10th Dec 2014

GP co-payment ‘dumped’

GP co-payment ‘dumped’
Debbie McTaggart

The $7 GP co-payment, key legislation which the government has struggled to pass in the Senate, has been 'dumped'. But GPs may still be able to charge to cover the proposed reduction in the Medicare rebate.

First announced in the May Federal Budget, the $7 GP co-payment, to apply to anyone wishing to see a doctor, but capped at 10 visits for concession card holders and children, faced immediate opposition from all sectors of the community. Having failed to gain agreement in the Senate, the government has altered the conditions under which a fee can be charged.

The new proposal will allow GPs to charge $5 per visit to cover the reduction in the Medicare rebate they will receive for patients. The rebate paid to doctors is to be reduced from $37 to $32 to enable the government to fund its proposed Medical Research Future Fund. Doctors who wish to charge this fee must provide consultations of at least 10 minutes. Children under 16, pensioners, veterans and those in nursing homes and aged care facilities will not be charged the discretionary fee.

In announcing the change, Mr Abbott said, “This is a question for the doctors, and what we're saying to the doctors is for adults who aren't on concession cards, we don't think it's unreasonable for you to charge a co-payment". The government’s Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) has been considering the change for some weeks, with Cabinet giving approval yesterday, however, the package does still need to pass through the Senate. "We had good policy in the first place ... we've got better policy now, and what we've seen here is, I think, an intelligent and sophisticated response from the Minister, from the ERC, from the Cabinet, from the Government more generally, to the quite reasonable observations of the backbench and the community and that's the glory of our system," said Tony Abbott.



Opposition leader Bill Shorten does not endorse the altered proposal, saying, "Tony Abbott today has tried to pretend that his GP tax is dead, but sadly for Australians his GP tax is still very much alive. The Abbott Government is still doing exactly what it is doing with the petrol tax, they are sneaking around the Parliament to put a tax on going to the doctor. This is a GP tax which Tony Abbott can't bring through the front door, so he'll bring it through the back door.”

Meanwhile, Clive Palmer believes the Palmer United Party is responsible, in part at least, for the government’s change, saying, "Prime Minister Tony Abbott has succumbed to our rationale and dropped the co-payment".

Read more at ABC.net.au

Watch the Channel 7 report below

Opinion: Gone but not forgotten

The GP co-payment may have gone for now, but moves to allow doctors to charge $5 for a visit may still deter people from seeking medical assistance.

In the move to change the GP co-payment to something which will be accepted by Parliament, the government is essentially setting doctors up to be the ‘bad guys’. What GP isn’t going to charge the extra $5 he or she can to cover the loss in revenue forced by a reduction in the Medicare rebate? Many GPs already charge over and above the Medicare rebate they receive, with some patients having to pay in excess of $30 in out-of-pocket expenses for a consultation.

Creating a Medical Research Future Fund is all well and good, but if people can’t afford to see their GPs to access the breakthrough medical treatments, what’s the point?

Making changes to Medicare to ensure Australia has a sustainable health care system able to cope with the nation’s changing health needs is the right thing to do. But creating a Medical Research Future Fund when access to general health care in rural areas is difficult, and there is growing waiting list for much-needed operations and specialist medical services is simply egotistical and foolish.

Do you agree? Should the money withheld from GPs still be used to create a Medical Research Future Fund? Is asking GPs to charge patients the correct way to collect additional revenue? Do you think it will result in fewer GPs offering bulk-billing services?





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
disillusioned
10th Dec 2014
10:06am
Well Mr Abbott has just dug himself into an even deeper hole with this change to the co payment. He hasn't backed down because he is going to recoup as much money with this new plan as he would have with the $7 co pay.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:59am
He didn't back down, disillusioned,
because the country's finances could not afford
him to.
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:37pm
This is not a backdown, except insofar as it might only cost the average punter $5 to visit the doctor instead of $7. It's just a change of angle of attack, shifting the direct source of the GP tax to the GP. Nearly all of them will pass it straight on. Given that rebate rates have been more or less static for years, the average GP can't afford to absorb the rebate reduction. And I wouldn't take the "exemptions" too seriously, given the government's track record.
jaker
11th Dec 2014
8:28am
Government by opinion poll, where will this rabble lead us!
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:24pm
You are correct disillusioned. You only have to listen to all manner of talkback tp realise that Abbott and his government are going to lose the next election. That is what should happen when any candidate intentionally lies before the election and then practices class warfare after being elected.
The normal government sponsored trolls are at it again disillusioned. 'miss aisle' also goes by the name of 'frank' and a number of other aliases. Their posts are all the same: talking up the most corrupt government I can ever recall....all to no avail.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
10:09am
If you don't think you are being lied to AGAIN then what hope does the nation have. it is what it has always been: a con game designed to get people to have confidence in a pack of (loaded) cards.
Grateful
10th Dec 2014
10:09am
It won't get passed by the Senate!!! Period.
Cancel Health Benefit Cards for those that are NOT NEEDING government support. Far too many very well off people getting government support!!! What a disgrace.
Greed is NOT good!!!
Polly Esther
10th Dec 2014
10:40am
Grateful-- You are right. You are correct. Oh joy to the world. So please relax people, or you will need to visit the quack. And yes, greed is not only NOT good but is also a very rude word.
Grateful
10th Dec 2014
3:08pm
I liked the way that the PM said it just goes to show that this government listens to the people and is flexible enough to make changes.
Now, he was in opposition for over 6 years and in government for 16 months on top of that. Why has it taken him 88 months to finally "listen to the people", yet, he still hasn't "heard" them, because they won't want his new plan either.
Sounding more like a leader of the opposition by the day.
Love to be a fly on the wall when Julie comes back from Peru and meets up with Tony and Peta!!!
MITZY
11th Dec 2014
10:14am
Agree Grateful: Too many well-off people getting government support. However, when will it end? I can remember the kerfuffle when Billy (BigEars) McMahon retired as PM and went on the pension (i.e. our pension) and of course he would have had his own government pension and perks too which would have been quite generous at the time compared to the average Joe.
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
10:10am
Sneaky Blighters!!!!!
However, that is just what we have come to expect from them!
CRIMINALS & THIEVES ARE MORE HONEST
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:42am
Go to them (criminals & thieves) for your benefits/pension then Patriot,
Get right away from the govt. if you detest them so much !
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
12:05pm
miss aisle - let me enlighten you. We don't go to criminals and thieves for our Entitlements.... they are ours for the taking.... thank you for coming.

When these self-same thieves and criminals set about impinging on our Entitlements without proper reason ... it is THEY who are coming AT us - not the other way around.

I recall NOBODY winding up a campaign to increase payments for health or pensions........ or any other of the issues this government is seeking to overturn in their half-baked and ham-handed way.

Government do not control the people - the people control governments, and this attitude that the guv has all rights an you none is to vanish immediately.

Straighten out your thinking and strop speaking in half sentences....
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:14pm
miss aisle do us all a favour find that bridge.
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
12:18pm
Miss Alsie,
You do not seem to be aware that, when the age pension was introduced, legislation was passed to collect more taxes from ME (and all other TaxPayers) so that, when I reached the Pre-Determined age I was ENTITLED to collect the money that MY Government had collected from ME and (supposedly) so wisely invested to ensure that it was to multiply and was available to pay MY & OTHER's age pension.

So The Grappler is correct, The Age pension is NOT just a Benefit granted by the GODS in CANBERRA" it is my ENTITLEMENT as it is MY MONEY which was saved for ME by MY SERVANTS in Canberra.
If you fail to believe this, just peruse the Hansdard which relates to the Government sessions that took place during that era!
To Conclude, I only DETEST OUR Government because they are NOT enacting the "WILL of the Australian PEOPLE" as required by the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION.
SUCH AN ACT IS MUTINY and should carry the appropriate sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:29pm
and yes miss aisle he shouted as you seem to be hard of hearing anyone's view other than your own. Have you found that bridge yet?
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
12:54pm
Patriot has it in a nutshell. We've all contributed to that fund - and that fund has been thrown away by successive governments of fools who have no understanding of what their job and their duty is, and not even the faintest conception of what actually took place to set these Entitlements in place.

Bland comments such as 'the age of entitlement is over'! mean nothing in contrast to the reality that an Earned Entitlement, bought and paid for, is totally alien to some unwarranted and unspecified entitlement..... not even on the same planet....

Capisce?

Please - no more talk of bridges.. the poor girl obviously suffers enough already .. miss aisle isn't Ms Credlin or a henchperson is she?.... has the same hallmarks....
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
1:01pm
Might I add:- It is WAY past midnight for having such things allocated into sovereign funds - one for each issue that cash is drawn from the public to cover - and not into the slush fund labeled 'consolidated revenue' - a wonderful pie-in-the-sky where it looks like there is unlimited money available for every wet dream - then suddenly there is none for the real hard issues such as paying the poor and paying pensions when they fall due.

I,for one, am sick and tired of some amorphous slush fund being used to cater to all sorts of fanciful ideas and then being told the till for the necessities is bare.

Time for some solid fiscal management.... these fools want to spend $10m to find out why the air warfare destroyers are overdue and over cost - something a public servant on the spot could tell them in five minutes at $30 an hour... and in reality will do when asked by some dolled-up 'commission of audit' or similar.... to fund some mates to a nice holiday.....
trood
10th Dec 2014
2:06pm
Miss Aisle needs to find a bridge to jump off
KSS
10th Dec 2014
2:45pm
Trood, your comment is appalling! You may not agree with Miss Aisle, but exhorting someone to kill themselves is way beyond disagreement. It is the very thing that organisations such as Beyond Blue and Headspace are fighting all over the internet. You should be ashamed.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
4:28pm
I've definitely found a bridge over troubled waters,
where a few people criticize every idea put out by the govt.

People who obviously haven't got any big problems -
as all they're capable of doing
is to pick one small item & blow it out of all proportion.
Do you realize how pathetic you sound - grappler, kato ?
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
4:39pm
Come off your high horse, patriot.
Seeing you detested the govt. with such passion,
thought the comment was appropriate !

Of course, just to be stupid, you & grappler, kato
take it literally.
Anyone who takes that comment literally,
is unable to reason properly.
Luchar
10th Dec 2014
4:59pm
I never cease to be amazed by the greed and selfishness of those who continually cry, "I paid my taxes so I am entitled to my free handouts."

I paid my taxes so that the government would have enough money to educate my children, to build hospitals and train doctors to care for my health, to provide the infrastructure that made my daily life easier, that provided for the safety and security of my country.

During my working life I also paid into a superannuation fund which now provides for some 95% of my needs if I budget carefully. I am sickened by the whingers who gladly collected the $900 cheques handed out by Rudd, requiring no greater effort from recipients than the effort needed to put out their greedy hands. With the country now in a mess thanks to the six years of Labor government those who gladly accepted their $900 for doing nothing now cry foul because they are asked to give a little of it back to help clean up the mess so our children and grandchildren can enjoy the country we used to have before R-G-R.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
5:09pm
Absolutely Luchar,
the attitudes of some people -
"I need, I want.. & I'll take......
But if that govt. giving stops
I'll get angry & shout & complain!"
BobK
10th Dec 2014
5:12pm
Dear Patriot,
I understan you are upset, but I think you have got one thing wrong. The money that IS yours, is the money YOU have in your super. The money we get from Centrelink (not only pensions, but every dollar that comes through Centrelink), is money collected from taxpayers, and paid to us, pensioners. That's the whole problem: we work all our lives, and pay taxes - but those taxes are not 'invested' by 'our servants' on 'our behalf', as you thought they were. One feels cheated, that after spending life paying taxes, one gets so little back.

And just like your taxes, and mine, in our working days, went to pay for all sorts of benefits and WERE NOT INVESTED on our behalf, so too today's taxpayers pay for the benefits we now receive, and are not invested on their behalf. We were lucky before that government did not borrow money to pay our entitlements. On the contrary, it actually not only repaid those 90 Billion dollars of Keating debt, it even save some money for the rainy days - but that was under Howard and Costello, before the Rudd-Gillard vandals conned nation to elect them and wasted all those savings shortly afterwards. Now we have more than enough debt, nothing to show for it, and when Abbott tries to fix the problems, Willie Shorten is stopping in the Senate even those savings measures he himself promised before elections! In which of Australia's interests is that?
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:24pm
Nope - all wrong. Since 1947 and with a mega increase during the Whitlam years, increased taxes have been taken to cover social security... sorry to explain to you, but that includes pensions and unemployment.

