Why do we need a private health insurance system?

With all the talk of Australia's slide from universal health care towards the 'broken' USA style system it got me thinking.

Why do we need a private health insurance system at all?

Ok, cue the free market outrage..  but bear with me.

We pay taxes that go towards funding our public health system. There is a specific 'levy' (Medicare) and further funding from general revenue. We also fund, through our taxes, a rebate to those who choose to pay insurance to private companies to cover them for health care costs that are not paid for by the Government.

Like all insurance companies, most of these health insurers are in business to make a profit. So the total amount of premiums paid to these insurers are effectively covering the costs of the health care they provide, the administration, the marketing, plus the profit margin. Logic says (all things being equal like efficiency etc), that if this money were funneled into the public system there would be a net increase in the amount of funding for health equal to the value of the total profits earned by the insurers.

The additional benefit of removing the profit incentive is that any changes could be focused on improving health outcomes, rather than distorting those outcomes to improve an individual provider's bottom line.

So why not adjust the taxation system (through the Medicare levy etc) to take the money that people are already paying for private health cover and apply it to the public health system?

This is the point where people who pay significant dollars to private health insurers scream "But I want the ability to choose!!!!"

And that's it in a nutshell of course, and what the essence of this debate is all about. To what extent do we want a truly 'Universal' heath care system? That universality implies that those who who are well off will fund those who aren't. 'Privatisation' works against this principle.

Supporters of the private system love to use terms like 'choice' and 'efficiency', but in reality the system is no more than the commoditisation of health service as a product. A product that is marketed and sold at a profit. Should our nation's collective health be dealt with in this way?

Even with a truly universal system, I suppose this does not stop organisations from providing additional health services if people choose to pay for them. However our baseline public health system should not be dependent upon a private system to fill the gaps. Our public system should be funded sufficiently to provide the health services that a decent and fair society demands.

Some advice for Bill Shorten's budget reply speech

There is only one thing Bill Shorten need concentrate on during his budget reply speech.

He needs to hammer home that Abbott won the election by fraud. He comprehensively lied to get elected. This was no ‘broken commitment’ because of changed circumstances. His statements weren’t vague, they weren’t qualified. He intentionally deceived people in order to win power.

That should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.

In many ways the merits or otherwise of the actual budget measures are irrelevant, because they are not what the electorate signed up for.

I, like many, find some of the announced measures grossly unfair, badly targeted and unnecessary. However if the majority decide that’s the sort of Australia they want, then that is their democratic right. But this is not what the majority decided. They weren’t told of the Government’s intentions. Rather they were assured of the exact opposite.

Abbott has fundamentally broken his contract with Australians. Not a minor breach mind you, rather he has trashed every substantive clause. It goes well beyond any previous Government’s supposed misdemeanours, even the famous ‘core and non-core’ promises of John Howard.

It is fraud, pure and simple.

Abbott is saying their first budget is ‘fundamentally honest’. No it’s not. What does that mean anyway? That it’s honest at the core but dishonest around the edges? It’s all spin and more lies. Abbott is a pathological liar and most of his front bench are following in his footsteps.

If politicians can lie at this monumental level with impunity and get away with it there is no hope for our democracy.

So Mr Shorten, don’t waffle around about the hurt to the battlers, the working mums & dads, the sick, the old and the unemployed. Ignore the hypocrisy of tax breaks for polluters & miners while increasing taxes for the masses. Forget about the gutting of our health system and the largess of the paid parental scheme.

Those discussions can be had in the ensuing weeks and months.

For now, concentrate on the lies and the fraud. Tell people that Tony Abbott and his LNP have comprehensively and intentionally deceived Australians and that they should not be prepared to accept it.

**********

Watch Tony Abbott lying (with thanks to @PhonyTonyAbbott)

Previous post: I'm sick of all the lies

I'm sick of all the lies

LIE (noun) - "a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive"

Remember the lines in Billy Joel's melancholy song 'Honesty'?

"Honesty is such a lonely word, everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard, and mostly what I need from you."

That's the way I feel about the current political discourse in this country, though admittedly it goes way beyond the political sphere.



