Bulk billing is dead. Not a good time to be in Australia if you are sick

[akiralx]

I didn't realise until someone told me last night but South Australia Water has been sold off to the Japanese. Is this true? What happens if relationships between the countries sour, can they just leave SA with no water?

 

I assume it is a Japanese company rather than the nation. Even so I tend to agree that it isn't xenophobic to find foreign ownership of water utilities compromises a country's security to some extent. But if you list an asset on the stock market anyone can buy shares in it...

 

It's a bit like the US and UK governments denying the Chinese telecom company Huawei access to their country's internet and phone system, on the grounds of national security - whereas I see my wifi router is made by Huawei so presumably Australia has welcomed them with open arms...

[Xenon4017]

I would tend to favour renationalisation of utilities like water - and electricity,

 

Great. And how much extra income tax are you prepared to pay to fund that? 1%, 5%, 10%? More? It's very popular to say let's spend the money on X, Y and Z, but when it comes time to pay the bill, people are not quite so vociferous.

[AJ]

I think it is so wrong but if they are going to do it then people on concession cards should be exempt from co-payments, extra prescription charges etc. I know it's free after 10 visits but it's still morally wrong making poorer people pay as you're just making poor people poorer - where's the fairness in that?

 

From what I see evidently the labor government have got us into debt so Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey are the knights in shining armour coming along to save the day, boost the economy and provide lots of lovely jobs for us all. But in order to do that they need money and lots of it so they're deciding to take it from the unemployed, disabled and the low paid. Oh no wait a minute they are taking more tax from the super rich so it must be alright then mustn't it? However, I'm pretty sure these wealthy people will gets their accountants to manipulate a few figures come tax time and are they really going to have to adjust their weekly household budgets to accommodate that hike?!

 

its just plain mean and wrong and it confirms to me why I didn't vote for them as knew it was on the horizon.[/quote

 

 

Just because you earn over the threshold for the extra tax does not make you super rich!! My OH works in mining and will probably have to pay this, as well as being on the higher tax rate anyway, not qualifying for any benefits(not that we expect to), having to take out Private Health Insurance or Pay around an extra Levy on Medicare, but we are certainly not rich. So please do not think just because you earn around $180,000 you are living the life of Riley! We still have the same bills, mortgage etc to pay as someone else earning $100000, just means we can save a bit! We are a one income family, would you still class this amount as super rich if two of us were working earning 90,000 each.

Edited May 20, 2014 by AJ

[Xenon4017]

would you still class this amount as super rich if two of us were working earning 90,000 each.

 

That is a bit of a foible of the Oz tax system, isn't it??!?

 

But, don't you see, you are a miner. Your husband probably comes home with gold bars stuffed into his pockets. So you won't even notice the extra tax. And even if you did, you should rejoice in paying it, because it goes some way to atone for the sin of having a well-paid job. In fact, you should get used to it because you're going to have to put your hand in pocket to fund the NDS too. (What??! You think Tony and Joe can't manage Copy-Paste?)

[Harpodom]

That is a bit of a foible of the Oz tax system, isn't it??!?

 

But, don't you see, you are a miner. Your husband probably comes home with gold bars stuffed into his pockets. So you won't even notice the extra tax. And even if you did, you should rejoice in paying it, because it goes some way to atone for the sin of having a well-paid job. In fact, you should get used to it because you're going to have to put your hand in pocket to fund the NDS too. (What??! You think Tony and Joe can't manage Copy-Paste?)

 

I wish you'd get over that well paid chip on your shoulder.

 

FWIW I am well and truly in the tax bracket to cop the 'non-tax levy'. I don't mind paying extra tax. OK, I don't like it, but I accept it, as it is for the good of society.

 

But I don't trust Abbott as far as I could throw him and as such, if I ever found him on fire, I wouldn't feel compelled to urinate on him to put out the flames.

 

This budget is a declaration of war by the far right wing of the LNP (hard to believe that Malcolm Fraser was a Liberal) on the poor, the sick, the young, the unemployed, asylum seekers, the disabled, science, the environment and all the other stuff which needs protection from right wing ideologues.

[AJ]

I wish you'd get over that well paid chip on your shoulder.

 

FWIW I am well and truly in the tax bracket to cop the 'non-tax levy'. I don't mind paying extra tax. OK, I don't like it, but I accept it, as it is for the good of society.

 

.

 

I agree with this what pisses me off is people spouting about Super Rich and making assumptions like this

 

Oh no wait a minute they are taking more tax from the super rich so it must be alright then mustn't it? However, I'm pretty sure these wealthy people will gets their accountants to manipulate a few figures come tax time and are they really going to have to adjust their weekly household budgets to accommodate that hike?!

 

When a lot of people who are going to be hit with this extra tax have done nothing but work hard to get themselves more than average wages!!

