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

[Xenon4017]

We always used to pay for the doctors, so a $7 fee would not really bother us,

 

7$ seems a bargain. I'm not sure how far I'd get with a plumber for that amount.

[akiralx]

7$ seems a bargain. I'm not sure how far I'd get with a plumber for that amount.

 

But then again the plumber isn't already getting a taxpayer-funded salary before you call him out, is he?

[Tina2]

Salaries of retired Prime Minister and Politicians

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TH]Office[/TH]

[TH]Additional salary (%)[/TH]

[TH]Salary as of 1 July[/TH]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Prime Minister[/TD]

[TD]160[/TD]

[TD]$507,338[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Deputy Prime Minister[/TD]

[TD]105[/TD]

[TD]$400,016[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Treasurer[/TD]

[TD]87.5[/TD]

[TD]$365,868[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Leader of the Opposition[/TD]

[TD]85.0[/TD]

[TD]$360,990[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]House of Reps Speaker[/TD]

[TD]75.0[/TD]

[TD]$341,477[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Leader of the House[/TD]

[TD]75.0[/TD]

[TD]$341,477[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Minister in Cabinet[/TD]

[TD]72.5[/TD]

[TD]$336,599[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Parliamentary secretary[/TD]

[TD]25.0[/TD]

[TD]$243,912[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Other ministers[/TD]

[TD]57.5[/TD]

[TD]$307,329[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Shadow minister[/TD]

[TD]25.0[/TD]

[TD]$243,912[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Source: Remuneration Tribunal.

So if I press all the right buttons, the TOTAL annual wages for the 150 seats in the Parliament are:

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]Prime Minister[/TD]

[TD]$507,338[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Deputy Prime Minister[/TD]

[TD]$400,016[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Treasurer[/TD]

[TD]$365,868[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Leader of the Opposition[/TD]

[TD]$360,990[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]House of Reps Speaker[/TD]

[TD]$341,477[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Leader of the House[/TD]

[TD]$341,477[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Minister in Cabinet[/TD]

[TD]$336,599[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Parliamentary secretary [/TD]

[TD]$243,912[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Other ministers*[/TD]

[TD]307,329 x 71 = A$21,820,359[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Shadow ministers*[/TD]

[TD]$243,912 x 71 = A$17,317,752[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

“Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.”

Doug Larson (English middle-distance runner who won gold medals at the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris, 1902-1981)

 

 

 

 

And the TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES (for 150 seats) = A$41,694,311 – Over 41 and a half million dollars PER YEAR! And that’s just the Federal Politicians, no one else!

For the ‘lifetime’ payment example (below) I used the scenario that:

1. They are paid ‘lifetime’ salaries the same as their last working year and

2. After retiring, the average pollie’s life expectancy is an additional 20 years (which is not unreasonable).

It’s worth remembering that this is EXCLUDING all their other perks!

SO, for a 20 years ‘lifetime’ payment (excluding wages** paid while a Parliamentarian)

Prime Minister @ $507,338 = A$10,146,760

Deputy Prime Minister @ $400,016 = A$8,000,320

Treasurer @ $365,868 = A$7,317,360

Leader of the Opposition @ $360,990 = A$7,219,800

House of Reps Speaker @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540

Leader of the House @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540

Minister in Cabinet @ $336,599 = A$6,731,980

Parliamentary secretary @ $243,912 = A$4,782,240

Other ministers** @ $307,329 = A$6,146,580 x 71 = A$436,407,180

Shadow ministers** @ $243,912 = A$4,878,240 x 71 = A$346,355,040

Conclusions:

· TOTAL ‘life time’ (20 year) payments, (excluding wages paid while in parliament) = A$833,886,220 - OVER 833 MILLION

· Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, et al, add nausea, are receiving 10 MILLION + EXTRA at taxpayer expense.

· Should an elected PM serve 4 years (unlike Rudd & Gillard) and then decide to retire, each year (of the 4 years) will have cost taxpayers an EXTRA Two and a half million bucks a year! A$2,536,690 to be precise.

