Abbott to sell Medibank Private

[Maggie5]

Why exactly is it a bad asset?

You beat me to it.
Something that stinks and nobody wants to buy?

 

[Maggie5]

I disagree. Should definitely be sold. There are good assets to sell and bad assets to sell. I think the government is rather idiotic to want to sell electricity and water assets. However there is no need for a government to own an organisation when there is a strong market out there.

I'm not too fussed on what they use the money on. It's going to be wasted anyway

I am not an accountant but I would have that it you owned something that was bad it would be a liability or a tax lurk.

 

[Sanders]

Still no need to sell. However when they do, they should also make it non compulsory and put the majority of the money into fixing the public health system.

Easy fix to sell as haven't decent policies without selling assets.

Why? All public money is public money

Why make silly restriction promises to politically appease some half wits?

 

[Extreme_Bandit]

Why exactly is it a bad asset?

Sorry should have probably explained that. A bad asset for a government is an asset that they should not own. A government should only be there to provide services that cannot be reliably provided by the private sector. In this case private health cover can and has been provided by the private sector. Therefore it is a bad asset.

Electricity and water services are good assets. Private sector will always have profits and shareholders first. You cannot have our essential services such as water and electricity handled in this manner. Having said that, if we had competing electricity grids then depending on the circumstances it could make sense to sell these assets.

Slightly off topic. The reasons mentioned above are why it's bad that we have Telstra owning the copper network. No competing networks mean that we as consumers are being screwed over. Until we have competing networks, essential broadband infrastructure should be owned by the government.

 

[Maggie5]

Why? All public money is public money

Why make silly restriction promises to politically appease some half wits?

Not silly, members (not the public) built up this fund - public health system under enormous pressure, private health unaffordable for many.
Why not spend some of the money into the same sector?
Libs were supposed to be economic geniuses, haven't seen any example to date. What will happen when there are no more assets to sell?

 

[sherb]

Eventually governments (of both persuasions) are going to run out of assets to sell.

What's their approach going to be then?

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Sorry should have probably explained that. A bad asset for a government is an asset that they should not own. A government should only be there to provide services that cannot be reliably provided by the private sector. In this case private health cover can and has been provided by the private sector. Therefore it is a bad asset.

Electricity and water services are good assets. Private sector will always have profits and shareholders first. You cannot have our essential services such as water and electricity handled in this manner. Having said that, if we had competing electricity grids then depending on the circumstances it could make sense to sell these assets.

Slightly off topic. The reasons mentioned above are why it's bad that we have Telstra owning the copper network. No competing networks mean that we as consumers are being screwed over. Until we have competing networks, essential broadband infrastructure should be owned by the government.

So your stance on the issue is purely ideological

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Im not sure why the feds need to own a company like that in the first place. There are hundreds of profit and non profit insurers.

Because it's making money, which means they don't have to tax as much and, as you say, there are 100s of competitors so it isn't effecting competition. Why would you sell it?

 

[Cap]

Because it's making money, which means they don't have to tax as much; and, as you say, there are 100s of competitors so it isn't effecting competition. Why would you sell it?

To invest into something that boosts economic activity at a great return.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

To invest into something that boosts economic activity at a great return.

Like Medibank?

 

[Cap]

Like Medibank?

Look I get it. You don't like the idea.

simply sniping people who are pro the idea is a little pathetic.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Look I get it. You don't like the idea.

simply sniping people who are pro the idea is a little pathetic.

Sniping? What are you on about? Don't be annoyed at me when you successfully and effectively argued against yourself.

 

[Taylor]

Eventually governments (of both persuasions) are going to run out of assets to sell.

What's their approach going to be then?

Hopefully they will be out of debt and own the NBN too.

 

[Cap]

Sniping? What are you on about? Don't be annoyed at me when you successfully and effectively argued against yourself.

I didn't sucessfully and effectively argue against my self.

As I said, the justification for selling medibank private was to invest it back into something that provides a greater economic return

you at your childish best chimed in with 'what like medibank private'

 

[Cap]

Eventually governments (of both persuasions) are going to run out of assets to sell.

What's their approach going to be then?

that might be the time we finally get some real change? maybe completing a tax review and them implementing the outcome rather than cherry picking the bits which will get you votes (that wasn't a dig at your political persuasion as I don't know what it is, but both sides are equally as guilty of this)

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

To invest into something that boosts economic activity at a great return.

I didn't sucessfully and effectively argue against my self.

As I said, the justification for selling medibank private was to invest it back into something that provides a greater economic return

you at your childish best chimed in with 'what like medibank private'

Oh so now you're saying "greater" return.