I accept my Entitlement, thank you, and it is not at the whim of the government of the day. their failure to handle this correctly is something they need to address in ways other than taking from me - again....
Paddles
11th Dec 2014
10:57am
Patriot

Are you sure that you are not channeling Mussitate? Your political bent is very similar and your use of upper case is a dead giveaway.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
1:14pm
Paddles,
Thanks for asking, it provides the opportunity to "vent" something about Mussitate that has "Stuck in my gut" for a long time.
No I'm NOT channeling Mussitate. Some identities on this form seem to have made certain that he was insulted enough to (unfortunately) not post anymore.
You're right, I have done similar research and therefore have reached similar conclusions. I believe that I personally received some of the same treatment!
The "Proof is in the reasearch & an open mind".
I believe (guess) that neither of us was born in Australia but migrated here in order to participate in the formation/maintenance of a Freer place to live and raise our family.
I believe, we're both AUSTRALIANS by CHOICE rather than by accident which - probably & possibly - makes us very protective & patriotic towards retaining/gaining the freedom ideals that this country once stood for.
I - personally - have seen much erosion of these freedoms in the 45 years that I have "called Australia HOME".

I selected Australia to migrate to because:
1 It had the smallest - but most efficient - public Service of any country in the world
2 It was relatively free & not controlled by the silly & useless laws
3 It's taxation was about the lowest of any other country in the world.
4 It - because of the above items - was the most prosperous country in the world with a very bright future.

I think we - unfortunately - can forget all that now! We're in there with the rest of the GLOBAL MOB. Such whilst we are still better off than most though!

As I hope you.ve noticed, I may not agree with some of the ideas presented on this forum. However, I will fight to my last drop of blood for those people to express these opinions.
Insults are not initiated. However they will meet with fierce retaliation!
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
2:04pm
Whilst I have not felt the "BOOT" of "total control" on my neck (like I believe Mussitate has), I was born close enough to observe it & have much hatred for it.
"Total control" does not have to be in the form of communism. That era is now past.
It currently happens via insiduous infiltration of our communities & societies & "Slow Programming" via the media.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
3:04pm
miss aisle,
I am happy to deal with serious remarks!
However, if you want to "Horse Around", please go elsewhere and "Leave me alone".
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
10:33am
You're not happy to deal with any remarks that prove your wrong!
Who's horsing around?
You don't have to read my remarks
if they upset you so much !
Kato
12th Dec 2014
2:51pm
Stupid there you go again.you take everything laterally.
Patriot
12th Dec 2014
3:51pm
Happy to be proven wrong. In Fact, if correct facts are delivered, I learn something!!!
Just give me the "Well Researched" facts rather than emotive arguments
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
7:50pm
Good to see that you've toned down a bit, patriot...
You were ready to blow an artery earlier !
Frank
15th Dec 2014
8:02am
miss aisle, the reason they are so upset, is not because of their so called 'entitlements' being given a trim, it's as BobK suggested.
They are angry and embarrassed to have been conned by the ALP/Greens/Independent/Union coalition of the corrupt and unwilling.
miss aisle
15th Dec 2014
2:39pm
Now, the picture is getting clearer, Frank
They act like people fighting in the gutter.
gerberry1
10th Dec 2014
10:28am
Dumped!!! You've got to be kidding. Just shifted the Goal posts. If one 'dumps' something, then they dump it, not change the goal posts and put the impost on others. I was in favour of the $7.00 co-payment, it just wasn't sold the community properly.
The $5.00 co-payment is not to help the budget at all, it is to fund the Medical Research Future Fund which Mr. Abbott wishes to set up. It is a good idea, we need Medical Research to be researched properly, not through a back door tax. Sell the Medical Research Future Fund properly, out in the open and then people will most certainly approve the cost. It is too important to sell it the way Mr. Abbott has done, you don't leave it to GP's who have enough to do, without doing the Governments job.
Either fund it by upping the Medicare levy or by a separate tax - out in the open. The Fund is needed for future medical research, the $5.00 has nothing to do with taking down the debt that Labor left us.
disillusioned
10th Dec 2014
11:20am
The government should be paying for research and development in this country not slugging people in order to pay for it!
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:56am
The govt. should have money in the bank to pay for research
& development, disillusioned, but it got wasted !
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
12:10pm
In that case the government should find that money somewhere else for research and funding. There is absolutely no equation between a 'health system in crisis' and some pie-in-the-sky research foundation... if the health system is in such dire straits - how on Earth is putting money recouped by theft into a research group going to change that?


IF - and that is one mighty big if - the health system is in such dire straits - how is taking money from users and putting it into some mythical research idea going to change that? The money is 'needed' by the health system, isn't it?

Anyone with half a brain knows immediately something of that nature is offered as a 'sweetener' (grease to make it slip in easy like your dog at the vet getting temperature taken) - there is a massive lie being pushed here.
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:16pm
miss aisle where did they suddenly find $200 million to tamely hand over to the UN on climate change. Something they do not believe in?
particolor
10th Dec 2014
2:26pm
We found it in the Slush Puppy Fund to Shut them Up !
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
4:20pm
You're so good at making mountains out of molehills,
taking things out of context - Grappler & Kato.

particolor's comment makes much more sense
than your 2 comments put together.
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:21pm
disillusioned may find the fact that the government does not have a "Magic Pudding money tree" disillusioning. The government but must depend on using taxpayers money to fund all sorts of projects. I hate to disillusion you, but there is no Santa Claus and never has been as far as government finances are concerned.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:25pm
Brilliant generalisation, miss aisle... please explain? Or are you resorting to personal attack, something I have not seriously done with you. Dang, girl - I even said to stop the talk of bridges.

You in Queenslund where they do things different?
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:29pm
Precisely why governments need to learn how to handle OUR money properly, wally and stop throwing it at their pet projects. Thank you for your contribution.

Anyone else have difficulty getting their mind around the simple reality that all those things mentioned, roads, universities, healthcare, etc.. have been funded by we pensioners all our lives for other people - now it is our turn to accept what we've earned by doing so.

WE paid pensions for many - now many can pay pensions for us - that's how it works.
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:20am
That simple generalization comment targetted the point I was making.
If you call that an attack, grappler,
you're obviously grappling in the dark.
Kato
12th Dec 2014
3:11pm
I wouldn't mind having a 200 million dollar molehill to play around with.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:30pm
Grappler: you have been on this website long enough to see how a few posters operate. 'miss aisle' and 'frank' are the same person and there may be a few others who are also the same poster.
The webmaster should be monitoring the IP addresses of these fakes so that discussion can be had rather than paid advertisements from the Liberal Party.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
8:57am
I'm sure they get monitered mick. That's why we're still here!
MICK
13th Dec 2014
10:10am
In your dreams Frank, miss aisle or whoever else you claim to be.
particolor
13th Dec 2014
12:43pm
Mick.. Go to News.com.au Site and read about The Speedo Kid ..Giving all the Plump Juicy Gratification Jobs to His Buddy's !! .. Good Stuff !!
nena
10th Dec 2014
10:38am
Hope those 'consultations of at least 10 minutes' is applied for all patients, including those on concessional card and so on. Glad I moved home address this game me the opportunity of damping my GP who only used to see me for 2 or 3 minutes consultation. He seldom looked in my face because was writing or looking the PC screen. His rooms where always full and I have to waste a couple of hours there before he could see me for that scarce time. He could never cured anybody that way by seen them for such a short time. I am seen a much morally ethical medical professional now. Thanks goodness. I am on the age pension but I would be prepared to pay a fee now for this doctor. It is value for many.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:54am
I prefer the first version Tony Abbott suggested - simpler all round.
Money for research, & money to keep up with Medicare demand.

But, with all the hullaballoo something had to be changed.

If people were unable to juggle their finances to afford $7, plus petrol/fare to get medical advice
then, it's time to go back to school.
The $7 co-payment wasn't given a chance to succeed.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
1:04pm
Nor will this new scheme........ for the simple reason that it is a lie and that it is a complete waste of time, and nobody is fooled by it. I cannot imagine how much has been spent already just trying to sell this unsaleable item.... plenty of money to flog an idea - none for the grease for society's wheels.
particolor
10th Dec 2014
4:13pm
He wasted all the Grease on the Media Squeaky Wheel !!
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
4:44pm
In time, I think it will succeed & we'll get used to it.
but the other scheme would have been more successful.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:31pm
Yeah Frank/miss aisle. Tell us all how much you are being paid for your advertisement.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
9:00am
My personal thoughts mick, - I don't receive any payment.
Just passisonate about Australia & who runs it.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
10:13am
So whenever there is news which paints Abbott in a bad light you praise him and demonise Labor. And then you NEVER attack bad policies from your employer.
Please tell me about not being paid to troll. At least Solomon came clean and admitted that he was being paid. You need to do the same. You are being paid to comment.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
2:02pm
You demonise Libs - I prefer Libs to other political parties.
You praise nearly all of Labor policies - I definitely do not.

It's as simple as that mick.
Kato
10th Dec 2014
11:59am
This is not a backdown, except insofar as it might only cost the average punter $5 to visit the doctor instead of $7. It's just a change of angle of attack, shifting the direct source of the GP tax to the GP. Nearly all of them will pass it straight on. Given that rebate rates have been more or less static for years, the average GP can't afford to absorb the rebate reduction. And I wouldn't take the "exemptions" too seriously, given the government's track record.

A pig is a pig, no matter how much lipstick you apply
particolor
10th Dec 2014
3:30pm
A Pig by any other name would look so Kissable !! You mean ??
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:23pm
What ever turns you on, P. A lot of grog may help!!
wally
10th Dec 2014
12:03pm
Has Ground Hog Day rolled around again? The same old lines from the usual, same old suspects, despite a new topic for us all to discuss. Not that our rusted on political partisans would have anything new to say, anyway. It would seem, though, I am seeing a lot of wishful thinking expressed as predictive fact when no such demise or acceptance or rejection is going to happen until the Senate sits next year. So cool yourselves off, kids, and wait and see how things unfold next year.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
12:13pm
.. and unless there is a response right now and on into the next year - the government won't get the message?

I think not.... when the engine is on fire at 35,000 feet, you don't sit back and wait to see if it will burn itself out....
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
4:50pm
Good point, wally,
they're so good at spreading doom & gloom & criticizing,
but don't offer any type of suggestions.
Negative attitude.
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:14pm
Grappler, you say we need a response, which is your opinion. Since your comment is unclear as to who you think should make a response, here is mine. Instead of jabbering about fires and what may be obvious to you, maybe you could offer up a suggestion as to what you think is an appropriate response might be instead of wasting my time.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:34pm
My dear sir - I merely venture my opinion - you waste your own time in responding as you did.

Do you imagine that flunkeys of the politicians don't read this and other fora where people express their views on issues? By expressing our views here and elsewhere we are dousing the flames before they get out of control. If politicians think there are no objections to their nonsense, they will simply set it in place - then it will be near impossible to remove. You ever seen a tax removed once it was set - apart from the Carbon Tax that raised nothing including costs, and that ToJo are replacing with another scheme anyway, under a different name (same as this one)...

We The People have the RIGHT to criticise government .. as and when we choose. Or would you expect us to bury our heads in the sand and just hope the storm passes us by?

