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

[Parley]

Not looking to stigmatise people but I think you will find that lower socio-economic groups do spend more of their income (as a %) on things like fast food, gambling, cigarettes and alcohol than higher income earners.

 

This maybe an education issue, but whatever reason I do believe it is true and can be backed up by statistical analysis.

[AJ]

 

Actually they have.

Sorry must have missed it, Edited May 20, 2014 by AJ

[Parley]

Here is some reading on the issue re smoking and plenty more if people care to google.

 

http://www.ash.org.uk/current-policy-issues/health-inequalities/smoking-and-health-inequalities

[Harpodom]

Not looking to stigmatise people but I think you will find that lower socio-economic groups do spend more of their income (as a %) on things like fast food, gambling, cigarettes and alcohol than higher income earners.

 

This maybe an education issue, but whatever reason I do believe it is true and can be backed up by statistical analysis.

 

That sounds like the old 'I'm no racist but...' trick

[Paul1Perth]

Not looking to stigmatise people but I think you will find that lower socio-economic groups do spend more of their income (as a %) on things like fast food, gambling, cigarettes and alcohol than higher income earners.

 

This maybe an education issue, but whatever reason I do believe it is true and can be backed up by statistical analysis.

 

As a % you're probably right parley. One packet of cigarettes is going to be a fairly high % on someone not earning very much. On someone on $180,000 a year he could smoke 5 packs a day and his percentage spend would still be low.

[Parley]

It is just a statistical fact harpo, and lots of research re how disadvantaged people spend their disposable income.

 

Aborigines and alcohol comes to mind also.

 

It is not racist, it is just an issue that society needs to try and address

[Parley]

As a % you're probably right parley. One packet of cigarettes is going to be a fairly high % on someone not earning very much. On someone on $180,000 a year he could smoke 5 packs a day and his percentage spend would still be low.

 

Yes very true Paul.

Also there is an aspect of hopelessness or despair I think. Ie I'm poor and can't do anything about it so who cares if I drink to excess or gamble and smoke my money away.

[Harpodom]

It is just a statistical fact harpo, and lots of research re how disadvantaged people spend their disposable income.

 

Aborigines and alcohol comes to mind also.

 

It is not racist, it is just an issue that society needs to try and address

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion parley that poor people smoke more, and eat less healthy food. As you say there are multiple reasons for that.

 

BUT....it is quite some leap to go from that to deciding that a punitive measure such as this co-payment is justified, or going to help them in any way.

 

You do agree it will result in worse outcomes, don't you? Yes or no?

[Parley]

Harpo, I think all I said in an earlier post, which is maybe what is being referred to, is that maybe some 'poor' people who are spending their money on cigarettes or booze should re-prioritize their spending in favour of their own health and their kids health.

Ie if it a choice between the fags and the doctors visit.

 

But knowing human nature they will probably choose the fags and the booze,

[Harpodom]

Harpo, I think all I said in an earlier post, which is maybe what is being referred to, is that maybe some 'poor' people who are spending their money on cigarettes or booze should re-prioritize their spending in favour of their own health and their kids health.

Ie if it a choice between the fags and the doctors visit.

 

But knowing human nature they will probably choose the fags and the booze,

 

This seems quite apt

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/beer-and-ciggies-more-like-let-them-eat-cake-from-joe-hockey-atop-his-tower-20140519-zrh3z.html#ixzz32BxxzkiL

[Paul1Perth]

Yes very true Paul.

Also there is an aspect of hopelessness or despair I think. Ie I'm poor and can't do anything about it so who cares if I drink to excess or gamble and smoke my money away.

 

I see you are trying to tar all the "poor" with the same brush then parley. I know a few people you might class as poor and in the lower socio economic group. They are just the same as the rest of my friends and trying to make ends meet. NOT down the bookies or in the pub all day trying to drown their sorrows. They don't smoke either.

 

That's the governments take on things, all the poor have brought it on themselves by spending their money on ciggies, plasmas, mobile phones, booze, whilst neglecting their kids and expecting the high paid earners to pick up the bill in their taxes.

 

That's what they like everyone to think. Keep the middle class moaning about the lower class and they'll forget about what the well off are getting away with.

[ramot]

Risking another comment. I used to do market research in UK, and was part of a large government survey regarding health among other things.

one question was;

Who is responsible for your health

a) you

b) the Dr.

c) The government

 

I think I can mention that the answers were very different from people on the large council estate compared with a more middle class area. They first group definitely thought the government. Interested what posters think.

