Abbott dumps on low income Australians from the ski fields of France.

30 Dec

There can be no doubt that the proposed government tax of $6 on visits to the doctor will only seriously affect those already struggling to keep heads above water, and one has to ask, why would any government decide to make things even more difficult than they already are for a considerable number of its citizens?

Pensioners and those holding concession cards will be exempt from the charge, however, this exemption does not cover low-income earners ineligible for such assistance.

The proposed GP tax is intended to be  “a simple yet powerful reminder that, as far as possible, we have a responsibility to look after our own health, not simply pass on all the costs of, and the responsibility for, caring for ourselves to fellow taxpayers…” reads the report provided to the government by The Australian Centre for Health Research, a conservative think tank, why am I not surprised.

Of course those of us who are able ought to take as much responsibility for our health as possible, and visiting the doctor when ill is taking responsibility, whether we’re well off or not. There is little more irresponsible than self-neglect, except of course a government that places a group of its citizens in a situation where self-neglect becomes their only option.

As is usual with conservative think tanks, no allowance is made for those who are as morally responsible as anyone else, but lack financial means.  One could be forgiven for taking this one step further, and assuming conservative think tanks and their masters conflate a lack of means with moral turpitude and its attendant irresponsibility. The outcome of such thinking is that those who are too poor to pay for their own health care really should be left to die, as there is no place in a conservative world for anyone who can’t, for whatever reason, fund their own lives.

As the purpose of the new tax is to relieve the burden of demand on our health care system, conservatives are obviously of the opinion that it is the less financially fortunate among us who are burdensome. No middle class individual goes to her or his GP unnecessarily, it is assumed, as a mere $6 is unlikely to dissuade them from this practice. No, only the poor are responsible for draining our medical resources, presumably because of all the burgers, fries, & coke they consume instead of the healthy food they could afford, if only they would stay home from the doctor’s long enough to put their minds to their budgets.

Obviously a $6 charge whenever one visits the doctor isn’t going to be an oppressive discouragement for those who are reasonably well off, though depending on one’s state of health and number of children, it could quickly add up. However, if finances are already stretched in a household, an additional $6 for every doctor’s visit could conceivably lead to a decision not to make that visit in circumstances where it’s necessary.

It will almost certainly lead to increased pressure on already stretched hospital accident and emergency facilities, as an option for those unable to afford the tax.

That a government even considers creating a situation in which any citizens are discouraged from attending to their health and the health of their children is an obscenity. The message Prime Minister Abbot is sending from the slopes of the French Alps where I understand he and his family are enjoying a ski ing holiday, is that below a certain level of income, the health of Australian citizens is of no interest to him and his government. It is, it seems, incomprehensible to the leader of this country that for many people there is simply not $6 to spare.

Such failures of imagination are predictable in a politics in which middle class welfare and protection of the wealthy are the priority of government that increasingly appears to govern in their interests.

Or as Gerry Harvey unforgettably expressed it when offering his views on charity for the homeless:

“It might be a callous way of putting it but what are they doing? You are helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason. They are just a drag on the whole community.

“So did that million you gave them help? It helped to keep them alive but did it help our society? No. Society might have been better off without them but we are supposed to look after the disadvantaged and so we do it. But it doesn’t help the society.”

It’s a slippery slope you’re ski-ing Mr Abbott.

Advertisements

41 Responses to “Abbott dumps on low income Australians from the ski fields of France.”

  1. Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumppXVI) December 30, 2013 at 8:37 am #

    At Val D’Isere: The Setting of the Tone.

    Mind games.

    Like

    • gerard oosterman December 30, 2013 at 9:25 am #

      Could not open the Harvey Norman link. I can’ think what Abbott hopes to achieve with the $6.- levy. He is supposed to rein in spending, balance the books. What about revenue from tax, the GST for example. Could he not have taxed alcohol $6.- per slab. Poker machines etc. I don’t think he will last three years.