Ready to join The Grappler Party yet?
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:25am
You & your party of one won't be getting a response.
You'll follow the rules that will be finalized like everyone else.
Jen
11th Dec 2014
9:47am
The LNP have spent multi millions of taxpayers' money on social media trolls who scan these fora and post their propaganda. I love it when they get caught out. A week ago Pyne and Abbott's Fb likes jumped by thousands. What they didn't realise was, people can read their analytics, which showed that the largest demographic of likers on their pages were Indian males aged between 18 and 30. What a hoot! It's just another example of how the LNP a) think they can waste taxpayers' money on their own propaganda and b) think we're idiots.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:35pm
I'm with you Grappler. Some of the posters above are paid employees and their 'opinion' are just adds meant to groom readers so that they vote for this disreputable government. From what I have seen of the feeling in the community there is not way that is going to happen. This government is gone and we are just counting down the days. But expect this deadbeat PM to try and bribe voters again.
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:05pm
Thats it Tony if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull. So you reduce the medicare payment made to the doctors to force them to charge the five dollar co-payment. That way you still collect most of the co-payment money the same as before but the doctor gets the blame for the increase. You are truly an embarrassment to this country and it's people. Do us a favour and step down, there is nothing more disliked in Australia than a liar, bully and arrogant tosser. Your behaviour and attitude towards the Australian people is a disgrace
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
12:46pm
Spot on, Kato.... slug the doctors first and make them charge the extra - not the government's problem, eh? And the cash disappears into consolidated revenue and the great call goes out - "We cut the cost of Medicare to the 'budget'!" Easy to do when you chop $5 out of the refund and lift it from the pockets of the people one way or the other.........Oh - and BTW - that research fund? Not enough in the till to cover that..... give us time...

They must think we're all stupid. Time to ditch the whole idea and start again.
trood
10th Dec 2014
2:02pm
Hear, hear, Kato, the embarrassment continues.....
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:28pm
The discussion on stupidity , embarrassment and insulting the voters' intelligence are more like a rehash of what Labor did during the Rudd Gillard years in government. Only some people on this site haven't woken up to that fact yet.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:37pm
My dear sir.. if you read my posts you will note that I criticise all equally... when they are dumb and think we the people are, they cop it.. regardless of their party...

We are not discussing Rudd Gillard here.. we are discussing ToJo's doctor theft tax.... and the undeniable fact that in seeking to move the goal posts, Bro To is treating us as fools and simpletons....

Now he knows differently, eh?
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:35am
Yes Wally, we certainly didn't find out the full extent
of Labor's attack on our intelligence
with their secret dealings in the dark
robbing our country's prosperity
until after the Coalition took hold of the reins.

Some clowns don't even want to acknowledge that fact,
& definitely share the same attitudes as Labor.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:39pm
My guess is that the party will dump Abbott next year unless he can win over (con) the electorate.
Despite the best attempts by the trolls above their spiel is so predictable: paint the worst government in living memory as saints (ha), demonise the Opposition and Unions and keep heaps of comments coming which appear to come from different posters but which all come from the same person with different user names. The webmaster needs to block posts by trolls as this is not what this website should be about.
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:06pm
Gotta tell you,Peter Dutton isn't happy.
pom13
10th Dec 2014
12:13pm
How do you know when Toxic Tony is lying? - he opens his mouth & starts to speak!
BobK
10th Dec 2014
5:21pm
That was said about Juliar first, don't plagiarise... :-)
rtrish
10th Dec 2014
12:14pm
This new measure is totally confusing. I've been listening to the news, trying to understand it. What it seems to be is the Gov't making the doctors be the 'bad guys' and impose the extra fee. Of course the doctors will need to impose the fee if the Medicare rebate to them is reduced. Doctors still have to cover costs, buildings, staff etc like any business. The Gov't again is being "mean and tricky."
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:41pm
Its called the 'shell game'. You can the co-payment and then reduce the rebate to patients so that they effectively pay the co-payment anyway. Brilliant treachery from a deceitful and hated PM.
We want an election!!
Paulo
10th Dec 2014
12:15pm
Strange imposition. If the real reason for the surcharge is to reduce the number of visits to the Doctor then the law of diminishing returns will apply, the more people don't go to the Doctors the less the Government will receive.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
1:06pm
Correct Paulo - take two jelly beans from the jar.... the whole idea is laughable... if it were not so serious.
Blossom
10th Dec 2014
7:55pm
How many Drs. have jelly beans in the jar these Days?
I am a self funded retiree. I already pay quite a big gap, now I am going to play even more. The last time I visited the Dr. I had a nasty sty on my eyelid, he told me to put hot salty water on it and charged me $40.00 I was with him no more than 10 minutes if that. I don't know how much I am going to get back from Medicare. I also overheard patients in the waiting room saying that if fees increase more they will put off going to the Dr. when they should and go to an Emergency Dept. at a Public Hospital. Having 2 serious medical conditions (one could be life threatening without treatment) I have to go to the Dr. to have check-ups and get prescriptions. What I didn't bargain on was big gaps. A few months ago I had to have a chest X-ray because I had a persistent cough for a few weeks.The bill was $110.10 Medicare paid $40.10.. I have never been a smoker of any type. Fortunately the X-ray was clear so the only thing we think could be causing it is pollen from weeds in an adjoining property.... Like my Dad I saved hard and put extra money into so I could support myself and not rely on the Govt. for support
others blew their money on gambling and booze, saying that they were spending their money so they would get the pension. I know one pensioner who plays bingo regularly even if she has to go several km to a ATM to get money. Yet she has an account rendered on her Water rates. One pensioner couple I know of take their electricy and gas accounts to charities to pay every time. They were given electical items(including a washing machine and a microwave oven) by a couple who got married because they said theirs didn't work anymore. They later complained that theirs had broken down. When the couple said to them that the one they had given them was reasonably new they were told that they sold the items the the couple had given them at a garage sale. It is a known fact that the pensioners play the Pokies and booze all day the day that they get their pension.
They consider it their right to get the pension because he worked for a while intil he quit and went on the dole.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:43pm
Engy - don't generalise. Some of us have had to battle divorce, illness, injury, and consequent unemployability in the years when we should have been consolidating our retirement.

Successive policies of successive governments that made meaningful work and earned promotion harder to find and keep also did not help, and thus government can now pay for its errors.

They wanted to run the show as a socialist concern and 'equalise' everyone by robbing Peter to pay Paula Nugunnawala Imran Fiorente Conadopoulos - let them now pay for the upkeep and well-being of those they robbed to get that.

It's all about CHOICE - when a government CHOOSES to pursue those lines - it accepts full responsibility for those harmed by them.

Double The Pension!
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:44pm
Works the same as putting up electricity prices. People pulled in their horns and used a heap less as well as became more efficient. And then the coal bosses complained and found a scapegoat.
The government may get its money from its attack on average Australians but it will die a quick death as a result. Voters are not going to forget.
mangomick
10th Dec 2014
12:15pm
We work hard ignoring any danger to our health so we can make money only to spend that money later on in life maintaining our health. So let me get this right... on top of the surcharge that is charged to working Australians they will now also have to fork out an extra $5 when they see a Doctor who they have already paid a surcharge to the Government to to fund that visit??? if it wasn't for the surcharge already paid I would have had no problems paying $7 a visit up to the first 10 visits but it should be the same for all. I really don't like paying a surcharge to fund free medical for many in our society who have never worked and are too lazy to get off their bums to even get a job of any kind.No problems funding free medical for pensioners who have worked and have retired with little super etc but many of these dole bludgers who smoke.drink and have never worked and have no intention of ever getting a job I dont think $7 too unreasonable.
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:25pm
mangomick spot on. that is the core issue how many well off people are rorting the system. A heck of a lot more than the poor. I know many retirees who have great wealth in some fund. And still can attain a health card. many FIFO workers and there partners rort the system by stating that they are separated. have a health care card and benefits. These are the one's they should be chasing not the working poor and unworking poor whose numbers are going to swell greatly over the next eighteen months.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:53pm
If both sides of politics had a bipartisan approach to the many rorts inherent in the Social Security System then $billions would be available. So why are you voting for either side of politics rather than sending a clear message by finding yourself a good Independent...and telling your friends as well.
If you want to fix a broken political system you have to remove yourself from the advertising and lies and cut out the cancer. not electing Liberal, Labor and Greens is about the best message you could send. And if you think that this would not fix the major parties then obviously you think that the pope is not a catholic as well.
Whilst you discuss the loose change mangomick consider how much money is escaping the tax system from profit shifting to lower taxing regimes and by loop holes which are left open for a decade or more even though leaders know full well what is going on. We are talking about taxes which represent over half the social security budget avoiding the tax system altogether so lets have a real discussion about what is going on in this country and whose interests are really being filled first. I guarantee it is not ordinary Australians who are at the back of the queue.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
9:04am
Because ultimately, Labor will receive Independents' votes!
So you may as well give them your vote in the first place.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
10:15am
Gah gah!!! Independents preference their votes as they see fit. Some preference Labor, some preference Liberal. That is how it works.
The problem with trolls is that they only take the anti view to advantage their employer. That is what you do ALL THE TIME.
mangomick
13th Dec 2014
2:47pm
miss aisle you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. The State member in our predominately blue collar area is a women independent who supported the 1996/98 LNP minority government. She still gets elected and is probably serving her 4th term in office.
gillham
10th Dec 2014
12:19pm
Look I'm normally a Liberal supporter, but this lot are out of control. Afghanastan, Iraq, Outin, aeroplane down, backflips. Now we have another one. i'm intrigued by the writers moment will it discourage 'people' from attending the doctor. The bulk of the attendees at the doctor are the very ones being exempted. Once again self funded retirees will pay, and the system will continue to be clogged by concession receiving people with no payment, a great proportion of whom go for a 'social' visit.

There has been that many changes that we forget where we started and what we aim to achieve. So it is just a piecemeal grab.

Why can't all people make a token contribution.
pom13
10th Dec 2014
12:28pm
You have actually admitted voting for this crew of miscreants - SHAME on you!
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
1:10pm
People do not attend my doctor for a social visit - any time I get there there are several cancer patients, multiple heart patients,several old ladies with coughs, some guy with a steel splinter a yard long (exaggerating) through his hand or a stone-fish prong in his diver's foot.. or similar.

I don't see how anyone gets the idea that people go to the docs to talk football or whatever you imagine they do there.
gillham
10th Dec 2014
1:57pm
Well excuse me Grappler. However I am 69 and attend the doctors less than once a year. It is simply my6 opinion that many people use the doctors like a hypochondriac. I can't see how anyone cannot afford a co-payment which may help to unclog the system. Why we sought out the special groups each time is a weak kneed approach to demonstrate some imagined philanthropic nature. If you are a chronic sufferer sure bring in a threshold. The biggest relevance here is that we are half way through the financial year and we don't have a budget. Yet the primary luminaries such as Abbott and Julie Bishop wander the world sprouting philosophies as though we are a world power. Have we got any results from the global matters they have chosen to be involved in. As I said Afghanastan, Iraq, Ukraine. Putin, and now global warming. There is NO result only posturing.
trood
10th Dec 2014
2:01pm
A new hairbrained scheme on top of the old hairbrained scheme; Abbott & Dutton should have quit while they were ahead and just dumped . Besides if the money is going to a research fund how is that going to save Medicare which is supposed to be the thing that is unsustainable?
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
2:53pm
gillham,
I am also 69 and visit the doctor every 5 years if they're lucky.
Most people visiting the doctor TRUST him/her and believe that they'll be fixed.
However, the current medical inductry generally only hides the symptoms rather than fix the core problem.
Consequently, the same people returm for "yet another fix" and their problems increase/multiply because of side effects of the drugs rather than be fixed.

Drastic change in the opposit direction is the only force that provides imputus to improvement.
I believe that most people are genuine but that it is the system that has been derailed by the BIG PHARMA meglomaniacs.
MITZY
10th Dec 2014
2:54pm
gillham: if you go to the doctor's once a year how do you come to the conclusion that everyone at the doctor's for the other 364 days of the year are the ones being exempted.
I'm a single aged pensioner with no other income and lucky enough to hardly ever go to the doctor. However, if I do go I am unfortunately not blessed with a doctor in my country town who bulk bills. I currently pay $61 for my 6 minutes of which Medicare returns to me $37.05 so it is already costing me $23.95 each time.
So many posters on this site talk about the $5 and the $7 under the previous scheme being not a fortune to pay but then there are lots of other costs involved such as transport costs and/or motor vehicle costs getting to the doctor and of course prescription costs too. On top of that the cost of living is always on the increase and from 2016/2017 the pensioner will receive less of a pension rise to cope with the additional costs due to a different formula of calculating pensions.
If Medicare is not sustainable then the $5 or the previous $7 should be going directly into the Medicare system, not to a medical research future fund.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
3:23pm
Mitzy under the previous scheme you would not have been subject to the co-payment as it only applied to bulk billed visits. Now though, it will apply to everyone EXCEPT pensioners plus a wide range of others.
So you as a 'single pensioner' will not be affected at all under this new proposal. Your GP bill will remain the same.
gillham
10th Dec 2014
4:59pm
KSSare you the Treasurer by default?