· A 2 year retirement payment cut-off will save our Oz bottom line A$792,201,909*** A SAVING OF NEARLY 800 MILLION.

*There are 150 seats in House, minus the 8 above = 142 seats, divided equally for example = 71 each for both shadow and elected ministers.

**This example excludes all wages paid while a parliamentarian AND all perks on top of that - travel, hotels, Secretarial staff, speech writers, restaurants, offices, chauffeured limos, security, etc. etc.

*** 150 seats, 20-year payment of A$833,886,220 less annual salary x 2 years of A$83,388,622. [$41,694,311 x 2]

You’re Right, you have found where the cuts should be made!

Action: Push for a MAX 2 year post retirement payment (give ‘em time to get a real job).

Edited May 19, 2014 by Tina2

[Tina2]

Low-income couples with children and single parents will bear the brunt of the Abbott Government's first budget, losing up to 15 per cent of their disposable income when the measures hit in full, according to independent modelling.

The findings from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) at Canberra University stand in contrast to the Government's insistence that the budget is "fair" and "shares the burden".

NATSEM principal research fellow Ben Phillips has studied the effects of the budget and says it is "not fair at all".

 

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bn_2lvyCEAAOO5H.png Achart to show how much low income earners will loose.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Tina2

[twinsmom65]

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

[MichaelP]

Tony Abbott has said the $7 copayment is specifically designed "to make people think twice before going to the doctor" - it has been financially costed to reduce GP visits by at least 1%. This is not good medicine or good policy. GPs will tell you they are no over-run with 'timewasters'. On the contrary, there are many people who should be encouraged to see their GP more, not less. Men in particular are very bad at seeing a GP. Teenagers are very reluctant to see a doctor, especially for things like mental health and sexual health. A $7 co-payment, combined with all the other little costs such as extra prescription charges, will be just enough to sway people away from going to see a GP. And as any GP will tell you, it's a false economy. A GP consultation costs the government $36. Treatment in hospital can cost $10,000. The $7 copayment will also apply to vaccinations for children. Joe Hockey will be doing more harm to vaccination rates than all the vaccines-cause-autism cranks ever did.

[sueandave]

You have similar sentiments to me, What we have is the Medicare levy shortly to rise, Health fund payments they rise each year, Gap payments don't take me there, Some Doctors also charge out of pocket expenses, not refunded at all, $7.00 co- payment that is until the next rise. coupled with pathology and x rays. extra co payments and scripts then back to your GP for your results (don't break a leg) you made need Physio.

[caramac]

7$ seems a bargain. I'm not sure how far I'd get with a plumber for that amount.

 

 

It it may seem like a bargain to most, but $7 can be a lot of money to many. Poverty is directly linked to poorer health, so the very people who need greater healthcare input will be the ones most affected by the charge.

[wakeboard1980]

It it may seem like a bargain to most, but $7 can be a lot of money to many. Poverty is directly linked to poorer health, so the very people who need greater healthcare input will be the ones most affected by the charge.

 

so should it be if you are on the dole you don't pay? or if you earn below a certain amount? or if you are a single mum, or if you have x amount of kids?

[caramac]

so should it be if you are on the dole you don't pay? or if you earn below a certain amount? or if you are a single mum, or if you have x amount of kids?

 

I think there have to be safeguards in place, but it would be costly to administer. The whole $7 thing just seems so punitive and pointless and it'll hit those in most need hardest.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Hiya skani , I know where you coming from but surely they not going give nothing and see kids homeless , isn't there council houses here , like I say I don't understand the system in oz but , I do know someone in another state here , unfortunately lost there job which is very sad , but they are still on a good thing here , have food vouchers , if they fall behind with rent they get a bit of help with that , they have centre link payments .

 

 

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.

[pablo]

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.

 

I cant believe that Kate,responsible until they're 24?!!!!!wtf?

[wakeboard1980]

I think there have to be safeguards in place, but it would be costly to administer. The whole $7 thing just seems so punitive and pointless and it'll hit those in most need hardest.

