Budget Night 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

Redalert said:
Government needs to function on both levels though, there's no point in adopting social policies which are economically unsustainable. That's the current dilemma that the government has, there's a structural deficit which needs to be reduced and to do that they either have to a) increase taxation or b) reduce spending. Whatever they decide it will probably be unpopular because no one likes either of those alternatives, but at some point a government (Labor or the Coalition) has to address the growing cost of health and education.
Click to expand...
They are reducing spending on those at the lower end of the scale, while largely letting the rich off.

You may be fine with such ideology, I'm not.
 
sherb said:
They are reducing spending on those at the lower end of the scale, while largely letting the rich off.

You may be fine with such ideology, I'm not.
Click to expand...

I'm not supporting the ideology behind it, I'm supporting the idea of budget cutbacks and reducing a deficit which isn't viable in the longer term. I agree that they need to reform super, its a tax loophole and it needs to be addressed because its inconsistent with the progressive nature of our tax system.

Dont be a lemon said:
The changes to healthcare and unemployment aren't necessary. They're simply changes they want to do as right wingers.
Click to expand...

Healthcare expenditure needs to be reduced or funded through other means, I'd support the co-payment if it actually contributed to the cost of healthcare rather than the medical research fund.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Redalert said:
I'm not supporting the ideology behind it, I'm supporting the idea of budget cutbacks and reducing a deficit which isn't viable in the longer term. I agree that they need to reform super, its a tax loophole and it needs to be addressed because its inconsistent with the progressive nature of our tax system.



Healthcare expenditure needs to be reduced or funded through other means, I'd support the co-payment if it actually contributed to the cost of healthcare rather than the medical research fund.
Click to expand...
You do do you?


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...t-you-up-to-1000/story-fni0cqcu-1226952246802

Hidden Medicare changes in Federal Budget: Medical scans could cost you up to $1,000

PATIENTS will have to pay up to $1,000 upfront to get medical imaging such as CAT scans, MRIs and X-rays as a result of a budget nasty that doctors fear could delay diagnosis.

And even after they get a Medicare rebate back the out of pocket costs patients face for scans could be more than $160, not the $7 implied in the budget.

Diagnostic Imaging Association CEO Pattie Beerens says radiologists fear “patients may be put off imaging if the costs are too high”.

Australian Medical Association president Dr Brian Owler says if a woman with a breast lump delays a scan because of the cost and the lump turns out to be malignant “that could be the difference between life and death”.

Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association CEO Pattie Beerens says this means general patients should have to pay $90 upfront for an x-ray, $380 for a CAT scan, up to $160 for a mammogram and up to $190 for an ultrasound.

A PET scan will cost over $1,000 upfront.

Patients who need to pay more than $7 will have to get the rebate from Medicare which will not cover the full cost of the scan leaving them with an out of pocket expense of up to $160 for a scan.
Click to expand...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...t-you-up-to-1000/story-fni0cqcu-1226952246802

7$ my ass, I wonder how many deaths this will contribute to.
 
Joe Hockey gave an example that workers work a month to pay for those on welfare. How long do they have to work to pay for off-shore detention and propping up the economy of PNG and Nauru or the increase in defense spending, money that will be awarded to overseas companies?
 
Maggie5 said:
Joe Hockey gave an example that workers work a month to pay for those on welfare. How long do they have to work to pay for off-shore detention and propping up the economy of PNG and Nauru or the increase in defense spending, money that will be awarded to overseas companies?
Click to expand...

Money spent on the Pacific solution during the Howard era - around one billion dollars

Money spent on dealing with asylum seekers since 2007 - greater than 10 billion (closer to 15 billion by now)
 
midorigreenwood said:
billions but the point is you're pointing the finger at the wrong party if you're angry about the cost blowouts on this issue.

There was very few asylum seekers in detention before Labor made their policy stuff ups.

The same billions would be spent if Labor had won the election.
Click to expand...
You obviously have not read my posts nor understand my position, not pointing the finger at LNP, both parties should be ashamed of off-shore processing.
 
Maggie5 said:
You obviously have not read my posts nor understand my position, not pointing the finger at LNP, both parties should be ashamed of off-shore processing.
Click to expand...

Offshore processing isn't the reason for the cost blowouts. Otherwise it would be a comparable hit to the budget during the Howard era.

You're making an economic argument and then moving the goal posts with moralising.

Otherwise the cheapest option of all is simply to turn back boats.

Noone stuck in australian detention centres at all. No funding of corruption in PNG and Nauru.
 
If they processed them on shore (or worse, just let them in), the costs would be significantly higher anyway.

Settling 10,000/year whose only quality is that they paid someone to get them here (and usually stay on welfare long term) got here costs a lot more than selecting 10,000 from refugee camps for their attitude/skills/language/etc who are far more likely to become productive members of society (less welfare, more taxes).

Of course, the bleeding hearts try not to allow that those arriving by boat are displacing other (usually poorer & worse off) refugees in their comparisons.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

telsor said:
Of course, the bleeding hearts try not to allow that those arriving by boat are displacing other (usually poorer & worse off) refugees in their comparisons.
Click to expand...
Derogatory and ignorant term for those with compassion. Well done to you.
 
telsor said:
for those with misplaced compassion.
Click to expand...
Keep at it, hopefully you will learn what it's like to have a compassionate and caring side one day.

In the meantime, try not to shoot derogatory barbs towards those who already have that trait.
 
sherb said:
Keep at it, hopefully you will learn what it's like to have a compassionate and caring side one day.

In the meantime, try not to shoot derogatory barbs towards those who already have that trait.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the barb of saying I lack compassion?

RUNVS said:
Something tells me you are not a particularly compassionate person.
Click to expand...


The same number are going to be helped either way, so who do you help?

People who are living in camps, with bare survival levels of food and shelter, or those who have the money to fly to Indonesia and pay a smuggler to ship them across to Australia?

I'm compassionate enough, but I'm also rational enough to want to direct the help than is available to those who need it most.
 
telsor said:
As opposed to the barb of saying I lack compassion?
Click to expand...
Barb? It's a fair assessment based on what you posted.

People care? Oh, they must be bleeding hearts............:rolleyes:
 
sherb said:
Barb? It's a fair assessment based on what you posted.

People care? Oh, they must be bleeding hearts............:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Interesting that people draw the line on "bleeding heart" when I'm sure many on this board have called politicians worse. See the juvenile Abbott gaffe thread.

I think Telsor is pointing out the lack of rationality on the issue by some which is fair enough.
 
midorigreenwood said:
Interesting that people draw the line on "bleeding heart" when I'm sure many on this board have called politicians worse.

I think Telsor is pointing out the lack of rationality on the issue by some which is fair enough.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out, "bleeding heart" is a derogatory term directly pointed at people who care and show compassion.

It says a lot about the people using the term that they find those qualities in people to be something worth deriding.
 
midorigreenwood said:
This is bigfooty

grow a pair? ;)
Click to expand...
You don't think I have been around BigFooty long enough to be able to make a comment or assessment without getting my knickers in a knot?

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

anchor man
The Nightly
Replies
8
Views
561
anchor man
anchor man
#23 Hill
The Budget
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
3K
NonPhixion
NonPhixion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top