"It will apply to everyone EXCEPT pensioners plus a wide ranger of others". Tautology at its best.

May be mothers on a $50,000 PPL gratuity can donate $5 to the needy.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:51pm
So in order to 'unclog the system' you would prefer that some not seek medical attention for ongoing serious things?

With my fifteen disabilities including one at least potentially fatal - I hardly see the doc.. and I can assure you that when I do there are no shirkers.

Every night I go to sleep it's with the realisation that I may not wake up.

That said - we are not here to make general comments about assumptions that others see doctors for fun etc or to discuss the issue purely from our personal point of view - we are here to discuss the facts of this co-payment and its merits. This co-payment will NOT unclog any system.. there is no evidence that it IS clogged unnecessarily.. and the money collected will go into consolidated revenue and allow the government to claim they've reduce the Medicare cost by taking money from people and doctors.

On that point - that is why they need to start looking at their own management of our funds, and find some real ways to regain the revenue they continue to lose to the top end of town.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:55pm
gillham: make your vote count and avoid voting for the major players. The only way for both sides of politics to ever fix is by showing them the door. That is why I vote for a good Independent when they exist in my electorate.
mangomick
13th Dec 2014
2:57pm
I don't know about the southern states but I can remember when Ambulance Stations were manned by St Johns Abulance volunteers as well as paid Amboes. If you had a bit of crud in your eye or a minor injury you would attend the Ambo station and all was made good. Now we pay an arm and a leg for both Ambos and Fireies with a fee tacked onto our rates and electricity bills and all minor treatments they used to treat now have to go to the doctors surgery. That just log jams the system. If they want to free up the Doctors surgery why not train up more para medics. God knows we are paying enough for the service now and getting nothing for it.
Troubadour
10th Dec 2014
12:29pm
Everyone is talking as though $5 is a fortune - and yet some spend hundred on un-healthy
items and think nothing of it - yes, even on a Pension. I think saying it will deter people from going to the Dr. is nonsense - just forgo a cup of coffee or a beer!! Those who need to
see the Dr. for regular chronic illness will be catered for I am sure, and not have to pay.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
1:11pm
It's the principle - let the rich forgo a holiday first class or a bottle of fine wine and fund a few pensioners....

Oh - sorry - those things are entitlements.....
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
4:54pm
Troubadour, You've got it in perspective.

Some just like blowing things out of all proportion -
makes them fee important..... pathetic
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
8:04pm
Tut, Tut, Tut Grappler,

Hurting the rich???
Cannot do that, government policy has outlawed such mean & nasty measures!

Miss Aisle,
Seriously, can you tell me which planet you hibernate on when you are not here to observe the Australian Lifestyle deteriorate to slavery.
Don't you want to see it or are you one of those who enjoys slavery?
I just wish I could be as innocent and trusting as you seem to be.
Even after the pollies have "Skinned us Alive & Sold us Out" since the 2nd world war ended you still would entrust them with your chequebook!!
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:49pm
$5 would just about buy you a Big mac or a glass of beer. Yet people on this forum are squealing as if Abbott is making them become organ donors in this matter. Now the "pensioners" are complaining about being exempted for the co payment. According to the Grappler, are you suggesting that Australia grab all of the people that you think have more money than you do (and are envious of)? What would you do then? Would you force them into re education camps and make them work on farms pulling up weeds out of the turnip patches? Such things happened during the Cultural Revolution in Mao's China in the 1960's and in South Vietnam after the Communist triumph over the South. This would be a nice Communistic style of dealing with people you think are less deserving of what they have than you.
And Patriot, I agree that successive governments of both persuasions have signed Australia up to international agreements that have proved to be detrimental to Australia's economic well being. And yes, as long as there's money in the Treasury we have to trust them with the national chequebook and hope they don't bugger things up too badly. We can all name the culprits of our choice for their lack of financial responsibility.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
11:58pm
Wally - your suggestions have some merit.. I could see a few fat cats planting rice out there in the monsoon rains....

but you exaggerate my stated position. Nobody is demanding that the fat cats pay more than the (wait for it) same proportion into the fund as everyone else...

Now $5 to me is a fair bit.. to Joe rich it is nothing... so Joe can afford to pay mine, neh?

That's how it is supposed to work with tax - but the tax system is skewed and loaded so as to ensure that those with the most pay the least and that after deductions that working people do not get, which actually is detrimental to the economy since it places demands on wages etc due to the expectations of the fat cats, who rely on charging others for their incomes.
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:41am
grappler, you're a perfect example of the "victim mentality".
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
12:21pm
miss aisle,
As we are into mentalities:
It is my opinion that you're part of the herd of "Lemmings" running towards the edge of a cliff and failing to negotiate a change of direction.
Consequently, you're about to "Fall over the Edge".
Unfortunately, you're committing the rest of us who are attemting to take corrective action of our course!
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
4:19pm
patriot -
It is my opinion that you've been checking "global warming"
too long -
and the sun has really got to you!
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
5:23pm
Just don't get alzheimers and forget this discussion when "Show & Tell" finally gets on the way.
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
10:41am
Speak for yourself, patriot.
MICK
12th Dec 2014
10:58pm
Patriot: miss aisle is one of several names used by the same blogger. Comments are always pro Liberal and anti Labor and Unions. They are paid commercials. Don't be surprised at the deceit as it fits perfectly with this government. And notice many of the slogans as well.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
9:07am
Show the proof, mick! Otherwise stop the nonsense.
My comments are exactly that, my personal thoughts.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
10:07am
"Proof" has already been provided previously. You count on others who have not seen this.
You also post as Frank and probably a number of other avatars. This should not be allowed by the Webmaster as readers get the impression that you are legit when you are nothing more than paid comment.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
2:06pm
Your assumptions are completely false, mick.
No proof has ever been provided previously about me.

Please contact the webmaster.
Patriot
15th Dec 2014
7:33am
miss aisle,
You seem to relay heavily on proof in this case.
Why don't you accept the proof that is provided on other occasions when we dis-proof your statements.
As said before, you just exert "Passive Resistance" which is a tactic of many of your kind. Never confront "head on" but always from the side!!!
I'm glad that others confirm my opinion that You're a "Political plant" and all you want to achieve is to frustrate homest statements & opinions.
GoodBye
miss aisle
15th Dec 2014
9:35am
Stop sidestepping Patriot....
Looks like - When all else fails -
call someone a "political plant" !
So pathetic,
to follow like a sheep in mick's footsteps!
Troubadour
10th Dec 2014
12:29pm
Everyone is talking as though $5 is a fortune - and yet some spend hundred on un-healthy
items and think nothing of it - yes, even on a Pension. I think saying it will deter people from going to the Dr. is nonsense - just forgo a cup of coffee or a beer!! Those who need to
see the Dr. for regular chronic illness will be catered for I am sure, and not have to pay.
Troubadour
10th Dec 2014
12:29pm
Everyone is talking as though $5 is a fortune - and yet some spend hundred on un-healthy
items and think nothing of it - yes, even on a Pension. I think saying it will deter people from going to the Dr. is nonsense - just forgo a cup of coffee or a beer!! Those who need to
see the Dr. for regular chronic illness will be catered for I am sure, and not have to pay.
mangomick
10th Dec 2014
12:32pm
I think the Medical Research future fund is a great idea that is a long time coming and while I thought Gillards surcharge for the Flood damage was out of order particularly because I had already donated quite a few hundred dollars only to be hit with her surcharge on top of it, but regardless of that I think a national surcharge to fund Medical research administered by an independent Medical savvy committee ,would be a marvelous institution to have in our country.
Anonymous
10th Dec 2014
1:14pm
.. apart from the facts that the money will not be fully accounted for in a sovereign fund, will instead vanish into consolidated revenue, and will be doled out of CR as and when the government sees fit, with most of it vanishing into committees and administration at prolific cost......

I doubt we'll see such a fund ever up and running no matter how much 'co-payment' is taken from everyone.
mangomick
10th Dec 2014
7:08pm
Think a Medical Research Future Fund is a great idea but only if any future Government can't ever get it's hands on the funds. Australia needs to get away from the mining quarrying mentality and having several top notch medical research facilities could be one of the shots in the arm Australia needs
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:54pm
Is the Gtappler indulging in pessimistic wishful thinking again? Some Gloom merchants seem to enjoy seeing their direst predictions eventuate so they can say "I told you so".
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:20pm
That's exactly how I see his rantings, wally. Pathetic.
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
12:03am
Wally - I NEVER say "I told you so!" I wait - like the true gentleman I am for YOU to come to me and say :- "You told me so!"

Now THAT is a sign of a Man to acknowledge that!

Mangomick is wise enough to see the point that evades you, aisle lady.... such a fund will ONLY be of use if governments keep their grubby hands off the money and it is not wasted on overheads without results.

As said - this money will not go to making any corrections to Medicare... it wil vanish into con solidated revenue and one day - PERHAPS - thre wil be a huge announcement - jsut before the enxt election - that preliminary studies are to be set up to consider the establishment of a research fund.

That will then cost many millions going to mates on some trumped-up 'commission of audit' so they can arrange the paperwork handed to them by already-paid public servants..... and any research fund will be ages in the future....
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:47am
.....And so his rantings continue, wally, like a broken record.
Ductape
10th Dec 2014
12:32pm
Give in one hand and take it back in another...I couldn't have done a better job myself!
Now only the doctors will feel the wrath!
Kato
10th Dec 2014
12:40pm
merlin is his new name.
Young Simmo
10th Dec 2014
12:53pm
This is going to have an effect on our savings. Normally we save $500 / fortnight, now it will be $493, or I could spend $7 less at the Casino.
Either way the pension battle continues.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
1:11pm
No Simmo, your savings will be down by $5 to $495 or you could spend $5 less at the casino.

The GPs do not get to charge $2 to cover collection fees as they did under the previous version of co-payment.

So do try not to spend the extra money all in one hit ;-)
KSS
10th Dec 2014
2:49pm
And if you are on any sort of Government pension you won't be paying anything anyway. So back to your $500 a fortnight saving.
Young Simmo
10th Dec 2014
3:02pm
Thanks for that KSS, now I will increase my donation to the, "Save A Politician Fund".
As we all know that the poor BUGGERS have to retire one day.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
3:18pm
You may of course give your savings to which worthy charity you wish. Since SAPF is your cause of choice, how about a mention in your Will? After all whatever is left when that time comes, you can't take it with you :-)
Judy in the hills
10th Dec 2014
1:13pm
I hope all those people who are moaning are able to drink a few less glasses of beer, wine, or reduce their smokes, pokies, race bets, etc. to save the occasional $5 co-payment. Let's never forget that Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd spent the huge credit money in the bank put their by a more prudent John Howard and Peter Costello (yes Liberals of course), and caused the current shortage of funds. Blame the right people! And don't forget most of the aged pensioners were workers for 50 plus years, and wages were not as good as they are now. Much less chance to buy the luxury items. They deserve some pension money in their latter years - unless they are worth a mint; and most of them aren't as times were tougher and you had to actually SAVE up for things you NEEDED. Abbott and Co. are trying to keep things afloat - give them some credit where its due for heaven's sake!
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
5:00pm
And that's how simple the situation is, folks.
Stop ranting as though it's ww3 !
MICK
13th Dec 2014
10:58am
Agree with all but your parting comment Judy. You have to look at the bigger picture with this government and not listen to the talk which comes from it as this is for the most part deceitful. "Repairing the budget" may be the line but the transfer of wealth and never repairing any budget is the game. As I always say...follow the money trail and you will see the game for what it is.
geomac
10th Dec 2014
1:28pm
If Abbott thinks its ok to freeze the rate payments to doctors for 4 years then it must be ok to do the same for MPs pay. Well that won,t happen will it ? So a freeze plus 5 bucks less if you bulk bill a patient for this price signal. Ahhh what about the 30% subsidy for private health then ? Surely that will have to be removed to have a proper price signal to both the user and more importantly to the provider. Like the first home buyer bonus , govt input to a product means that product goes up accordingly. Every year without fail private insurance goes up above the CPI and 30% of that is guaranteed by the govt. Every year private schools jack up their fees and get federal funds regardless of being well off or struggling.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
2:51pm
Geomac the medicare rebate was already frozen for 4 years. This is not new.