There are already ways to identify people on benefits surely. So who do you think should pay???

[wakeboard1980]

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.

There has always been a period of time that you had to wait to claim hasn't there?

[Xenon4017]

In Canada we have universal health care, and are not charged a cent to visit any doctor, it is always bulk billed.

 

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.

[Xenon4017]

But then again the plumber isn't already getting a taxpayer-funded salary before you call him out, is he?

 

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?

[caramac]

There are already ways to identify people on benefits surely. So who do you think should pay???

 

 

I believe in universal healthcare, available to everyone, irrespective of ability to pay. I don't see why, simply because you're poor, you deserve less than someone who can afford to pay.

It's obviously in society's interest to have a healthy workforce (not everyone on benefits is unemployed and a cleaner in a hospital is just as important as the consultant), everyone benefits, so I think we should all pay for it, but, as I said before , that's because I think I'm no more important than anyone else simply because our household income is above many others and we can afford to pay.

 

It's reason my oh won't do any private work. He has worked in a private clinic in Australia, but only because the costs were picked up fully by Medicare and was free to the patients. He thinks his expertise should be available to all. I believe that health and education are fundamental rights, but not just because it benefits the individual - it makes economic sense too.

[Katie22]

There are already ways to identify people on benefits surely. So who do you think should pay???

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.

[Harpodom]

I cant believe that Kate,responsible until they're 24?!!!!!wtf?

 

Well this bunch of Thatcher wannabes* are going to raise the age to 30, for the first 6 months!

 

6 months is presumably just long enough, according to their calculations, to make sure they end up homeless and bankrupt

 

 

*actually I don't recall even Thatcher in her prime being this nasty

[Tina2]

Prevention is better than cure ! isnt that the old saying and very true.

 

What of the elderly person who sits with a blanket and hot water bottle because they cant afford heating in winter do you really think $7 to see the doctor is a drop in the ocean to them ? I doubt it.

[Xenon4017]

Prevention is better than cure ! isnt that the old saying and very true.

 

What of the elderly person who sits with a blanket and hot water bottle because they cant afford heating in winter do you really think $7 to see the doctor is a drop in the ocean to them ? I doubt it.

 

Then why not pay their fuel bill too? The best prevention is to have clean water, so that should also be a given. And if they live in rural areas they'll need transport too. Why should the poor be made to pay for anything at all? After all, every dollar you take from them makes them poorer.

[akiralx]

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?

 

Well, there is nothing wrong with having the water supply under public ownership paid for by taxation - as it used to be in the UK (not sure about Aus). Sadly short-termist politicians the world over realised it was a utility they could sell off.

[Xenon4017]

Well, there is nothing wrong with having the water supply under public ownership paid for by taxation - as it used to be in the UK (not sure about Aus). Sadly short-termist politicians the world over realised it was a utility they could sell off.

 

Should we nationalise it? Are you happy with the current financing model? Don't you think it's an absolute travesty of justice that we expect poor people to pay for water? (Do you mind if we increase taxes to cover the cost?)

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Well, there is nothing wrong with having the water supply under public ownership paid for by taxation - as it used to be in the UK (not sure about Aus). Sadly short-termist politicians the world over realised it was a utility they could sell off.

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?

[akiralx]

Should we nationalise it? Are you happy with the current financing model? Don't you think it's an absolute travesty of justice that we expect poor people to pay for water? (Do you mind if we increase taxes to cover the cost?)

 

I would tend to favour renationalisation of utilities like water - and electricity, as you say they are essential services and should not be in private hands (especially not foreign ones in my view. Most of the UK water companies are foreign-owned I believe). If they were in public ownership there would be no necessity to make a profit so I can't see why costs would rise.

 

I don't regard it as 'a travesty of justice' that we expect poor people to pay for water - but I can see the merit in their being given some assistance in paying for basic utilities (maybe they are already, I don't know). The bigger travesty was selling them off in the first place...