      Like

    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumppXVI) December 31, 2013 at 10:27 am #

      From the item linked in the embedded tweet of ‘@SElizaP’, courtesy of its re-tweeting by ‘@ThePinkLaptop’:

      “At the outset, we should note that the public
      knows ridiculously little about Barnes’ proposal
      — I had to find a copy of his report by asking
      him over Twitter.”

      Hence one reason for embedding this tweet as a pathway to extra background to Jennifer’s blog post:

      From the linked item:

      “Perhaps if journalists got into the habit of
      providing links to the source of their material,
      we’d see fewer pranks. We’d also have a better
      chance of being able to PARTICIPATE IN POLICY
      DISCUSSIONS if journalists would link to the
      reports for which they’re providing free PR.”

      When you discount those whom it is claimed will be exempted from the proposed co-payment from the relatively small field of potential ‘over-users’ of medical consultations revealed in the item, you have to wonder where the government ‘savings’ could come from.

      Something else looks like it is going on here, IMO.

      Like

  2. hudsongodfrey December 30, 2013 at 11:21 am #

    I can’t get past the idea that this isn’t just an impost on those who can least afford it, the elderly and those who’d actually think twice about going to the doctor if it cost $6 more. What it really is a a great big tax on all of us that we don’t need because they could cut the PPLS or keep the MRRT and the Carbon Tax in place and then we wouldn’t need this.

    This is the price we knew we’d pay because Labor imploded sweeping right wing ideologues into power virtually unopposed.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson December 30, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

      That last sentence. Word.

      Like

      • paul walter December 30, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

        We really have been hedonistic indigenes living in an uneasy Dreamtime, ripe for the plucking by the New Colonialism.
        We are having the new system imposed on us at least partly because Australia proved you don’t need the consequences of oligarchic domination both from international dorces and local kleptocrats. Duped into a false sense of security, Australians,are having the compulsory, it seems, labor force “disciplining”.imposed, that we refused under Labor.
        The system that appropriates the common wealth recoiled in horror-why we werent forced to endure what half of Europe, the USA etc has had to endure, to pay for the monumental misapproppriations of leading up to, including and after the Meltdown after the expensive and barbaric Iraq war and the Afghanistan adventure.
        We thought Obama and the other appparently “new”politicians woould change the system away from the stupidities of extreme Bush Cheney neoliberalism,but found that they were bought and sold by the people behind the scenes and the inevitable has followed- all out of the Koch Bros/Murdoch repressive tolerant Tea Party cryptofascist think tank hand book.

        Like

  3. megpie71 December 30, 2013 at 11:57 am #

    The people who designed this policy apparently have never needed to supply a medical certificate in order to claim sick leave. Oddly enough, employers won’t accept “I have a cold” or “the kids are down with flu” or whichever minor ailment is being claimed just on their employee’s word of honour. Nope, you need to trek over to the GP and get a medical certificate, or it comes off your annual leave rather than sick leave (if you get either of those – if you’re casual, you’ll be expected to turn up unless you have a medical certificate). So what they’re indirectly encouraging is the culture of presenteeism – wherein someone who has a minor illness like a cold, or the flu, instead of staying at home and taking care of themselves, will drag themselves into the office and spread their illness to everyone else in range.

    I really don’t see how this is supposed to help anyone. Well, anyone except Mr Hockey, who’s looking forward to the influx of money into his coffers as a result… every little helps, you know. (Has he checked between the seat cushions in the House and the Senate?).

    Like

    • gerard oosterman December 30, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

      ” (Has he checked between the seat cushions in the House and the Senate?).” 😉 good one!

      Like

    • Seeker of justice February 5, 2014 at 7:17 pm #

      Another good point. It’s punitive for employees. Just another unnecessary expense.

      Like

  4. paul walter December 30, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    Worth it for the Harvey Norman alone.

    Like

  5. doug quixote December 31, 2013 at 12:53 am #

    Well, what did you expect? If this sad rabble of a government have any claim to expertise it is as bean counters.

    To those who are now having doubts about having voted them in :

    I told you so.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson December 31, 2013 at 6:37 am #

      Quite right. I can’t find anyone who will admit to having voted for the government: immaculate conception it seems.
      Then again my hostility is apparent so perhaps people are lying to me. 🙂

      Like

      • doug quixote December 31, 2013 at 10:00 am #

        In my circles I know plenty of them. They read the Telegraph and count their superannuation dividends as they mutter about the carbon tax as if it actually affected them.

        Most of them just won’t listen, and I am regarded as some sort of red ragger 🙂

        Perhaps reality will slowly catch up with them over the coming months as even Murdoch’s rags can’t cover for Abbott’s incompetence.

        One of them, better informed than most, after the Indonesian debacle asked me what Abbott should do? : “Resign” was my answer. He hasn’t raised the issue with me since. 🙂

        Don’t expect to appeal to their better natures, but the failure of any number of policies and the government’s demonstrated incompetence will soon enough force a re-think.

        Like

      • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumppXVI) December 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

        Just keeping the scale of the ‘win’ in perspective:

        Taken in the context of the sentence ‘Word.’ (UNOPPOSED) in the response to HG above, why is it such a seemingly difficult hypothesis to entertain that there may be an across-the-spectrum influence capable of determining the sort of candidates that will be endorsed on either ‘side’ of Australian politics?

        Why is there so little, even questioning, engagement as to evidence pointing to possible mechanisms that might emplace such a regime?

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey December 31, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

          Hey “virtually” don’t forget the qualifier that Labor’s leadership implosions gave the Monk his greatest opportunity to capitalise upon.

          But don’t let us stop you from questioning the evidence for possible regime emplacement mechanisms. Once you get us started, so that we know what the heck you’re on about, we might be moved to join in the chorus.

          Very good post you’ve highlighted from Van Badham though!

          Like

          • doug quixote January 2, 2014 at 7:52 am #

            Yes, it was a Labor implosion; the destruction of Gillard’s PMship from within. Yet it was the enormous and inexorable pressure from without that finally panicked the horses.

            The MSM dripping tap would have worn away stone, much less a few dozen politicians.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 2, 2014 at 9:50 am #

              It’ll probably go down as a question for the ages why Labor were so panicked by opinion polls throughout both Rudd and Gillard’s time at the helm, whereas this new lot don’t seem to give a damn what the people think, breaking multiple promises and shutting down lines of communication within weeks of taking office.

              Like

              • doug quixote January 3, 2014 at 9:31 am #

                Really? The short answer is that Rupert Murdoch has been backing the Tabbott Party since late 2009.

                No Einstein or Sherlock Holmes required to work that one out.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 3, 2014 at 11:11 am #

                  Doesn’t explain why a seemingly gullible Labor walked towards the light the coalition has shunned though.

                  Like

  6. hudsongodfrey January 2, 2014 at 12:01 am #

    P.S. Is Abbott still in France? And is it too soon to reopen that slope Michael Schumacher tried?

    Or, to revive one of Fry’s better lines the word “countryside” may invoke an alternative reference to our erstwhile PM’s early demise…..

    ….its a play on Homicide, Patricide, Fratricide, Matricide etc

    Like

  7. Marilyn January 4, 2014 at 6:29 pm #

    Actually he didn’t, it was just a submission to an inquiry. Good grief, don’t join the fuckwits who think every statement or submission is fact.

    Like

    • doug quixote January 4, 2014 at 10:21 pm #

      Actually who didn’t do what?

      Are you happy now that the Labor government has been removed and replaced with Tabbott and his Keystone Kops government?

      I’m surprised you dare to show your face around here.

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 4, 2014 at 11:45 pm #

      It sounds like an apologetic when you put it that way. Perhaps you could rephrase this?

      I fully realised the context but I see it as running the idea up the mast either in the hope it would fly or as a false flag exercise to soften us up for something else.

      Whatever it is I think its very likely meant to be a divisive tactic aimed at testing the water as to just how far they can afford to go without alienating the 30,000 voters that Van Baddam courtesy of Forrest (above) shows stood between Labor and a third term.