The 30% guaranteed by the Government is also not guaranteed any more. Labor saw to that with the means test.
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
1:39pm
The “War on Cancer” was declared by Richo Nixon in 1971 – Now 43 years ago.
Zillions of dollars have been POURED into the coffers of the Multinationals who have (Half-heartedly) been looking for a cure that could be patented. STUFF PREVENTION!!!
A cure, grown in your own backyard, that cannot be patented would be detrimental for them (big PHARMA & INDUSTRIALISTS) so the motivation for such is – in my opinion – not present. SICKNESS IS A “MULTIZILLION dollar INDUSTRY” of great material benefit to the industrialists. Bad luck that it Forces the general population to suffer much more than they have to.

The many natural cures suppressed by Governments around the world by making the enactment of them a CRIME is conclusive proof of that!

So, I personally perceive that the fund Tony is talking about is just another “LifeLine” for the “FatCats” controlling the Cartels that control us & them (the pollies).

I have a much simpler solution that will save rather than waste OUR money:
1 Enforce Legislation to stop poisoning (enriching?) our food with artificial (generally untested) chemicals and toxins.
2 Grow as much of your own FRESH food as you can. Even a balcony can provide some fresh herbs that will help with detoxing our systems from poisons consumed
3 The money saved by investing time & energy into such schemes will reward us with less stress which – in turn – will keep/make us healthier.
4 The above points will reduce the visits to the medicos, which than will ensure that the current system can cope with the now REDUCING stream of patients
5 Stop the vices that cause degenerative disease. Like for instance: grog, smoking. Processed food, sugar, artificial sweetners, energy & acid soft drinks, etc, etc, etc.
Life may seem to become boring without all of these, but just think how it – without ANY doubt – will enhance our sexlife!!!
6 If you have to buy commercial food, be selective and purchase unprocessed or the least processed.
7 The general reduction in “cost if living & medical expenses” will more then adequate pay for the CEOs & Executives that will now ALSO appear on the DOLE

Is this solution to much “OUT THERE”????
If we don't get out buts moving we won't be “Out There” as we'll all be dead after taking more than 20 years to die whilst, at the same time “feeding the FatCats”.

Wake Up!!!!

A guy by the name of Socrates (lived 2500 years ago) was a revolutionary as he suggested that “food should be our medicine”.
As you noticed, he did NOT say: “Food laced with Toxins” should be our medicine.
Sad enough, after 2,500 years, this bloke still seems to remain a revolutionary!!!

Einstein (yet another strange bloke) suggested that it would be impossible to “Fix a problem with the same methodology that caused it”.
In my opinion, it has been proven that “The was on Cancer” & other strategies have not reduced the Percentage of people dying of cancer. SO LET's do something different for a change.

Let's not waste more of our Hard Earned (and much squandered already) money on ILLUSIVE funds & ideas. PREVENTION we can do ourselves rather ILLUSIVE CURES must be the motive.

Let's take “the BULL by the Horns” and fix the problem at the CORE.
Let's try to DIE of Old Age in a matter of just days (dignified) rather than suffer from degenerative diseases for 20 years or longer (kept alive by almost artificial means & rather undignified don't you think) before we die!
Another benefit of this is that it would defuse the “Euthanasia Debate” rather fuel the emotions of the moralists & “Industries of Sickness & Death”.

Life must be worth being alive.
If it is not, no use being here just for the benefits of the “FatCats”.
geomac
10th Dec 2014
1:40pm
Part of the trick is that it isn't the co-payment that saves the government money, it's the cut to the Medicare rebate. That cut was always going to be $5 per consultation. If doctors had had the ability to charge a $7 co-payment they would have got an extra $2 in their pockets. Now they won't.

Another part of the trick is that the government will now cut some rebates by much more. Standard so-called Level B consultations of up to 10 minutes currently attract a $37.05 rebate. Under the changes they will classified as Level A and attract $16.95 for the young and concession holders and $11.95 for everyone else.

And the two-year freeze on increasing the amount of Medicare rebates that was going to extend to June 2016 will now become a four-year freeze, extending to June 2018.

Doctors will lose just as much as before, but in different ways and for longer.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-gp-copayment-trick-that-purports-to-save-35-billion-20141209-123i8z.html
KSS
10th Dec 2014
2:39pm
Your figures and assumption are almost correct Geomac. A level A consultation used to last up to 6 minutes. They still can but the GP will not be able to charge the patient $5 AND the rebate will be at the lower rate of $11.95. If that consultation lasts 10 minutes or more up to 20 minutes then they get the Level B new rate of $32.05 and can charge the patient $5 if they wish. Higher rates apply after the 20 minutes.

Mr Abbott has stated he wants to get rid of the "six minute medicine" so that patients get proper consultations. Naturally the GPs object to the implication they do not provide a good service in under 6 minutes.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
1:43pm
In previous discussions on this subject on this site there was a lot of complaining about how the pensioner couldn't afford the co-payment, how it would be applied to medications, blood tests, x-rays and sundry other services. Most of which was erroneous of course since under that same scheme pensioners were to have been quarantined from further payment after 10 incidents of service and also given a $70 lump sum ergo they would have been revenue neutral.

It went largely ignored that the co-payment was directed at bulk billed services only and that many many people do not use those services and so already pay up to 10 times the amount to see their GP - assuming there is one to see.

Then there were the complaints about how much GPs earn. "Fautrage" over six figure salaries even though GPs are actually small businesses with overheads who are responsible for the salaries of the staff they employ. Indignation over the $2 fee GPs would be allowed to charge to collect the $5 co-payment even though it would actually cost GPs more than that to administer. But hey they earn a lot so a good target for the envy crowd.

So now we have a 'new' scheme. Pensioners (and a host of others) are totally exempt, the co-payment only applies to GP visits, there is no cap, the GP cannot charge the $2 AND will receive $5 less from medicare. Then the GP is told they can charge the patient at their discretion. If they don't their income goes down regardless. So for a small business costs go up, income goes down.

And still people are whining and yelling about their entitlements. You have lost NOTHING. If you are receiving a Government pension nothing will change for you.

As for those of us still working and therefore not part of any exemption, and assuming we do not already pay 15 times the new co-payment fee, $5 amounts to a packet of biscuits, a magazine, up to 2 cups of coffee.... a small amount to pay to see your GP. Its is small but for those who simply go for a chat, or for every insignificant sniffle, perhaps it will make them think twice.
Paulodapotter
10th Dec 2014
2:43pm
KSS you are completely out of touch. You are viewing this through your circumstances only and not through (a) the long term outcomes for the poor and disenfranchised and (b) the resultant effect on a health system that for all its benefits has still a long way to go to match European standards. Come out of your cave and do some research.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
2:57pm
Paulodapotter, before you aim your venom at me, perhaps you need to do your own research. The poor, disenfranchised, pensioners, chronically sick, under 16s, and a whole lot more are all exempt from this new version of the co-payment.

Australia keeps on about how the health system here is world class - and so it is in many ways. You will always find examples of where it is better or worse in the world. But we are here. We use our health service and many over use it. A $5 fee is not too much to ask especially now those that are being asked to pay are NOT pensioners, poor or disenfranchised.
Paulodapotter
10th Dec 2014
2:37pm
The government's co-payment bill has been scrapped, but not the intent behind the new decision. It's government policy to privatise all health care as per their advisers, the IPA. The government strongly believes that a publicly funded health system is bad for the country economically. This latest endeavour is just a back door process for delivering the same outcomes. They are trying to emulate the US system of health care as it was, not even as it is becoming. Support this latest initiative and your children will curse you if they are successful. The public needs to make a decision as to whether they think the health of the public is more important than the health of the budget or vice versa. I know this for certain, Labor must promise to abolish this initiative to get any support of mine at the next election.
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:18am
Already asked elsewhere what Silent Bill has to say on the issue.. still waiting...

Talk about playing the cards close to the chest - Dead Person's chest for many if this keeps up.

How anyone could even begin to conceive that a fully privatised health rebate system is better after the utter debacle and disaster of the electricity supply is beyond me. the only answer is this - short term grab by self, family, mates and cronies for some of the lovely arriving into that system, and getting out before the whole thing collapses.

Do we REALLY want a failed system like the United States? A country that uses 40% of the world's resources for 6% of the world's population, yet has massive poverty, unemployment, income disparity, crime, and a near terminal health system for the poor?
gillham
10th Dec 2014
2:53pm
Let me get this right. We are going to give women up to $50,000 each for having a baby and every subsequent baby. And then we're going to charge people $5 to see the doctor. Now there is equity if ever I've seen it.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
3:13pm
Well no Gillham WE are NOT going to give women anything.

Business will be charged a levy of 1.5% to fund any parental leave scheme. It will not come directly from general tax revenue. Further more not all women are on salaries that would allow for $50,000 being half their usual salary of $100,000+ per year. More women than men work part time or are employed as casuals and in sectors which are dominated by women such as aged care, child care, retail, ancillary health and so on. And few are in managerial positions. By far the majority of women earn way WAY less less - try $20-40,000 a year. Meaning a possible maximum payment of up to $20,000 over a six month. Even at the top end women earn an average 17.5% less than a man in the same role. As for the $5 charge, the baby will not be charged anything until they reach 17.

Criticise if you will but do it fairly and honestly. Do not make this a gender issue because it isn't.
geomac
10th Dec 2014
4:11pm
gilham
Thats without taking into account the salary of the partner. Lets say the partner earns 100 grand a year or even 50 grand because the mother still gets the PPl .
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
7:33pm
gillham
And when the babies grow up we (who?) are going to support them on the dole because - by that time - the Aust Govt. certainly will have managed to export 95% of ALL OUR jobs to ensure that the Multinationals make even more money.
The co-payment will be $30.00 instead of $5.00 because there are more people drawing on the benefit and fewer people to pay taxes.
After all, the ZIllionaires pay only little tax if at all!!!

Miss Aisle - I agree with at least one of your STATEMENTS. Indeed, WE MUST STOP WHINGHING & WINING.
Instead, we must GET OF OUR ASSES and reclaim the freedom which is rightfully ours as sovereign human beings!
Force the pollies to do what is good for Australians in general and not what only benefits rich people and reduces us to slavery.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:49pm
Yes, patriot, about time you stopped.
Go & visit some 3rd world countries & find out what slavery is.
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:24am
But.. but.. but.. WE don't LIVE in a Third World country... nor do we want to see it develop into one. the problem is that our illustrious 'governments' are intent on 'equalising' us all WITH Third World countries.

You starting to get my drift yet on 'equality' by force?

First they came to equalise the women... and I said nothing.... then they came to equalise the blacks.. and I said nothing.. then they came to equalise the non-English speaking people.. and I said nothing.... then they came to equalise the entire country with the third World... and I said nothing. When they finally got around to equalising me... there was nobody left to point out that equality in that way does not work and there was nothing left with which to create equality.

