1889 students began medical degrees. By 2012 there were 3686 students beginning medicine studies.

The medical education peak body, Medical Deans Australia, says medical graduates more than doubled between 1996 and 2012, excluding international students.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pm-tony-abbott-under-fire-over-looming-health-bill-surge-20140101-3066o.html#ixzz2pFTrhWiY

http://sallymcmanus.net/?p=29

Granted it was written by a prominent union member and is a bit biased, but it raises some valid points.

This one is quality:



It's basically Ron Swanson in real life.

:roll: :roll:

I became a father in 1996, not 1970. I was 26 years old.

Thats' 1996, not 1970 if you missed it the first time.

Did not receive single cent when my son was born, and I think we received about $250 in Family Payment PER YEAR.

Its funny how FOR *YOUR* generation life is oh so, so so much harder..

...pay your own kids fuckin' way, I did.. and still do. I have no issue, its *MY* kid afterall, *MY* responsibility

Its Ok, we'll revisit things in 10-15 years, see where you are then, see if you'll still think the same way..

Let's put this into context:
- since 1960 the average annual individual salary has gone up just over 400%
- the average house price has gone up 1050%
- inflation has gone up 687%
- and in the mid 90's Australia's population was in negative growth, experiencing fewer births than any time in the country's history. Hence the introduction of child bonuses.
- So that's a total increase in living of over 1700% compared to an increase in income of 400%

Tell me again how much easier Gen Y has it.

I don't think you can blame Gen X for your choice of career that most people stop doing in their teens in favour of a real job that is secure and pays well enough where they can afford a house.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
Mate I earn a good salary and we are currently getting by on one income while my wife stays home to look after our young daughter. I just don't buy into this bullshit that the situation is the same now as it was in 1996.

It started to ramp up in the 90s but dual income households are the norm now so guess what? People have more money and due to the fact that they can spend, tends to drive up prices on things like housing (which I believe you've reaped significant benefits from).

If the government is pro-population growth (a completely different debate, I'm personally more pro-population growth through migration than lots more births) they need to either:
1. discourage dual income families. Less people working and therefore less economic stimulus which will never happen
2. provide incentive to those working to have a period of time out of the workforce which is what their doing

I don't know Afroman's personal situation clearly but those facts are correct.

That's not to say that Gen X people had it easy, no one ever does. You tend to need the most money when you're younger but you earn the most when you're older. That's life unfortunately.