      Like

    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumppXVI) January 5, 2014 at 9:48 am #

      I infer by the lack of indentation of her comment that Marilyn is responding to Dr Wilson’s blog post itself.

      I’m thinking HG’s suggested paraphrasing is helpful:

      “I fully realised the context but I see it as running
      the idea up the mast either in the hope it would fly or
      as a false flag exercise to soften us up for something else.”

      One thing to which I have seen reference on Twitter within recent days is the government subsidy to all bulk-billing medical practitioners of, from memory, $6 per consultation. It is not hard to imagine that the proposal upon which Dr Wilson has written her blog post is such a false flag exercise presaging an attack upon bulk-billing itself, from which there would be NO EXEMPTIONS for pensioners etc.

      Having assessed the degree of acceptance (or the lack thereof) within the community for the proposed co-payment in the context of such exemptions, perhaps the government strategy is to appear to respond to that community concern by, in the first instance, making the medical profession carry the cost of having the bulk-billing subsidy withdrawn. Whilst we all know that any such withdrawal of subsidy would in practice have to be recovered by an increase in fees charged, the government would secure the short term win of the much greater budget savings achieved WITHOUT exemptions by withdrawing the SUBSIDY, plus the longer term win of making the medical profession, not the government, fight it out as to exactly how that new cost to it would be passed along.

      The idea being to create a fight within the medical profession that would have the eventual result of forcing a presently quiescent and accepting-of-bulk-billing professional sector into more open, even if reluctant, public support for what would otherwise have been a surprise government policy for which a mandate was lacking.

      No doubt the dirty little carrot of the opportunity that the publicly perceived necessity for fee increases would constitute as a smokescreen for increases even higher and more across-the-board would be ever so discreetly hawked around by the government during this period of deliberately provoked professional in-fighting.

      To comment on HG’s reference to Van Badham’s 30,000 votes that could be argued stood between Labor and a third term, I may have found as many as 44,000 of them in July 2010, if those particular names remain on the rolls anywhere other than in their correct electoral Divisions. See: https://noplaceforsheep.com/2013/03/23/the-happy-place/#comment-75032 and

      https://noplaceforsheep.com/2013/03/23/the-happy-place/#comment-78011

      The ‘proxy votes’ problem in Australia may be of much greater extent than that indicated by the recognition of specific anomalies like those touched upon in the links. If so, that means much of the sanctimonious “I told you so, look what you stupids voted for” invective is utterly misplaced and inapplicable. Worse, it sustains a climate of discouragement of inquiry into the ‘filtration’ of political representation whereby we seem to get such governments.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 5, 2014 at 1:26 pm #

        I’m thinking we should probably thank the author of the piece in new matilda way back in last year writing about the 30,000 as much as Van for reminding us that in retrospect the context seems better if anything, (at the time I think it may have come across as sour grapes).

        https://newmatilda.com/2013/09/24/thirty-thousand-votes-and-abbotts-gone

        But I think it would be too tenuous to construe the distribution of younger normally more progressive voters or some kind of voter fraud targeting the fifteen most marginal seats in Australia. I was just surprised that the received message that this was some kind of landslide can be shown to be quite so fictional an account given the true state of the electorate.

        After all voter fraud is most familiar to me as a gross fiction perpetrated by US Republicans to shave the odds against black and hispanic democratic voters. We certainly don’t need to go down that road.

        If you want to take a more philosophical view of this the good news may well be that mid next year when the new government’s term is in full swing, and the new Senate takes effect, shenanigans may have to be tempered in favour of deal making to put forward better policy because we do have votes in a large number of marginals that could go either way next time. Or if they mess up completely there’ll be backlash that under these circumstances might be strong enough to tip them out of office.

        It also tells us that a Double Dissolution would be a dumb move and probably won’t happen.