Thinking caps, people... time is wasting.
PlanB
11th Dec 2014
7:34am
Dead right Grappler, WAKE UP SHEEPLE
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
9:12am
Grappier,
You've got the picture alright
All that is needed now for others to - just for a second - consider that we could be right (on the off chance).
This may be the window for the truth to "sneak In" and reveal itself in order to generate an "AHA" moment'
One can but hope.
TOGETHER WE STAND - DIVIDED WE FALL.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
9:12am
Grappier,
You've got the picture alright
All that is needed now for others to - just for a second - consider that we could be right (on the off chance).
This may be the window for the truth to "sneak In" and reveal itself in order to generate an "AHA" moment'
One can but hope.
TOGETHER WE STAND - DIVIDED WE FALL.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
2:20pm
miss aisle,
I have worked in 3rd world countries for many (7 to be precise) years during my adult life.
Have you or is your info 2nd hand?
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
10:44am
If that's the case, patriot,
You should have a much better understanding
about slavery, than you have.
Kato
12th Dec 2014
3:09pm
Miss aisle methinks you know a thing or two about slavery :)
Patriot
12th Dec 2014
4:13pm
miss aisle,
If you truely accept that I should have a much better understanding of slavery, would it then not be logic to accept that I recognise the "preliminaries & Lead-Up" to/of Slavery better than some others who have not had such experience?
Would it then also not be true (the above accpeted) that if I suggest that I can SMELL slavery being brought upon the Australian pupulace (& the rest of the world) you should heed the warning and (rather than just blatantly accept my word) at least become more concerned that I - just on the off chance - might be right?
Such - if not for yourself - at least for the sake of your (grand)children!
Should you not go into "Red Alert" and thoroughly investigate this matter (to veri9fy if it at least COULD be true) rather than accept the "Soothing & Comforting words of our Pollies and just go back to sleep again?
I'll conclude with the following TWO Quotes:

“No one is more a slave than the one who thinks he is free without being it.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In a time of financial “Masters of the Universe” that dictate the political and economic conditions, and above all downgrade individuals and nations to the slave state within the monetary system, it may not be wrong to take a look at a classic philosophical text on the topic of “Master / Slave “.
philosophical text on the topic of “Master / Slave “.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)

By Doug Frame, Introduction Lars Schall
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
7:56pm
I repeat patriot -
You should have a much better understanding about slavery,
than you have.
Patriot
12th Dec 2014
9:11pm
Passive resistance.
Don't enter into meaningfull discussion - Just skirt around it!
That's what they're trained at in Canberra!
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
9:10am
Meaningful discussions interest me.
But not your type of crap.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
11:03am
And the normal Frank/miss aisle attack is what we see AGAIN. If the trolls cannot win they abuse.

gilham: the 1.5% levy on business mentioned above was the JUSTIFICATION for giving business a 1.5% TAX CUT at a time when every other struggling Australian got numerous tax increases. But having secured a tax cut big business is now arguing for more tax cuts (for them) and no Paid Parental Leave Scheme. It is what it is.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
3:48pm
mick - you call that abuse ??
Gotta be joking
gillham
10th Dec 2014
3:44pm
Well KSS women just get anything they demand. The point is the up to %50,000,and I did say up to, comes from SOMEWHERE not some miraculous golden egg. Businesses will pass on any cost, so tax or no tax, the consumer pays. Go on with your 17% wage difference myth that is manufactured under feminist ideology and when repeated often enough becomes folklore. I'm sick of carrying women with all their concessions. The PPL comes from the same bent ideology.

Did you read a comment yesterday where with the PPL monetary benefits and leave entitlements women can have 3 kids receive $150,000 and barely put a foot in their workplace for 5 years while they accrue superannuation, annual leave and sick pay entitlements plus the PPL AND, I repeat AND childcare concessions and rebates..

Please tell me that is sustainable and or equitable.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
4:04pm
You obviously right up there in the misogyny stakes aren't you Gillham? $150,000 assumes they earn well over $100,000 a year. Most women simply don't. Yes they would accrue superannuation under the new proposal but why shouldn't they? Perhaps if the Father's were to contribute to the Mother's superannuation there wouldn't be a need to top it up. But most men don't. Currently, women have far less superannuation than they should because I)they earn far less than men and 2) more importantly, most women who have children also take time out of the workforce. Something that traditionally men have NOT done. They cannot accrue annual leave - even under the current paternity leave arrangements they cannot do that and they can take up to 2 years unpaid leave! They also cannot accrue sick pay/leave whilst on parental leave.
And by the way. The PPL is Paid Parental Leave. It is not exclusively for women. Fathers could also apply for it instead of the Mother. The fact is very few men actually do or will in the future.

If you do not believe women earn less than men in many sectors I suggest you do some homework. Even the unions acknowledge as much. Or are they being captured under the spell of 'feminist ideology' as well?
gillham
10th Dec 2014
4:16pm
KSS PPL was called maternity leave until it was criticised for leaving men out of the equation. So then it was declared Parental leave with no changes on father's potful entitlements. So job cone it is now equitable because the name was changed.

No matter what you say the Family Court ensures women get more than half the assets including the parter's super. Pay equity. Well Unions are a left wing 'entitlement' based aberration.

Bottom line and back to the subject we GIVE up to $50,000 to one part of Society based on gender, and TAKE $5 from another sector. And whether you like it or not, dress it in any way, but the consumer still pays for PPL.
KSS
10th Dec 2014
6:52pm
Quite simply gillham, IF the Father were to be the primary care giver to the child, then HE could claim the PPL. Fact is most Fathers are NOT the primary care giver the Mother is.

Please save your obvious extreme bias towards women. Women are NOT responsible for your personal circumstances. You are.
gillham
10th Dec 2014
7:15pm
KSS you obviously don't like it being called as it is. I do not have any personal 'circumstances' but it seems women have most of my ice. I doubt history has ever witnessed a more privileged species than present day women in Australia. I have never witnessed more concessions given to any group. The same group when things don't happen to be in their favour cry discrimination. The other thing is that if a man claims to be the primary carer his career is terminated forever but a woman has specific legislated protection.
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:34am
You hit it on the head when you said EARNED, KSS. We've had this discussion before.. women worked, according to the 2011 Census, 32 hours to men's 41 on average. Call that as you like - the issue is EARNED Income - most emphatically not some mythical wage gap.

Do you expect that women will be paid at a higher rate over their working life to make up for their own choices in not working? That is precisely what this PPL scheme is doing by another name - paying extra for work performed by offering payment during times of not working.

If it were reversed and men got it - the screeching would be 'discrimination' all the way.

Do the figures - 32/41 * 100 (%) = ??

You get what you EARN - there is no 'wage gap'.

Gillham is correct - such a payout for zero is not sustainable for any business or economy. Philosophically you may add to that - governments have no obligation to pay for someone's breeding... that is a personal choice and if it changes lives - that's called LIFE.

Get used to it.

As for '[primary caregiver' - you all need to think this one through - BOTH parents are primary caregivers in different ways - or do you wish to argue that a woman who goes back to work and hands off caregiving remains the 'primary caregiver'?

That position is only desired when it offers all the kudos and the perks... not at any other time.

Making simple statements of realities is not 'misogyny' - any more than the opposite position is misandry....
Reeper
10th Dec 2014
4:06pm
I would respectfully suggest that a few of the respondents to this article take a few minutes to read up on the state of Medicare and it's future. The insolvency of Medicare is not within reach, and many on this website will be alive to watch it crumble if some income is not forthcoming. When it starts to fail GPs will need to jam more patients in and Medicare rebates will become less and less for everyone including pensioners. A small amount per visit now will extend the life of Medicare for our children...but, under political pressure the government is unable to pass this funding. How will Bill Shorten save Medicare, noting his income means he will not be bothered by the failure of Medicare
geomac
10th Dec 2014
4:19pm
Medicare like the budget crisis a coalition fabrication. If in fact the co payment in its original form or the proposed one were to address finances the money would go back into Medicare not a research fund that has no formulated agenda or guidelines. It is ideology plain and simple.
Abbott would like nothing better than to dismantle Medicare like Howard did under the Fraser govt but its an too ingrained and popular now. He could save 5 billion straight away by abolishing the private health subsidy which is a rort and has never achieved its stated aims of relieving pressure on public hospitals and reducing private health care costs.
BobK
10th Dec 2014
6:14pm
Geomac,
I would like to learn more about that ideology you mentioned. What is it all about, what is the logic behind it? Does it have a name? What does it contain? Why would Abbott - or any PM - want to dismantle Medicare, provided there is enough money to sustain its operations? Kind of cannot see much sense in doing so...

Also, as to the reduction of pressure on public hospitals not being achieved, from my own (three) experience I don't see that to be true. On each occasion I was taken to public hospital, asked about health insurance, and promptly sent to private hospital for hospitalisation. Surely that provided some relief?
Thanks for your time.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
7:12pm
Yes Reeper, "... a small amount per visit now will extend the life of Medicare
for our children."
Such a small sacrifice to ensure the continuity of an invaluable asset.
So simple, but many just don't understand.
Patriot
10th Dec 2014
7:35pm
miss aisle,
Do you reaqlly believe that????
I am sure that some or another politician must have verbalised it and - as his lips were moving - it was certain that it was a lie.

All that was required to get across the line for the next election.
geomac
10th Dec 2014
8:50pm
Bobk
Who said anything about logic ? As to the terms used for this ideology , user pays, capitalism writ large , free market or let the market decide etc etc. All very strange when you consider Abbott is adept and practised at having other people pay for stuff. Wedding trips, fun runs, seminarian courses, daughters education and so on. He even went to the trouble of becoming an Australian citizen in his twenties to be eligible for a free Rhodes Scholarship.
Your strange experience at a public hospital , three times is no revelation of easing pressure on public hospitals. It is however odd that you were not operated on and charged the going rate which you would forward to your private health insurer which is the usual thing I hear about.
As to your question as to why would Abbott or any PM perhaps you should ask Fraser or his then treasurer Howard. Perhaps you should ask liberals who consistently voted against its introduction first and second times. Maybe the IPA has a reason along with the 75 policies Abbott seems intent on implementing to please them. Maybe Abbott is only true and honest to the IPA and totally dishonest to the Australian public as we have experienced since he gained office. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.
wally
10th Dec 2014
10:59pm
"Nice idea to research the issue, but I have made up my mind that I am right and the facts can all go to Hell. So there!"
I'd like to see how many of our contributors to this forum would agree with the preceding statement as an accurate reflection of their thought processes and views.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:44pm
wally, -
a bunch of ficticous ramblings, bundled up together.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
2:23pm
Reeper,
Just pump some more pills into people and make them available at woollies or Aldies.
Not much different to what many (good ones excluded) do now.
That's how they are trained at the universities WE established & PAID for.
Don't question big pharma - Just Pump Some Pills!
BobK
11th Dec 2014
4:39pm
Geomac,
thanks. I hoped I would learn something, but now I am not sure about that.
You seem to know a lot about Abbott's reason for accepting Australian citizenship. I thought Rhodes Scholarship was awarded on the basis of merit, not any particular citizenship. You say "other people pay for stuff", does he, personally, get paid for "fun runs" or his pushbike fundraising? What about his life-saving and volunteer firefighting, paid as well? To me, it sound like giving rather than receiving.
I am not that familiar with Australian history, but wasn't basis for Howard objections to Medicare (then Medibank) that it was at the time financially unaffordable? Even Hawke had problems financing it, if I am not mistaken.
You seem to be too bitter, perhaps even biased against Abbott, but thanks for your time anyway.
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
10:48am
BobK - You have a certain knack of getting to the truth
in a short & simple form,
unlike others who ramble on endlessly about bs.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:07pm
Patriot: if you have not already realised it miss aisle is on this website to troll, not offer informed debate. Worse than that this poster also goes by the name of Frank and possibly Solomon both of whom I have caught out before. You will not get any informed debate from these and a couple of other posters of whom I am unsure.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
3:53pm
mick - I take things at face value -
If someone says they're not getting money for comments,
I'd believe them.
You want to distort the truth.
DSJCSC
10th Dec 2014
6:42pm
In my o pinion the GP co-payment is a beat up. The real issue for pensioners is Gap Payments charged by unscrupulous 'specialists' upfront costs to see a specialist, Medicare waiting times, inadequate Medicare rebates and Medicare inefficiencies. This is the case for ophthalmic specialists where first consultation fees are between $60 and $200, and fees of $387 for each visit payable on the day with a Medicare rebate of $193 paid sometimes up to 4 weeks later - all of these up front changes and low Medicare rebates introduced by Labor/Pibersek. Labour/PUP have no clue
KSS
10th Dec 2014
6:56pm
I agree with you DSJCSC on the issue of extreme specialist fees and I might say, so do the GPs. 99.9% of specialists do not and never have bulk billed. They have been charging exactly what they wanted for years. Yes there is a medicare rebate but often well less than 50%. You are right, its not the cost of a GP people should be worrying about but the cost of a referral.
Jen
10th Dec 2014
7:32pm
On the subject of specialist fees, if we're paying $300 - $400 for a visit now, what will it be like when they're saddled with a $120,000 uni bill to pay off? How will our kids and grandkids be able to afford to see a specialist?
Young Simmo
10th Dec 2014
7:43pm
Jen your kids and grandkids will be the Specialists.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:42pm
More like watermelons.. green on outside/red on inside.
Seagull
10th Dec 2014
8:32pm
unbelievable ,were has this notion come from that seeing your Doctor should be free? That is another aussie should pay the fee. What about other services, ie groceries, tyres, power water. To see the Doctor in NZ there is a copayment of $30.IN the USA to see the Doctor costs between $250 to $300.The whole health system has to be reformed or The pensioners and the less well of are going to to be hit big time and it aint join to be pretty.
Jen
10th Dec 2014
9:14pm
Yes! as Seagull says, we must make it more and more like the US system where people die because they can't afford to go to a doctor or to have surgery. Yes! Good idea, Seagull!
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:30pm
Thank you Seagull, for presenting us with facts -
And how fortunate we are!