[VERYSTORMY]

It's interesting because I remember watching a documentary about the spiraling costs of healthcare in Canada. One poli was quoted as saying "You never know how expensive something can be until it's free". I thought that summed up the argument quite well. Healthcare can absorb any amount of funding, in a "user doesn't pay" model.

 

Private systems are even more expensive. We all pay in the end, but you would pay substantially more in a full private system. In the USA the insurance companies spend billions just in advertising.

[VERYSTORMY]

I agree with the principle behind the budget of getting the budget back to at least a non debt basis or even just cutting the debt and I accept that things will have to be cut to achieve that. But, I don't think the budget items such as the Medicare charge is the correct way forward. Particularly when we are about to spend billions to buy new military aircraft. They should have been the first thing to be canceled.

 

But, I think Australia, like the rest of the world, is going to have learn that it can't pay everything it has previously and a lot more cuts are going to be coming our way.

[Harpodom]

At last! A moderate conservative, so they do still exist?

 

I agree with the principle behind the budget of getting the budget back to at least a non debt basis or even just cutting the debt and I accept that things will have to be cut to achieve that. But, I don't think the budget items such as the Medicare charge is the correct way forward. Particularly when we are about to spend billions to buy new military aircraft. They should have been the first thing to be canceled.

 

But, I think Australia, like the rest of the world, is going to have learn that it can't pay everything it has previously and a lot more cuts are going to be coming our way.

[Paul1Perth]

I only skimmed the report, but apparently he only has to pay tax on whatever income he earns now, which will be divis on shares and the like. Point being that Sweden has foregone 40 years of squeezing the cash cow, to the benefit of Switzerland. Obviously the super rich have health insurance in hand, so he won't cost Sweden anything when he returns, but they've still turned down nearly half a century of corporation tax from one of the worlds biggest companies. All in the name of what? So that left wing polis can "stick it to the rich". It's easier to migrate now than ever before; every one on this board is testament to that.

 

Somehow Sweden managed to get by just fine without him living there and paying taxes. I'm sure Aus would struggle through if a few rich people upped and left. If they are that rich and that shallow that they don't want to contribute to a great way of life then good riddance.

[Xenon4017]

Somehow Sweden managed to get by just fine without him living there and paying taxes. I'm sure Aus would struggle through if a few rich people upped and left. If they are that rich and that shallow that they don't want to contribute to a great way of life then good riddance.

 

But look at the opposite end of the equation. At how well Switzerland does out of having such wealthy residents. It's the cheapest place for petrol in Europe, despite having no oil. Tobacco and alcohol are much cheaper than here. Unemployment is lower too. It's not a utopia, nowhere is, but for a country that has little in the way of natural resources it does very well. Partially by skimming off the worlds' wealthy.

 

For every tax dollar lost from the Ikea chief, a tax dollar had to be found from somewhere else. The same applies here.

[Paul1Perth]

Have been reading this thread with interest.

 

In Canada we have universal health care, and are not charged a cent to visit any doctor, it is always bulk billed. When I lived in Perth, I went to a doctor who bulk billed and it was great, reminded me of the Canadian system.

 

My fear for Australia is that it's health system is looking more like the American system. They even have private hospitals in Australa (we don't have have them here in Canada).

 

For everyone who says it's only $7, are probably employed and on a decent wage. For me the biggest worry is for the low income earners or people on fixed income, benefits and pensions. $7 is a lot to them. It can mean the difference between buying food or a visit to the doctor.

 

My role in Australa was a welfare officer, so I was exposed to those who were at the lowest end of the economic scale. Those folks are the ones who will be affected the most.

 

I think it is easy to say, it doesn't affect me, I'll be alright. But we have to remember we are all only a paycheck away from it happening to us.

 

I would hate to see Australia end up the way the USA have gone with their health system. Great for the haves but lousy for the have nots.

 

Cheers

 

Karen

 

Which government do you have in power in Canada twinsmom? What is the state of Canada's balance of payments? Should you end up with a liberal (conservative) government who suddenly decide the deficit, which is the envy of most nations, is too big and needs balancing.

 

People who live in Canada and think they can't afford to pay any more for their Health care and are happy with the system they have should have a real think about which political party they vote for.

 

We've seen the Conservatives in Britain make much the same cuts and overtures about the NHS and here the Liberals heading down the same path.

 

You might be one election and one budget away from having the same outcome.

[Paul1Perth]

Shelly they are already refusing people under 24 financial aid. My two sons can't get any help at all, the middle son well that's his own fault he has a perfectly good home here waiting, but he is independent now, he has been working since July last year, his employer closed down and went in to receivership. He cannot claim a penny, no housing benefit, no unemployment benefit, no Youth Allowance. As the law states we are financially responsible for them until they are 24. So imagine, a 23 year old in an excellent job gets married buys their own house, and then 6 months later the company closes its doors. This 23 yr old can get no financial help for 6 months, what is he suppose to do? He will end up having his house repossessed and have to move back to his mothers with his own family in tow :no:

What if that mother is a widow and is only living on a pension how can she support them.