Why do so many politicians lie so often and with such impunity? Why does our media condone the practice and support it through its own deceptive reporting?

This has all been brought into sharp focus most recently by the actions of Dr Sharman Stone, a Liberal MP representing the Murray electorate. Why? Well she did something very few seem willing to do. She called the leader of her own team, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia, a liar.

The surprise (and indeed shock) was not that people did not know he was a liar. Abbott is a serial fabricator. He regularly makes false statements that are deliberately designed to deceive. The shock was that Dr Stone actually called him one - you know, a liar.

LNP member George Christensen said that Dr Stone has gone "a step too far". What? Why? Because she actually told the truth? Because she accurately described what he had done?

This is crazy (and seems somewhat ironic). If someone is deliberately trying to deceive you they should be called out for it. Why dance around the fact with cute words. Is it now offensive to call someone a liar when they are?

When Leigh Sales was interviewing Tony Abbott on Monday's 7:30 why didn't she just say 'that is a lie' when he repeatedly said the circumstance of Cadbury funding was "radically different" to that of SPC? His own pre-election speech and LNP website propaganda proved that was a direct lie.

When something is an obvious untruth why do our journalists and interviewers not call a spade a spade? Are they afraid of being considered rude? Are they afraid of being abused by partisan hacks that take any confrontation as evidence of 'bias' regardless of its truthfulness?

Of course Abbott is not the only politician that lies. Many people just shrug their shoulders and say of politicians generally that 'they all lie', as if it's inevitable, tolerable - almost acceptable (particularly if the liar is on your 'side' of the political fence).

This attitude needs to change. Lies should not be acceptable. They are an abuse of trust.

Yes I know there are some lies that may be told to protect feelings, avoid personal harm etc, but generally speaking when a person is attempting to deliberately deceive you it is so they, or someone aligned to them, benefits at the expense of others. If politicians do that they should not be re-elected. If a media organisation does it you should boycott them. If a business does it you should not reward them with your custom.

We need a higher standard of accountability and ethics, and that goal starts with people saying they will not tolerate being lied to. Only then will there be any real change.

Alternatively, if we accept deception as something that is business as usual, trust in our public institutions won't just continue to diminish, it will evaporate completely.

I'm voting Liberal because..

Disgusting hubris & hypocrisy from The Age

I was absolutely gobsmacked to read this editorial opinion in the Age. Not because it was pushing for leadership change. We already know that Fairfax under Gina Rinehart's influence has been pushing that bandwagon with all its might.

Rather my shock was the hubris and hypocrisy of what was written.

I have included the full text of the editorial below with my comments in blue.

******

For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside

The AGE - June 22, 2013

It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy.

The biggest subversion to democracy has been the blatant failure of our mainstream media to present an accurate and fairly balanced critique of the achievements of this Parliament and of the policy platforms of the major parties.

The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.

The media constantly ask why 'the message is not getting through' and then steadfastly refuse to ask Labor relevant policy questions or hold the LNP to account for their policy detail. Case in point, Leigh Sales interview of Craig Emerson last night.

The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, recognising that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms, which we hope will remain. We are not saying Ms Gillard should stand aside because of Labor's policies, but because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position.

All respect? For three years Julia Gillard has been under the most sustained attack from the media (in all forms) that I can remember. It's single most glaring characteristic has been the total lack of respect shown to the Prime Minister.

A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. If our national political discourse continues in this way, the outcome is writ large: Labor would face a devastating loss in September. Outright control of both houses may be delivered to the Coalition and, more importantly for our democracy, the opportunity for Labor to present a vigorous opposition in Parliament would be diminished.

'So distracted by speculation' huh? And who's been doing most of the speculating? Who prints poll after poll with associated dire analysis (yet refuses to acknowledge polls that show a different outcome)? Another paragraph where the Age (as influential mainstream media) appears to take no responsibility whatsoever in their role to disseminate the message that Labor has tried to enunciate.

Ms Gillard came to the office of Prime Minister three years ago, in bitter circumstances, after deposing Kevin Rudd in a caucus challenge, which he did not contest. The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged ''because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work''. The Age at the time interpreted her to mean that the Rudd government ''had struggled to explain and justify its policies to voters, and to remind them of its achievements''. The situation is eerily similar today. Unfortunately, the government under Ms Gillard has lost its way. And despite her entreaties to Labor's caucus to stick fast, nothing appears to be changing. No one in Labor has stepped onto the front foot with confidence to reinvigorate the divided and demoralised parliamentary party. The onus falls on Ms Gillard to break the impasse.

'Lost it's way'? Complete claptrap. Look at the evidence, the number of major legislative achievements. And all this done with a minority government. The implication from this editorial is that because this Parliament has not operated exactly the same as all previous ones it is a failure. Rubbish!

The electorate is despairing of the uncertainty and the petty back-biting within Labor. The Age is more despairing of the vacuum in policy debate. Mr Rudd was a flawed leader as prime minister, but he says he is a changed man and that he has learnt much from losing the confidence of his party room. The Age is not entirely convinced about that, but we cannot ignore the clear and consistent evidence of the opinion polls that his return to the leadership would lift Labor's stocks and enhance its prospects of making the election a genuine contest.

If you really 'despair of the vacuum in policy debate' why don't you start asking some policy questions?

Australians deserve a representative Parliament of diverse ideas. They deserve authoritative and inspiring leaders, who command with compassion and respect for all. They deserve a government that can clearly describe a future Australia of which we can all be proud - not one that will divide, marginalise or exclude. They deserve more than to be thrown scraps of policies couched in negative terms, or policies that are not properly scrutinised and debated. As it stands, the Coalition is being given a free run by a Labor Party which is tormented by its own frailties; too many of the Coalition's proposed policies, some little more than slogans, are sliding through.

The opposition under Tony Abbott has contentious policies on the carbon tax, the mining tax and schools funding; these are just the start of it. Yet Labor under Ms Gillard has been unable to step up to the contest. Mr Abbott is being allowed to run almost entirely unchallenged with his preposterous claim that a Coalition government would ''stop the boats'', in part by turning back the pathetic trail of rickety vessels laden with asylum seekers. This is a potentially dangerous and deeply dispiriting approach. Labor's inability to unscramble this sloganeering is damning.

It is incumbent upon major media organisations to report the facts and do the policy analysis. So where have been the rigorous dissections of Coalition policy? 

Time is running out. Labor needs to refresh its public face and present a compelling, united and inspiring voice. It is capable of doing so. Now it must find the will. There may only be one chance to minimise the damage that appears inevitable in September. To do nothing would implicitly weaken the democratic choice. If it is to be done, it is best done now. But it must be an unequivocal and energising change for the better.

******

This whole editorial is weasel words. This is like the little boy that throws the stones then points at someone else saying it's all their fault.

The Media is calling out the Government for all it's foibles yet spectacularly failing to acknowledge that it is a major part of the problem.  But they know that. They are not interested in 'democracy', or 'fairness' or 'the interests of the nation'. They are in it for a select few, and are trashing our democracy for their proprietors own ends. It is disgusting.

If the Media genuinely want a representative democracy and a Parliament full of diverse ideas it is beholden upon them to give voters all the FACTS so they can make informed decisions.

We know this, at its heart, is a push to install Rudd. They don't like Julia Gillard because she is a strong independent woman who will not be controlled. They know that with each passing day a leadership change is less and less likely. Someone is desperate for it to be this blatant.

So present it as that. You want change, fair enough, but don't dare hide behind some fabrication that the current situation is all of Julia Gillard's making. That is simply not true.

Here's an idea for Labor pressers..

After having just watched Craig Emerson's stellar performance against Leigh Sales' deplorable #leadershit interview this evening I have a suggestion for all Labor press conferences held up until the election.

If a journalist asks a question about the ALP leadership just say:

"I am here to answer any questions about policy and I am happy to explain why Labor is the best option for taking our country forward. I am also very happy to contrast our policy with that offered by the opposition".

If a journalist persists and asks yet another leadership question say:

"Any questions on policy? My portfolio? How we differ from the opposition?"