how pathetic some people are to complain.
All this time & effort for $5 - ??
Some peoples' mentality truly is up the creek!
It must make them feel important to be able to complain
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:40am
It is not the fault of the end users if the government of the day:-

a) fails to allocate sufficient resources to fund health care as required

b) views healthcare for the many as an avenue to cut budgetary expenditure so as to attempt to balance the books when countless other options are available.

c) fails to even do so by subverting a proposed extra tax into an area not covered by the healthcare system, thus cutting out any corrective impetus from the said extra tax.
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:55am
grappler - you seem to live in "your own little, private world"
with your own little "victim mentality".
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:13pm
Seagull: you are correct in that the Australian health service is abused by people who could well do without a visit to the doctor. Add to that GPs who are engaging in 5 minute consultations and you have the current system.
Grappler has a valid point but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody has to pay. Perhaps the system could be made fairer by making a visit to the doctor tax deductible. Who knows.
Whilst you point out the high cost of health care in the US Seagull you also need to mention the many rorts the rich have in the US: low taxes, tax deductible home and holiday home interest payments, etc. The high cost of medicine there is well documented and average citizens have been under attack for decades. This was the type of system John Howard wanted for Australians and from what I see the game plan has not changed, only the names given to attacks on the poor.
Seagull
10th Dec 2014
8:38pm
There is never an opposing opinion in life choices.Just a progressive view. Where is the balance., always a left wing view.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:36pm
Seagull, If it was 50/50 , I could understand it,
but every one leans to the left.
Their comments bring out lefties unable to reason or see logic.
Looks like we have to keep bringing up unpopular facts, Seagull,
but it does seem very unfair !
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:42am
Will of the majority... sorry 'bout democracy. By what standard or value is there any requirement for opinion to be 50/50? If that were so in parliament, nothing would ever pass.....

You prefer the rule of the Bolsheviks.. the Men of the Minority Party.. by force?
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
9:58am
grappler - try reading the whole comment,
before getting your your brain jammed in 1st gear.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:18pm
Seagull: it never ceases to surprise me that whenever the right does not get its way it refers to the "left" in demonising something. The ABC has copped a heap of criticism from the government trolls on this site but you never read anything about their right wing media outlets of which there are many.
You talk about "balance" and indeed this is what should happen. What happens in reality is that the rich try their best to take everything and then attack average citizens fro being deadbeats. Many people on this website and indeed in this country believe in a fair go. That means not handing out money like confetti to those who wish to bludge on the system but not letting people die in the gutter or starve. Never an easy road.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
3:56pm
The big difference mick, is that ABC is funded by taxpayers money,
others are not.
No-one would be at all concerned if ABC was privately financed -
Then, they can say what they like !!
mariac
10th Dec 2014
9:14pm
Well some doctors have been charging $10 each time a patient goes to them for ages and long before Abbott came into power. Like some specialists..one has to pay the whole fee and then medicare will send a cheque.. Don't know what's the fuss is about.
miss aisle
10th Dec 2014
11:40pm
If "lefties" want to make a point,
surely they could choose something carrying a bit more weight
than a topic worth $5.
Funny how they don't even acknowledge Labor's massive waste.
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:55am
Nothing to do with the issues.... evidence please of 'waste'.

How is taking $5 going to fix the medicare system when the money will leave it and go elsewhere?
Anonymous
11th Dec 2014
7:58am
Hardly a 'leftie' question or view - just a sensible question on the facts.

You would all be better served sticking to the facts and not seeking to label people.
miss aisle
11th Dec 2014
10:01am
grappler - your brain is definitely jammed in first gear.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
12:26pm
miss aisle
Are you sure you're not a Govt Owned - political - infiltration in this forum.
If not, start discarding those rose coloured glassed and seeing the government for what they are.
A bunch of meglomaniacs & psychopaths!
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
12:28pm
miss aisle,
You can be honest with us - we're all friends!
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
10:52am
Patriot -
Are you saying it's OK for you to be passionate about your political beliefs -
But unacceptable for those who don't agee with you ??

Live & let live !
Radish
12th Dec 2014
5:06pm
Everyone paid taxes when in the workforce but not everyone will get a pension.

It is not an entitlement at all. The taxes paid went towards roads, education, et etc.

It is a safety net for those who are not able to financially look after themselves in retirement.
It is silly to say I paid my taxes therefore I should get a pension. There would not be enough money to pay everyone a pension who worked during their lifetime.

If that were the case the politicians should get one as well they have paid their taxes!!

The assets and income test is there for a reason and I believe some should not be getting a part pension and if the government wants to save money....lower the tests for eligibility so that those who really need it get it!
Patriot
12th Dec 2014
9:13pm
Radish,
Read the hansard at the time Age pensions were introduced!
Hansard of those sessions will reveal ALL.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:24pm
Grappler: as I have said on many occasions 'miss aisle' is a paid troll so expect anything that this poster writes (or the other avatar known as Frank) to be right wing and anti labor and anti Union. That it what these low life people do. No morals.
Raddish: the age pension is not like superannuation. Retirees do not get out what they pay in. Having paid taxes all of my life I now get nothing but have to wear this as a fair thing because I do not need the age pension, but of course would like it if it were available as it would make life much easier. I am grateful though that it is there for those who need it...although I find it galling that people who have sponged all of their adult lives can then roll onto the pension and get every handout under the sun. Such is life though.
PlanB
11th Dec 2014
5:44am
Tricky Dicky strikes again, sneaky mongrel Abbott
Paddles
11th Dec 2014
11:17am
Amidst all the gnashing and wailing, has anyone considered the possibility that the co-contribution, in whatever form or value, may be squarely aimed at discouraging the blatant overuse of medical services?

Talk to any GP and ask them how many "social" consults they have every day. $5 is not much of an impost but it may give some bored people a chance to reflect on whether or not they really need to attend the surgery.
Lee
11th Dec 2014
3:00pm
This is a fact - so my Dr. friend tells me.
Jacks
11th Dec 2014
1:04pm
The Federal government’s attempt to impose a $5 co-payment on GP services by regulation raises the same issues as its previous failed attempt to impose a $7 co-payment through legislation.

The consequences of the new policy for patients are self-evident. But some additional points that are less well-known yet nevertheless important need to be highlighted.

First, the “savings” will be largely illusory. A reduction in the rebate will save the government money, but unless this reduces service use, it only means that patients will pay more, or doctors will be paid less for the same amount of work. In other words, it will shift the cost to patients or doctors, not reduce the use of real resources.

Second, no real reduction in the cost of Medicare will be achieved unless some patients reduce their use of doctor services. Almost all of these patients will be relatively less well off because the co-payment will not deter the wealthy. In other words, whatever savings are made will be at the expense of the poor.

Third, if there’s an overall net reduction in the use of doctor services, it will mean that the fixed stock of doctors will have less work (not that there will be fewer doctors). The economic (opportunity) cost of medical care – the skilled workforce that is not available to work elsewhere in the economy – will remain unchanged.

Fourth, an unknown proportion of general practitioners may continue to bulk bill patients and accept the lower rebate. But, in 2011, the income of Australian general practitioners relative to average wages was the lowest in the 16 countries compared by the OECD after Estonia and Hungary.

A more equitable target for government policy would be specialist incomes, which were the fourth highest in the same comparison.

Fifth, the “unsustainability” of Medicare – the ostensible reason for change – is false. While health spending is rising (at this point in time more slowly than at any time since records were available), spending is rising more in many other areas. People now spend more of their income on electronic goods, for instance, and travel or entertainment. This means they are spending a smaller percentage of their income elsewhere.

The point here is that the economy is flexible. There is no obstacle to spending more on health, if this is what we want. Of course, we want value for money. But the barrier to access created by co-payments does not achieve this.

Economic growth also allows increased expenditure in one area without reductions elsewhere. As GDP grows the pie of total income also grows. This means that we could increase the amount of money spent on health without decreasing expenditure elsewhere. Even if GDP grows more slowly than health spending, the absolute (not percentage) increase in GDP will most likely still be greater than the absolute increase in health expenditures.

Finally, the claim that government expenditure on Medicare is unsustainable is also untrue. Because of Australia’s substantial private health sector, public spending on health as a percentage of GDP is among the lowest in the OECD. Only Chile, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Poland and the Slovak Republic channel less of their GDP into health via the government.

The government’s budgetary problems are primarily a result of low taxes in Australia, which, as a percentage of GDP, are the fourth lowest of the 34 countries in the OECD database. The alternative to penalising low-income patients and (relatively) low-income general practitioners is to repair the tax base and raise total revenues to a level more comparable with the amounts collected by most western countries.
geomac
11th Dec 2014
2:54pm
Thanks for addressing the shonky unsustainable line used by Dutton and the govt. Dutton who never managed to ask a question in relation to his shadow portfolio in parliament just repeats unsustainable without any reason for saying it. On his form I suspect he has no valid argument to mount not the capacity to mount one if he had a valid argument.
What is unsustainable is a policy that has no basis for its implementation. Saying black is white does not make it so.
unicorn
11th Dec 2014
5:21pm
This will only put the highlight on Doctors instead of Tony, Not much in it it will only prove what a flip he is and how greedy Doctors can be.
Patriot
11th Dec 2014
5:40pm
I have been told that, in Ancient Chine, the medicos (or the equivalent at that time) was only receiving remuneration when people were well (not sick).
This forum seems to have ample creativety.
May be we should "Hatch a Plan" with viability along these lines and present it to Tony/Joe & co.

Than again, they would probably not accept it if they thought it had any chance to achieve the objectives as such a scheme (as opposed to scam) would not "Fleece the General Populace" and provide exorbitant profits for the FatCats who own the Banks, Pharmaceutical Industries etc.
So can that idea, I'm sure it would never gain approval from the "Powers-to-Be".
bobbalinda
11th Dec 2014
6:44pm
$5 for crying out loud for something that may save your life? How many people think nothing of buying a cake and coffee for $7.50 each week when out shopping! 1 Cigarette is now about $2 each and a can of coke $3 and ppl don't even blink at that!
Jen
11th Dec 2014
7:59pm
That's hardly the point. What it costs for cake, coffee, cigarettes, or anything else, has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject.
geomac
11th Dec 2014
10:38pm
So a coffee is to be compared with a visit to the doctor ? If you miss out on the coffee no big deal. If you put off a visit to the doctor what seems a minor ailment could mean a stay in hospital.
How many people don,t buy a cake and coffee for $7.50 each week because their money is needed elsewhere might be a better question. Better still ask why doctors should have the Medicare share of the visit frozen for four years and why the same will not be applied to MPs wages. If doctors can afford a freeze why not pollies ?
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
10:55am
Jen, the cost of these items has everything to do with this topic.
It is the so-called "huge" cost of the co-payment
that has some unreasonable people up in arms !
geomac
12th Dec 2014
12:55pm
miss aisle
Whats got people upset is the lies this govt told the electorate before the election. No surprises and doing what they promised , remember ? No cuts to ABC etc no taxes and health and education left alone.
Get the drift miss ?
The man who campaigned for three years on one half lie has delivered a truck load of broken promises. He has destroyed any cred he may have had as well as any integrity that some may have thought he had. He cannot promise anything to the electorate and be taken seriously again. He himself has done this and there is no reversal he can do to change that. In affect he gave the public the finger once he gained office.
Jen
12th Dec 2014
2:13pm
Well said Geomac. Yet Miss Aisle seems to think that behaviour constitutes "integrity." There's just no explaining some people. They got in on a lie, tell us they have a mandate. Their lie negates any mandate they thought they had. All they have managed to do is set us back 50 years, bring to a halt any momentum we had going forward and dissolve any respect normal people could possibly have for them.
miss aisle
12th Dec 2014
8:08pm
The previous govt. gave australians surprises -
some were only discovered after they were kicked out of office.
Try ranting about the massive waste from the previous govt.
before mentioning anything about this govt.
geomac
12th Dec 2014
9:53pm
miss aisle
The thread is about this govt and my post was in response to your comment about people upset with the co payment. How could I not mention the present govt and why people are upset without mentioning the govt that upset them and the reasons they are upset ? Now commenting on the topic at hand is what I thought we do. Are you suggesting we should ignore the topic because you are not happy with the replies ?
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
9:16am
geomac, To keep things in perspective
the previous govt. has to be talked about!

Because we do not have a dictatorship here -
we can compare & should compare !
geomac
13th Dec 2014
11:06am
miss aisle
" Try ranting about the massive waste from the previous govt.
before mentioning anything about this govt. "
You didn,t want to compare but wanted to shut down bagging the present govt it seems. Lets compare one half broken promise to Abbotts dozen or so broken promises. I say dozen but lets face it there are so many I am not sure of the number. Hockey will have the figures next Monday and no surprise the budget deficit will be bigger and so will the unemployed numbers. Not much joy for him or us but he delighted in bagging Swan when in opposition. Reality bites and his surplus in the first year and every year after which he later amended to 2015 recedes further away. Opposition is a cake walk compared to actually having to govern. Now the absurdity of Abbott using the sexism card regarding Peta is beyond belief. Another example of saying one thing before and changing it when the situation applies to them. Funny thing is its govt members bagging Credlin. No wonder they seem like a rabble. Is Abbott consistent on any topic ?
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:41pm
bobbalinda: whilst I agree with you I believe that the real issue may be that Abbott categorically denied that he would increase taxes, especially on the poor half of society. HE LIED. HE HAD EVERY INTENTION OF DOING WHAT HE IS TRYING ON. So lets understand that the reaction from average Australians is less about affordability and more about dishonesty and lack of faith in the government.

geomac: miss aisle is a paid stooge from this government and also posts as 'Frank' ....... and who knows who else. The Webmaster should be banning this sort of political dishonesty but chooses to let it get through.
miss aisle
13th Dec 2014
3:59pm
mick - don't you ever get sick of printing these lies.
I do not get paid for writing for my views.
Oars
12th Dec 2014
11:22am
The onus is now back to the Doctors, who may or may not charge their patients. Hopefully they will decide who are the real patients and those who are malingering. They also have an important part to play in this "bleat/politisised" issue. It may also mean that a more rational approach is taken to medical privileges rather than using a visit as an easy way to miss work.
Oars
12th Dec 2014
11:25am
Kato- did I read your comment correctly ?: " the average GP can't absorb the rebate reduction " . Have you ever found a doctor "doing without" - anywhere ? You must have bad eyesight- go to an Optometrist- probably a rebate there mate.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:45pm
Whilst we rarely agree Oars i will agree with your view here. When you crunch the numbers it is clear that doctors are not exactly skint. My wife and I got our 18 month skin cancer check from one of the clinics (not a specialist). We were in for 10 minutes each and the bill was $120. That is $6 a minute, or $240 an hour. You can subtract the running costs of the business (10% ??) which gives the doctor $216 an hour or $6 480 a week if they work 30 hours. Not bad moula.
geomac
12th Dec 2014
3:29pm
It wants doctors to charge co-payments. It wants patients to see doctors less often, claiming that patients see doctors too often despite a complete lack of evidence for such a claim.

The Federal Government completely ignores the fact that patients are not in a position to know whether their apparently minor complaint is an indicator of a life-threatening condition. We doctors want patients to come with apparently trivial complaints like indigestion which is really a heart attack, a tiny foot ulcer which is really the first stage of gangrene leading to amputation, some bleeding from the bowel which isn't piles but instead totally curable bowel cancer. We can save lives.

This policy is forcing working Australians to pay twice for health care - once through taxes and the Medicare levy, and again through the co-payment.

A parallel is worth considering: there is no co-payment for police care if a person's car is being stolen. Taxes pay the total cost of care. Thus, we provide more support for care of property than for care of our health. This proposal aims to reduce that support for health even more.

The co-payment is a price signal, but at $5 it signals nothing to a rich politician on $200,000 a year, even with 50 visits for the family over the year. For a low-income-earning family on $50,000, paying off a mortgage, it is a kick in the guts.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/woodruff-this-gp-price-signal-will-work-and-thats-frightening/5962594
mangomick
12th Dec 2014
10:02pm
Well said. If they keep having G20 style events over here they will probably bring in a co-payment to help pay for all the "anti-terrorist"police measures that they fret about whenever these type of events are staged. Particularly given the economic loss many businesses in the CBD had to deal with.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:49pm
If you compare the poor in America these folk do not go to the doctor and only ever if really ill. We need to keep our system in perspective as folk here run to the doctor for a sniffle and that should not happen. But how do you stop rorters from rorting? That is the billion dollar question. Like others I do not want to see the golden goose killed but average Australians have no concept about doing the wrong thing and just take as much as they can get because it is 'free' (not).
Radish
15th Dec 2014
5:20pm
It is not only "working Australians" who have to pay the medicare levy, through taxes and also co-payment; there are many retired people who do as well.
DSJCSC
12th Dec 2014
5:04pm
5AA today(but the norm) - pensioner (can't afford Health Insurance) has to wait 48 months (in pain) for appointment to see orthopedic specialist - please tell me that universal Medicare is fair and works in its current form. A complete review and reform of funding, management and priorities is required to fix a total crock.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
2:50pm
Agree. Those in real need are being denied whilst those who want GP services destroy a good system. it is wrong.
Jacks
13th Dec 2014
2:39pm
We already pay a GP Co Payment it's called the medicare levy. Double taxing we don't need, and it won't build revenue. The budget would be surplus in only three years if we had no paid parental leave and if Mining Tax and Carbon Price retailed.
MICK
13th Dec 2014
3:40pm
Whilst I do not see an extra payment as double taxing you are spot on the money with The Carbon Tax (repealed for Abbott's mates in the coal industry), the Mining Tax (repealed for Abbott's mates in mining) and the PPL Scheme (an election bribe taken hook line and sinker by Gen Y mums so that they could sponge on taxpayers).
If you wanted a surplus you would not have touched the the first two and would not have offered the third. On top of that one would introduce legislation to stop corporates from profit shifting and back-date this so that they were made to pay up. And last of all you would stop the tax benefits set up for the rich which average Australians will never be able to afford and which are there simply for the big end of town.
Jude
16th Dec 2014
11:11am
This is a direct reduction to some GPs income. My GP operates a cashless office. I imagine it would cost him an extra $5 to start collecting this reduction in benefits! Go doctor, you are 65 now, keep working til you are 80 - perhaps you can retire then!
Not Senile Yet!
22nd Dec 2014
10:23pm
Oh yeah..great comment Wally!!!
There is NO MAGIC PUDDING MONEY TREE!!!!!
What a wanker....do you not understand how the Tax system works?????
You the Tax Payer PAYS....there are no refunds.....there are no exceptions unless you own a Company that is).....you pay what they say.......you pay more if you earn more......you pay a higher percentage if you earn less......NO Tax has ever been removed without another put in it's place (and preferably a higher one).....and more importantly if the Gov;t of the day cannot BALANCE their Budget......you get hit with more tax to fix it!!!!!!
No Magic Pudding Tree...bahh Humbug!!!!
We the Tax Payers are the endless Magic Pudding Tree!!!!
Not Senile Yet!
22nd Dec 2014
10:42pm
It never fails to amuse me......all these Lefty's and Oh so Right Righty's
Labor & Liberals.....so hell bent on pronouncing how righteous they are!!!!!!
What a bunch of brainwashed Morons the whole lot are!!!!!
The Left wants the workers and unions to run the Country.....oh dam...what a Brainwave idea!!!!
The Right wants the Power hungry and Greedy Bosses and Corporations to run the Country......heil hitler.....Pure Genuis idea!!
Truth be known BOTH have failed miserably for the Past 30YEARS!!!
Neither can get it correct....the Balance that is.....both lean to far away from the Centre....where the balance is!!!
It is never the SYSTEM that Fails....it is always the People who CORRUPT it from within!!!!
Our Tax System is way to complicated for such a small country by world standards.....but the truth is that our elected Governments do not act in our best interests nor in the Country's.....they are too occupied with protecting their right to GOVERN and Stay in Power!!!
What I wonder would happen..... if say the Taxpayers....actually stopped believing that the Parties deserve to be elected.....and decided en masse to not vote for any Political Party based on the fact they they corrupt our System??????
I wonder what would happen if the average person was intelligent enough to understand that they can make a difference at each election by not Donkey Card Voting?????
And there you have it.......
Once upon a time.....in a Land far far away.....in a time and place in the not too distant future.......The Independants joined forces to defeat the Corrupt Parties and allow the People to have a say in how their Country is run!!!!!!
Jen
23rd Dec 2014
8:03am
"Once upon a time.....in a Land far far away.....in a time and place in the not too distant future.......The Independants joined forces to defeat the Corrupt Parties and allow the People to have a say in how their Country is run!!!!!!"

We can only hope!
Not Senile Yet!
22nd Dec 2014
11:06pm
We are not...I repeat NOT! the lowest taxed Country!!!
All calculating are averaged and so are incomes.
The highest incomes are more able to claim tax concessions relating to being self-employed or operating a company....so they may in reality be reducing the average of tax paid!!!!!
The wages employee is not able to claim these tax reductions/expenses in earning their wage and if researched properly they actually pay one of the highest rate of Tax compared to other economies!!!!!
Why has this been allowed?????
Because the Corporate Companies have been operating at the Lowest Rate of Taxation within Australia to attract investment!!!
Other countries only offer 5 to 10 years cheap tax rates.....but we in Australia do not restrict the tax funded cheap rates!!!!
Our Governments enter into Free Trade Deals with Countries...not fully appreciating how Corporations can utilizes those agreements to not only minimise their tax but also to dump unsold warehouses of
products through those trade agreements simply by setting up Companies in the Appropriate Countries.
Our Governments need to set a Minimum tax for all Companies.....not on their Net Profit.....which they manipulate...but on their Gross Turnover...just like a wage earner!!!
Expenses raised or spent outside Australia should be restricted to a percentage...to prevent total outsourcing of all labor/office work!!!
Yes not easy to do......but also not impossible!!!
Even a minimum of 20% tax would completely reverse any Budget Deficit far more effectively than robbing from Pensioners and Medicare.....Tax concessions/deductions for business related expenses can also be set limitations based on the percentage of the Gross income produced....NOT NET.....Net is too easily manipulated.
Stop copying the Americans....start being inventive...something we Aussies have been GREAT at!!!!