 

I think this should have been done on a case by case basis. Ie if someone had been sat on their backsides for 6 months sponging off the government then I think benefit should stop, but to stop supporting someone who has worked and lost their job through no fault of their own is wrong. Also they need to look at the area of unemployment and if it is feasible for someone to get a job, any job in a few weeks.

 

That 24 year age limit has just been changed to 30 in this budget hasn't it TPQ?

[Katie22]

I agree with this what pisses me off is people spouting about Super Rich and making assumptions like this

 

Oh no wait a minute they are taking more tax from the super rich so it must be alright then mustn't it? However, I'm pretty sure these wealthy people will gets their accountants to manipulate a few figures come tax time and are they really going to have to adjust their weekly household budgets to accommodate that hike?!

 

When a lot of people who are going to be hit with this extra tax have done nothing but work hard to get themselves more than average wages!!

 

It's just the same as making the assumption that the unemployed and low income earners spend most of their spare cash on fags and booze. I work (therefore I also pay tax) I have 2 dependents as single parent and I scrimp & save to send my daughter to an independent school with the help of a partial scholarship & I hardly ever visit my GP. So the only assistance I get from the government is family tax and will soon be losing family tax b so I'm paying for this debt too.

 

I'm a registered nurse with 30 years experience and have a responsible job so I reckon I work pretty hard but sorry to say my occupation is not considered to be well paid . I have no objection in paying more tax, unlike some people who earn more than me, but I have a massive problem with taking money away from people who have far less than me. Lets just show some compassion - it makes for a far more pleasant society to live in.

[Xenon4017]

Private systems are even more expensive. We all pay in the end, but you would pay substantially more in a full private system. In the USA the insurance companies spend billions just in advertising.

 

I'm not so sure. Before living here I was living in a place with no public healthcare, only private for about 10 years. It's obligatory to insure yourself, but you can choose the level of cover you want, and also which company to insure with. And you can choose what kind of excess you want. Very much like buying house or car insurance. If you compare that to my current situation, it's about the same. I didn't really spend much time being ill here or there, so it's hard to compare the level of service, but from anecdotal evidence of those who did receive treatment both here and there, that seems to be similar too.

 

So I can't subscribe to your opinion that private healthcare would be more expensive.

[ramot]

At last! A moderate conservative, so they do still exist?

 

Irrespective of which side of politics you are, why the necessity to be rude? Shock horror neither side of politics is perfect, and if you want to come across as such a caring person, (which I'm sure you are) then you are out of order with your recent comments about passing Tony Abbott by should you see him on fire.

There are it would appear many things controversial about the budget, I'm not qualified to comment on that, but it would appear that if the debt needs to be cut, then something has to be done, and hard and unpopular decisions have to be made. I don't agree or like the idea of the new health charges, but if you believe the UK news even UK is considering bringing in a charge to see the DR.

Before you label me as a conservative, (which I might be), my ex was a labour MP, but I keep an open mind about the rights and wrongs of politics, and can see both sides make mistakes, some worse than others.

[Paul1Perth]

Perhaps not, but he is doing a valuable service.

 

You might visit the doctor twice a year for non-lethal complaints, but no one can survive for 48 hours without water. Clean water and adequate sewerage have prevented more deaths in modern society than almost any other measure. Yet we are expected to pay for our water service directly. It isn't provided for free by the government. It's an essential service, far more essential than a local doctor, and it's in the hands of the private sector on a pay-per-use basis.

 

Why aren't people railing against that? How can you justify not charging people for visiting a doctor when you've got a cold, yet charging them for the very substance which keeps them alive?

 

We are paying for the doctor in our taxes and our medicare payments. Water supply isn't in the hands of the private sector here, yet thankfully. Might be if this government stays in power long enough. Cost of the supply comes out of your rates. Getting your plumbing fixed if you have a leak then you have to pay a plumber.

 

Bit like the doctor can sort out medication for a cold for free if he bulk bills and you've paid for it in your taxes/medicare charges, but if you have to be referred to a specialist then expect to pay.

[Harpodom]

I was actually paying VS a compliment.

 

There is a time and a place IMO for moderate conservatism, as espoused by the likes of Malcolm Fraser, Malcolm Turnbull and John Major.

 

It's these far right wing nutters that really worry me, and the Cabinet is chockers with them!

 

Irrespective of which side of politics you are, why the necessity to be rude? Shock horror neither side of politics is perfect, and if you want to come across as such a caring person, (which I'm sure you are) then you are out of order with your recent comments about passing Tony Abbott by should you see him on fire.