[Harpodom]

Risking another comment. I used to do market research in UK, and was part of a large government survey regarding health among other things.

one question was;

Who is responsible for your health

a) you

b) the Dr.

c) The government

 

I think I can mention that the answers were very different from people on the large council estate compared with a more middle class area. They first group definitely thought the government. Interested what posters think.

 

The obvious answer is that its a mixture of all 3.

[ramot]

The obvious answer is that its a mixture of all 3.

 

Of course it is, But you could only give one answer and it was interesting what peoples choice was

[Harpodom]

Of course it is, But you could only give one answer and it was interesting what peoples choice was

so it was a loaded question then, pretty pointless

[Tina2]

Now Hockey is talking of changes to super before the next election, he seems to get a great deal of pleasure out of stressing out the elderly who are about to retire . For the younger people the hope is before they retire there will be a different government who have a different view on things.

[ramot]

Ok I give up, was only mentioning it out of interest, but I know you like to argue on and on and on, and obviously there was a lot more to the survey. Wrongly thought it might interest posters what peoples first reaction was to the question.

[Parley]

Now Hockey is talking of changes to super before the next election, he seems to get a great deal of pleasure out of stressing out the elderly who are about to retire . For the younger people the hope is before they retire there will be a different government who have a different view on things.

 

Tina, you know that is a lie.

When any changes are mooted to pension age or super preservation age they are around 20 years into the future.

They never impact people about to retire so please don't pretend they do.

[Harpodom]

Ok I give up, was only mentioning it out of interest, but I know you like to argue on and on and on, and obviously there was a lot more to the survey. Wrongly thought it might interest posters what peoples first reaction was to the question.

Sorry! I'm just challenging you, didn't mean to be rude. Apologies

[caramac]

I would guess they said 'government', but the question is very simplistic. You could argue that it's a mix of all the answers.

[Parley]

I see you are trying to tar all the "poor" with the same brush then parley. I know a few people you might class as poor and in the lower socio economic group. They are just the same as the rest of my friends and trying to make ends meet. NOT down the bookies or in the pub all day trying to drown their sorrows. They don't smoke either.

 

That's the governments take on things, all the poor have brought it on themselves by spending their money on ciggies, plasmas, mobile phones, booze, whilst neglecting their kids and expecting the high paid earners to pick up the bill in their taxes.

 

That's what they like everyone to think. Keep the middle class moaning about the lower class and they'll forget about what the well off are getting away with.

 

Paul, please don't misrepresent me.

I am just trying to give my opinion on why lower socio-economic groups spend so much of their income on alcohol and cigarettes .

But if you have another reason please give it.

[Paul1Perth]

Risking another comment. I used to do market research in UK, and was part of a large government survey regarding health among other things.

one question was;

Who is responsible for your health

a) you

b) the Dr.

c) The government

 

I think I can mention that the answers were very different from people on the large council estate compared with a more middle class area. They first group definitely thought the government. Interested what posters think.

 

They were probably taking the piss and were fed up of market research people doing surveys ramot. Just because they lived on a council estate don't, for one minute, think they are thick and without a sense of humour. They would do anything to stuff up government surveys, just to be awkward.

[caramac]

Paul, please don't misrepresent me.

I am just trying to give my opinion on why lower socio-economic groups spend so much of their income on alcohol and cigarettes .

But if you have another reason please give it.

 

 

It's true, but those in that group also have a much higher incidence of mental health problems, so probably not unrelated to risky behaviours.

[Parley]

Risking another comment. I used to do market research in UK, and was part of a large government survey regarding health among other things.

one question was;

Who is responsible for your health

a) you

b) the Dr.

c) The government

 

I think I can mention that the answers were very different from people on the large council estate compared with a more middle class area. They first group definitely thought the government. Interested what posters think.

 

I would choose a.

[Paul1Perth]

Paul, please don't misrepresent me.

I am just trying to give my opinion on why lower socio-economic groups spend so much of their income on alcohol and cigarettes .

But if you have another reason please give it.

 

Judging by your reply I don't think I've misrepresented you at all. What I'm saying is they don't spend so much of their income on alcohol and cigarettes. it's all misinformation put out by the government and press to make middle class and higher class people think they are paying taxes so the lower socio economic sector can live the life of reilly and be in the pub having a fag while they are working 24 hours a day and 24 hours a night.

 

They are trying very hard to juggle a budget and most of them look after their kids just the same as anyone else. I don't buy into the argument that they spend a lot of money on alcohol and cigarettes.