If there are no such questions or more leadership questions then say:

"I'll take that as a no then. Thank you.."

THEN WALK AWAY!


If all Labor MP's took this line then the only people journalists could ask these banale questions would be the Opposition or themselves. That would very rapidly lose it's newsworthiness.

Demand policy discussion before it is too late!!

Just an idea...

Does the Nielsen poll show the dark side of Australia?

Last night Nielsen released their monthly poll that showed a further slump in Labor's primary vote. A loss of 3 percentage points to a dismal 29%.

What was more distressing about this number was that support amongst men had dropped a whopping 7%, with support for women gaining a modest 1%.

It seems from opinions in mainstream and social media that the interpretation of this poll result is PM Gillard's strategy of 'attacking men' has failed. Say what? Did I hear that right? Our Prime Minister is waging a war against Aussie men??? That parallel universe thing is happening again.

If this is the way most men view what has occurred over the last couple of weeks (indeed over the last three years) then I am gob smacked. I am appalled and I am so desperately sad.

Unless you live under a rock (or you take LNP happy pills) you will be aware that the PM has faced two highly sexist public attacks in the last week. The infamous #Menugate and Howard Sattler's crude and invasive questioning about the PM's partner.

A conservative man I follow on Twitter said, in defending the menu, that it seemed satire was OK if you were Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan but apparently not if you were Julia Gillard. I tried to point out to him the difference in the so-called satire. The derogatory remarks about the PM were focused on her sex, demeaning her appearance as a woman. The menu jokes about Rudd & Swan had nothing to do with sex.

The big problem from my point of view is that he couldn't see that.

This underlying blinkered attitude was further demonstrated by Richards, the restaurant owner, who's LNP engineered response was quick to apologise to Mal Brough, but not a thought was given to apologising to the PM.

As if the #Menugate abhorrence wasn't enough we then have 'shock jock' Howard Sattler persistently asking the PM if her partner was gay. Never mind that Sattler's questions were totally and utterly disrespectful of the office of PM, they were also sexist. They would not have been asked of a male leader, pure and simple.

Of course these matters arose after the PM's #WomenforGillard speech.

Despite being painted as a veritable blitzkrieg by Murdoch & Gina's media minions, the speech was not an attack on men. If you took the reporting of mainstream media as truth you would think that the sole purpose of Gillard's oration was to say that Tony Abbott would marginalise women. All the hoopla was on abortion and blue ties. This was echoed on Twitter by right-wing trolls shrilly saying that the PM was 'starting a gender war'.

I would suggest that these reporters and twitter commentators either have not read the PM's speech or have taken a very narrow interpretation of it to suit their agendas. It was a significant presentation that covered many areas of importance to women.

The whole 'blue tie' reference was an analogy. She was saying that no amount of air-brushing, crisp white shirts, fake tans or blue ties would mask Tony Abbott's long standing attitudes and views on woman's issues, particularly abortion. Let's not forget the man has significant prior form on these matters, and most of it is retrograde. I acknowledge there was some politics in Gillard's speech, but no more than would be expected given the topic and the audience.

So we have two recent appalling sexist attacks on our Prime Minister, on top of the catalogue of previous nastiness 'ditching the witch' etc. Yet this poll result seems to indicate that many Australian men don't care, or worse, think that it's OK to behave in this fashion.

If that is indeed the case I have to ask what is wrong with the Australian male? Do most really think it's alright to treat women in this fashion and that they should just stay quiet about it? What if it were your wife, daughter, partner or mother? Just because it is focused at a strong female PM whom you may dislike doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's not a joke, it's not a laugh and it should not be fobbed off as harmless fun.

Entrenched attitudes like this have no place in 21st century Australian society.

---------------------------------------------------------------

See this great post from Fiona Armstrong - "Sexism: I've had a gutful" via NoFibs http://nofibs.com.au/2013/06/17/sexism-ive-had-a-gutful/

And we are now getting international notoriety for all the wrong reasons - "Treatment of Julia Gillard shows extent to which sexism is tolerated in Australia" - Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/treatment-of-julia-gillard-shows-extent-to-which-sexism-is-tolerated-in-australia-1.1429432