There are it would appear many things controversial about the budget, I'm not qualified to comment on that, but it would appear that if the debt needs to be cut, then something has to be done, and hard and unpopular decisions have to be made. I don't agree or like the idea of the new health charges, but if you believe the UK news even UK is considering bringing in a charge to see the DR.

Before you label me as a conservative, (which I might be), my ex was a labour MP, but I keep an open mind about the rights and wrongs of politics, and can see both sides make mistakes, some worse than others.

[Paul1Perth]

I think it is so wrong but if they are going to do it then people on concession cards should be exempt from co-payments, extra prescription charges etc. I know it's free after 10 visits but it's still morally wrong making poorer people pay as you're just making poor people poorer - where's the fairness in that?

 

From what I see evidently the labor government have got us into debt so Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey are the knights in shining armour coming along to save the day, boost the economy and provide lots of lovely jobs for us all. But in order to do that they need money and lots of it so they're deciding to take it from the unemployed, disabled and the low paid. Oh no wait a minute they are taking more tax from the super rich so it must be alright then mustn't it? However, I'm pretty sure these wealthy people will gets their accountants to manipulate a few figures come tax time and are they really going to have to adjust their weekly household budgets to accommodate that hike?!

 

its just plain mean and wrong and it confirms to me why I didn't vote for them as knew it was on the horizon.[/quote

 

 

Just because you earn over the threshold for the extra tax does not make you super rich!! My OH works in mining and will probably have to pay this, as well as being on the higher tax rate anyway, not qualifying for any benefits(not that we expect to), having to take out Private Health Insurance or Pay around an extra Levy on Medicare, but we are certainly not rich. So please do not think just because you earn around $180,000 you are living the life of Riley! We still have the same bills, mortgage etc to pay as someone else earning $100000, just means we can save a bit! We are a one income family, would you still class this amount as super rich if two of us were working earning 90,000 each.

 

I wouldn't say you are super rich no, but you are pretty comfortably off and probably can do a bit more "heavy lifting", as the government and now everyone else refers to it.

[Xenon4017]

We are paying for the doctor in our taxes and our medicare payments. Water supply isn't in the hands of the private sector here, yet thankfully. Might be if this government stays in power long enough. Cost of the supply comes out of your rates. Getting your plumbing fixed if you have a leak then you have to pay a plumber.

 

Well maybe Perth is different, but...

 

in Qld, you get a bill once a quarter. There's a flat fee element to it and there's a charge per volume. The more you use the more you pay. This is different to Medicare where I (used to) pay the same regardless of what I consumed. Now, Medicare will be on a charging scale similar to water. I pay a base rate through taxes which I can't alter. Then, the more I use the more I pay, just like water (we could have used electricity if WA is really so different; they're both essential to modern life really).

 

Why is this charging scheme OK for water, but isn't OK for Medicare? I can go for months without Medicare, but I won't last to the end of the week without water.

 

And plumbers do more than fix washers. If the sewerage backs up and contaminates the water supply there really will be a queue at the GPs, and everyone will gladly pay 7$ to get seen.

[ramot]

I was actually paying VS a compliment.

 

There is a time and a place IMO for moderate conservatism, as espoused by the likes of Malcolm Fraser, Malcolm Turnbull and John Major.

 

It's these far right wing nutters that really worry me, and the Cabinet is chockers with them!

 

I did realize that, but it came across as sarcastic.

also want to point out that there are plenty of extreme in parliament not restricted to the Liberals.

[Harpodom]

I did realize that, but it came across as sarcastic.

also want to point out that there are plenty of extreme in parliament not restricted to the Liberals.

care to name some?

[ramot]

care to name some?

 

No because I am not interested in getting embroiled in an argument, but meant to write probably plenty but I pad not behaving itself

[AJ]

It's just the same as making the assumption that the unemployed and low income earners spend most of their spare cash on fags and booze. I work (therefore I also pay tax) I have 2 dependents as single parent and I scrimp & save to send my daughter to an independent school with the help of a partial scholarship & I hardly ever visit my GP. So the only assistance I get from the government is family tax and will soon be losing family tax b so I'm paying for this debt too.

 

I'm a registered nurse with 30 years experience and have a responsible job so I reckon I work pretty hard but sorry to say my occupation is not considered to be well paid . I have no objection in paying more tax, unlike some people who earn more than me, but I have a massive problem with taking money away from people who have far less than me. Lets just show some compassion - it makes for a far more pleasant society to live in.

 

Nowhere on this thread has anyone made that assumption regarding low income earners nor have they complained about paying extra tax.

[Sammy1]

Nowhere on this thread has anyone made that assumption regarding low income earners nor have they complained about paying extra tax.

 

Actually they have.