        So hopefully in the meantime, whether it is a reborn version of progressive Labour or some other political grouping a party or bloc of independents could easily emerge with a range of policies we could actually vote for and wipe the floor with the idiots we have representing us at the present. I don’t live on a cloud of pure optimism about the likelihood of that, but clearly the fundamentals of dissatisfaction do exist that point in that kind of direction.

        Like

        • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumppXVI) January 6, 2014 at 2:55 pm #

          HG says:

          “But I think it would be too tenuous
          to construe the distribution of younger
          normally more progressive voters or
          some kind of voter fraud targeting the
          fifteen most marginal seats in Australia.”

          The first thing to be noted is that there is absolutely no attempt to construe how any of the statistically believable provisional electors that moved into the 18-year-old cohort during those 22 days in July 2010 may have voted. With the AEC telling us that only around one in four 17-year-olds effects a provisional enrollment, the approximately 3,500 of such that that could have been expected to have both provisionally enrolled AND turned 18 during those 22 days have been allowed for. It is the approximately 44,000 additional names that purport to have been 17-year-olds that could not possibly (because of the known absence of any significant concentration of birth dates throughout the year) have turned 18 during that period, but nevertheless disappeared from the single-year 17-year-old column of the enrollment tabulation, that is an anomaly requiring explanation.

          An electoral enrollment is the basis for a vote claim and concomittantly the issue of a ballot paper, and, Australia-wide, we know that historically around 95% of names enrolled are recorded as having had a vote claim made against them at elections. There is nothing to indicate that the 44,000 seemingly anomalous enrollments that moved out of the single 17-year-old accountancy column during the first 22 days of July 2010 would not have had votes claimed against 95% of them if they had graduated to the status of electors.

          This ’17-year-olds anomaly’ may be but the tip of an electoral iceberg, one capable of enabling voting fraud targeting many more than the 15 most marginal seats in Australia.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 6, 2014 at 5:32 pm #

            Yes the deduction about these 44,000 enrolments across the nation may point to an anomaly worthy of querying, all I’m saying is that it isn’t one that sits alongside the 30,000 in marginal seats in a way that might infer the election was rigged.

            I’m not saying you inferred that either, just pointing out that I don’t think grounds exist for conspiracy theories here.

            You may also take it as read that I’m generally sceptical about conspiracy theories in general. Anything that analogises to icebergs and isn’t actually made of ice has to my ears a vague whiff of something that could be being exaggerated. I take the view that if there was really a deluge of support away from Abbott last September then we’d have a more convincing sense from within our own communities that this was the case. To me that being conspicuous in its absence directs my attention to what we’re apt to do going forwards rather than some potential shocking revelation that’s going to change history.

            Sorry if you think that I misrepresented you. I thought I was addressing the theme you were developing. Perhaps I zigged when I could’ve zagged?

            Sorry also if my opinions disappoint, but when it comes to ruminations with consequences such that some alternative truth would be devastating to our confidence in the very system we’re supposed to rely upon then in most, if not all, such cases simple stuff-up beats complicated conspiracy, and the chances either would ever be confirmed are practically nil.

            If thats too fatalistic for some then maybe the best thing to say is that I’ve learned to be careful what I wish for, and leave it at that.

            Like

            • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumppXVI) January 8, 2014 at 3:28 pm #

              HG is quite correct in his first paragraph. We have no information as to the location and/or method of lodgement of the claims for provisional enrollment of the in excess of 44,000 names we infer advanced to full elector status during the first 22 days of July 2010, nor as to the distribution of those names between electoral Divisions. One would think that a digitised enrollment management regime would be capable of generating such statistics, but I am unaware as to any such being available to the public.

              Back in 2000, Christopher Pyne chaired a Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the integrity of the electoral rolls. Of the many submissions from the public, one was from Professor Emeritus Colin Hughes, who had been Australian Electoral Commisioner 1984 – 1989.