I'm not being childish. I was pointing out that Medibank already has a great return. Which it does. You felt cornered and accused me of 'sniping' and then of being 'childish'. Which action is more childish?

 

[Taylor]

Is the return better than the value that could be stripped from debt?

 

[Cap]

Oh so now you're saying "greater" return.

I'm not being childish. I was pointing out that Medibank already has a great return. Which it does. You felt cornered and accused me of 'sniping' and then of being 'childish'. Which action is more childish?

I admit, I made a typo on my phone, but what I was trying to say was pretty ******* obvious to someone without an agenda.

sure it makes a good return, but if the money is utilised correctly and provides a greater economic return then it has been sucessful as the revenue lost from the sale of Medibank will be made up, plus more in revenue from the source that benefit.

weather that happens is going to be big question.

I realise that you are going to bang on about this for the next 3 years, so why don't you just wait to have something tangible to critise them on, i.e the investments were a dud before you get worked up.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Is the return better than the value that could be stripped from debt?

On 774 this morning it was said they return $400m/year, but Jon Faine corrected that to $250m I think. Apparently there was a special dividende of $300m over the last 2 years, so that would explain the confusion. It it's sold for the rumoured $4billion, then that amount would be returned within the space of 8 years, if not sooner should they continue to give out special dividends. Not exactly a long-term benefit.

I admit, I made a typo on my phone, but what I was trying to say was pretty ******* obvious to someone without an agenda.

sure it makes a good return, but if the money is utilised correctly and provides a greater economic return then it has been sucessful as the revenue lost from the sale of Medibank will be made up, plus more in revenue from the source that benefit.

weather that happens is going to be big question.

I realise that you are going to bang on about this for the next 3 years, so why don't you just wait to have something tangible to critise them on, i.e the investments were a dud before you get worked up.

I'm the one with an agenda, am I? So says the person who wants to sell Medibank so the money can be invested in "something that provides a greater economic return" than an already very profitable business. If you have this "something" in mind, perhaps you should do it yourself? If you can return over 12.5% profit every year, I'm sure a bank would happily give you the cash. Or you could tell the government about this "something" because then they could do both things and generate more profits and the debt will be paid back quicker.

You are the ideologue here, not me. You're relying on "typos" and attempts at character assasination to win your argument. I'm just repeating your words back to you and making small logical conclusions from them. What an appalling "agenda"!

 

[Cap]

On 774 this morning it was said they return $400m/year, but Jon Faine corrected that to $250m I think. Apparently there was a special dividende of $300m over the last 2 years, so that would explain the confusion. It it's sold for the rumoured $4billion, then that amount would be returned within the space of 8 years, if not sooner should they continue to give out special dividends. Not exactly a long-term benefit.

I'm the one with an agenda, am I? So says the person who wants to sell Medibank so the money can be invested in "something that provides a greater economic return" than an already very profitable business. If you have this "something" in mind, perhaps you should do it yourself? If you can return over 12.5% profit every year, I'm sure a bank would happily give you the cash. Or you could tell the government about this "something" because then they could do both things and generate more profits and the debt will be paid back quicker.

You are the ideologue here, not me. You're relying on "typos" and attempts at character assasination to win your argument. I'm just repeating your words back to you and making small logical conclusions from them. What an appalling "agenda"!

you crack me up.

yes it is a profitable business, but that doesn't make it the best use of taxpayers funds.

whats your stance?

 

[Maggie5]

I didn't sucessfully and effectively argue against my self.

As I said, the justification for selling medibank private was to invest it back into something that provides a greater economic return

you at your childish best chimed in with 'what like medibank private'

Can you give me a couple of examples that return $400 million plus without any effort?

 

[Cap]

Can you give me a couple of examples that return $400 million plus without any effort?

Effort isn't relevant here.

 

[Maggie5]

Effort isn't relevant here.

Okay, can you please give me an example of where they can earn $200-400 million per year which is the current return of Medibank..

 

[Cap]

Okay, can you please give me an example of where they can earn $200-400 million per year which is the current return of Medibank..

If you can be bothered going to infrastructure australia reports there are plenty of infrastructure projects supplying a return at 8 to 1
So for every $1 invested the economy gets $8 out.

There are a few which are more than that. Due to our infrastructure investment over the decades being below par.

 

[Sanders]

Not silly, members (not the public) built up this fund - public health system under enormous pressure, private health unaffordable for many.
Why not spend some of the money into the same sector?
Libs were supposed to be economic geniuses, haven't seen any example to date. What will happen when there are no more assets to sell?

Members money? You mean customers money which creates equity in a public owned corporate

Its public money.