I can only use history to support my stance that Labor cannot manage the economy. The Lib's were fortunate in that they were able to learn from the mistakes of Hawk and Keating. No doubt the current Labor team has learnt from those mistakes too and now from the success of the Liberal's. So should Labor win power, I doubt the economy would suffer - but history still tells a tale..KoichCPA said:
As I posted earlier, there's only one surgery in my area that bulk bills, and you need to make an appointment there. As it's the only one that bulk bills, you have to make an appointment days in advance because everyone goes there. So if you're sick, you have to go the hospital and wait hours and hours for treatment unless you want to pay $40 to see a doctor, which I can't always afford to do. There was another bulk billing surgery, but they stopped doing it last year sometime.Sydo said:
The main issue with the private/public schools funding argument isn't really with your regular private school like the local Catholic or independent school. It's really about the private elite schools like Knox Grammar, The King's School, Newington College, etc. No one except multi-millionaires can afford to send their child to a school like that, and yet they still receive millions from the Federal government so they can upgrade their shooting ranges and polo fields and add a wing to their conservatories. Why should they get our tax money for that? Besides which, Howard wants to increase HECS. Now, I actually supported the idea of HECS when it was introduced, despite most of my uni colleagues campaigning against it on the grounds that education should be free (ironically, most of whom came from fairly well-to-do familes who'd sent them to private schools), on the grounds that I believed that a University education was a privilege, not a right, and therefore should be paid for. But the HECS level on some courses is getting so high now that not only has Uni become a privelege, it's a privelege for the priveleged.Sydo said:
My only problem with what you've said here is 'Why should they get our tax money'. Well, it is 'their' tax money too. As multi-millionaires they not only pay a higer percentage in tax, but a higher percentage on a higher amount. I forget the exact amount, but something like the top 5% of Australian high-earners create 70% of all income tax. Is it really unfair to give a little back? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm just asking because Im unsure of the answer.Goreripper said:
That's true. And it's time it was stopped. If they didn't give so much money to schools that don't need, they can give more to those that do, and put in some towards free health care for the elderly.Sydo said:
I can see that being a popular political move.phlogiston said:
Regardless of what they're for, no one likes paying more tax, and it's not like we don't already pay enough.
I'm sure there is, and I agree.phlogiston said:
I know. That's because people are greedy capitalist pigs! Down with the system! Viva la revolution!Goreripper said:I can see that being a popular political move.
That's it.Goreripper said:
I've got private health care. One of the cheaper ones, and I'm not really sure what it covers. I only got it because of the decrease rebates over 30 years old and all that. There should *definately* be incentives for people to do so if they are able to, but people shouldn't be disadvantaged because they can't.Sydo said:
But it is at the expense of lower income earners. Several years ago now, the government got pressured by the private health insurance industry because no one was joining up anymore. The government decided to fix this by subsidising a private health insurance incentive to offer discounts to people who signed up before they turned 30. If you signed up before you turned 30, you got cheaper rates and premiums, all subsidised by the government. Despite this, millions of people still didn't sign up because a) they still couldn't afford it, b) they were too old, or c) Medicare was looking after them pretty well, thanks. But guess where the funding for the subsidy came from? The Medicare budget. So the government was taking money away from the public health fund to subsidise the private health industry. Now, years later, people are finding that the cheap health insurance they bought back then is now costing too much, especially if they've had to upgrade to include wives or kids, and the packages they signed up for still have a gap. And the lower income earners who couldn't afford private health care in the first place are now suffering because the public system has been eroded.Sydo said:
That actually sounds good.phlogiston said:
