MichaelP Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 As you probably heard, the Liberal government is to bring in charges to see a GP, and also co-payments for pathology tests and scans. These payments don't count towards the Medicare Safety Net and they're also tightening that so you have to pay more out of pocket costs before you get relief. And there is an extra new prescription charge (of $5 I think). The bottom line is you will be facing much higher out of pocket costs to get medical treatment on Medicare. If you need hospital treatment you will also face longer waits for treatment because the Federal government has cut hospital funding to state (who run hospitals) by an order of billions. Tony Abbott has told the state governments to be creative in how to find the shortfall - including charges for attending an emergency department. So overnight, Australia has gone from having an almost-free medical system to one that will cost you. If you have a young family, you need to factor this in to your living expenses - on top of things like very expensive dental treatment (Labor planned a Commonwealth Dental Scheme for kids, that obviously is now not going to happen). Treasurer Joe Hockey says it's only the cost of a couple of beers (if you drink middies in an RSL on cheaper Tuesdays, maybe) to see a doctor. If you're healthy, have a job and only see the doctor occasionally, maybe that's OK. If you or a family member need to see the doctor regularly or need multiple prescriptions, you are going to be paying out quite a bit of money. The other bad news is that the health minister is seeking to 'remove the burden of regulation' on private health insurers - that's a politician's way of saying they will be allowing them to raise their premiums (which, with selling off Medibank Private, will put upward pressure on health insurance costs). The long term aim of the government is for everyone to have private health insurance, which will in future also have to pay for your GP visits as well as hospital treatment. Medicare will become a system of last resort, overcrowded, underfunded 'poor hospitals' like those that serve the uninsured in the US. And for those with private cover, if you think your premiums and gap fees are steep now, this is just the beginning. The government is transferring the cost of healthcare to the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chortlepuss Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 It's heartbreaking that politicians seem to think that $7 means the same to a rich or a poor person. Sure it may be a couple of cheap stubbies, but it's also a family meal if you're skint, and I know what I'd plump for if I had to make a choice. It seems bonkers to me - surely the hassle of collection from poor people, the cost of admin of managing it and the risk that more people will present to A&E with minor ailments will outweigh any benefit? There are more sensible and cost effective ways of saving $ than targeting the poor and vulnerable who aren't exactly awash with cash.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Honest question. Do these changes need to be approved by the Senate in order to become law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petals Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I am just so amazed that people could not see the writing on the wall before the election. Compassion is an unknown word for the libs these days. No moderates there at all. They say people can just give up their coffee etc and afford the costs. What they do not realise is that so many small businesses rely on those cups of coffee and other small items that the masses purchase. Wealthy people may eat out and spend some money but its the masses that spend the most money in business so restricting their income will cause a lot of grief I fear. Petrol and docs is going to make a big hole in retail spending according to my crystal ball :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairystar32 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yes.... Honest question. Do these changes need to be approved by the Senate in order to become law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yes.... If that's the case, then there's still hope. Who elected this mob of nutters?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelP Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 Also worth noting that the biggest donor to the Liberal Party by a country mile ($500,000) last year was Ramsay Health, operator of private hospitals. They will obviously benefit massively financially from a shift from public to private hospital care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 If that's the case, then there's still hope. Who elected this mob of nutters?! The Australian people. Why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeegieDave Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 The Australian people. Why ? They will live to regret it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I am just so amazed that people could not see the writing on the wall before the election. Compassion is an unknown word for the libs these days. No moderates there at all. They say people can just give up their coffee etc and afford the costs. What they do not realise is that so many small businesses rely on those cups of coffee and other small items that the masses purchase. Wealthy people may eat out and spend some money but its the masses that spend the most money in business so restricting their income will cause a lot of grief I fear. Petrol and docs is going to make a big hole in retail spending according to my crystal ball :laugh: And the fact that the seniors supplement is to be axed immediately. For many retirees on low incomes this will be the only discretionary income they have. It may not make a difference in Hockey and Abbottland in North Sydney but it certainly will in less affluent areas, particularly those with a high percentage of older residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Who elected this mob of nutters?! Actually only 32% of Oz voters gave them their first vote. If it had been a first-past-the-post system they would have been beaten by Labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 No. The coalition would still have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Harpo, don't like a post that is factually incorrect. Skani forgets that seats won determines who wins an election, not individual people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Harpo, don't like a post that is factually incorrect. Skani forgets that seats won determines who wins an election, not individual people. Its all immaterial parley. They obviously won. The big question is how they get booted out at the earliest opportunity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 If that's the case, then there's still hope. Who elected this mob of nutters?! probably the people who believed them when they said, we won't touch Medicare, or pensions, or education, or funding to the A.B.C and S.B.S, or impose new taxes, I can't imaging they'll make the same mistake again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 And do you think the other lot will reverse anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I like your avatar Harpo. I'm glad you were so touched by that news article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echidna66 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Of course surely you must realise this?.."Your" govt hates you, doesnt love you...To them you are a slug..there to be milked dry financially...Australia is a corporation, no different from any other corporation out to drain you financially...Did you know the Govt controls the population finacially...they manipulate...because they can and the herd does nothing to change anything.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 And do you think the other lot will reverse anything? Er, yeah. They may make for a **** opposition but they know whic side their bread is buttered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 No. The coalition would still have one. Skani forgets that seats won determines who wins an election, I can't forget (unfortunately....wish I could at the moment). But that doesn't alter the fact that voters chose: - Labor 33 % of first preferences Liberals 32 % of first preferences Yes, the coalition won. Liberals would never win without the Country Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I can't forget (unfortunately....wish I could at the moment). But that doesn't alter the fact that voters chose: - Labor 33 % of first preferences Liberals 32 % of first preferences Yes, the coalition won. Liberals would never win without the Country Party. Wrong again. On first prefs, Liberal won 58 seats to Labor 55. So they would still have won without the Nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 It works both ways. In my own seat of Chisholm. The Liberal candidate actually had significantly more 1st preference votes and so would have won on a first past the post system. But Labor (Anna Burke) won the seat on preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelP Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 To get back to my point ... you will now be paying an extra $7 for the doctor, $7 for the blood test, $7 for the X-ray and $5 for each prescription - easily an extra $30 - 40 each visit. Family with two or three kids, five to ten GP visits a year each. Do the math, as the Septics say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 To get o my point ... you will now be paying an extra $7 for the doctor, $7 for the blood test, $7 for the X-ray and $5 for each prescription - easily an extra $30 - 40 each visit. Family with two or three kids, five to ten GP visits a year each. Do the math, as the Septics say. Hearing Shorten's budget reply, ALP will oppose the co-payment idea, presumably in the Senate. Potentially a(nother) trigger for a DD? Previously I thought the debt levy would prove their downfall, but I think Abbot et al have severely miscalculated on this one and they will get rightly shown the door in 2016, if not sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 To get back to my point ... you will now be paying an extra $7 for the doctor, $7 for the blood test, $7 for the X-ray and $5 for each prescription - easily an extra $30 - 40 each visit. Family with two or three kids, five to ten GP visits a year each. Do the math, as the Septics say. I have been paying $70 a visit to the doctors (ok medicare paid $50 of it) plus prescription fees, so i will be better off won't i? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.