              Professor Hughes submission, although dealing with generalities of electoral roll management, had a significant focus upon the Federal Division of Herbert in North Queensland. Herbert covered an area which included the Queensland State Electoral District of Mundingburra, in relation to which there had not long before been a successful challenge to an election outcome that had resulted in a change of government on the floor of the Queensland Parliament. Australian Electoral Commission interest in respect of the Division of Herbert was self-evident, as a joint roll-keeping agreement existed between the Commonwealth and Queensland, as was the case in relation to all States. There had been shenanigans revealed in the Court of Disputed Returns with respect to enrollments in Mundingburra.

              One of Hughes’ comments in his submission envisaged a scenario wherein the entire electoral roll for Herbert would be scrapped, and all eligible persons were to be required to re-enroll, even though Section 85 of the CEA as it stood prevented that from being done. Hughes ventured the opinion that if this was done, he would have expected somewhere around 30 to 40 percent of names that had been carried on the old roll would have no claimants appear to effect re-enrollment. Perhaps Hughes envisaged, in 2000, that Parliament might shortly amend the CEA to permit such reconstruction of a roll from scratch.

              On the face of it, such an educated guess could be taken as merely forewarning as to the extent of turbulence with respect to persons changing residence but not updating their electoral enrollment particulars. In the context of the AEC claim of that time that only around 85% of persons eligible for enrollment actually effect it, even more room is made for the explaining away of such a seemingly large ‘unsupported’ content on some electoral rolls.

              There is a problem, however. Whereas the AEC had made its assessments as to the extent of electoral enrollment of the eligible population based largely upon sampling-based studies, it appears it had never cross-checked the total number of enrollments against eligibility extrapolated from national population statistics. It seems no publicly available on-going reconciliation of electoral eligibility derived from ABS population statistics, with electoral enrollments actually recorded, had ever been undertaken! There are indications from private submissions to other Parliamentary JSCEM inquiries that electoral enrollment had been near 100% of the eligible for decades.

              If BOTH the AEC sampling-based studies, AND unofficial population-statistics-based eligibility assessments are correct, then that means that, with around 95% of names routinely showing vote claims made against them Australia-wide, entities other than genuine electors are lodging not less than 10% of all ballot papers in all elections. Its just that we have no idea how such ballot papers, from one election to another, may have been marked.

              In a context of de facto 100% electoral enrollment, Hughes’ expectations as to 30+% ‘non shows’ in Herbert, were other Divisional rolls to be re-built from scratch, could be expected to be reflected to greater or lesser extent in those Divisions also. Dependent upon how many otherwise genuine electors fail to claim a vote against what is presumed to be their ‘left behind’ enrollment at elections, the ballots lodged by non-genuine entities at elections may well exceed the arithmetically derivable minimum of 10%.

              All such tainted ballots deployed in one way, in an Australian context, would likely be enough to swing ANY Federal election. It also strikes me as being enough, deployed selectively, this way and that, for profoundly influencing in the longer term the parliamentary content of any or all political parties ever likely to participate in a government. A sort of ‘secret pre-selection’, but one operating on criteria unknown to the genuinely voting public. Would that explain some of what we seem to be seeing in the political firmament today?

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 8, 2014 at 10:10 pm #

                The thing is though that the major parties have swapped places at the helm on a regular basis on and off for the past couple of decades, so I guess we’re more or less forced to conclude that both think whatever deliberate anomalies may exist work in their favour.

                That is to say unlike the US where only Republicans have issues with voter fraud because they know very well indeed that the young and foreigners equally eschew their politics.

                It could just be that like inconvenient questions about how much we’re spied on as Raised by Edward Snowden, or whether Councils really posses the right to issue parking fines, what we’re stuck with is bipartisan disinterest.

                Not all issues are created equal and I’m sure bipartisan bastardry towards asylum seekers or obsequiousness when it comes to dragging us into our allies’ wars actually does weigh upon a good many of us.

                Some of this other stuff however lacks the capacity to galvanise the community behind calls for change. Mainly because change would consist largely of putting things back to rights where they were supposed to be all along, and people understand the convenience to be had in simply imagining that to have unabatedly been the case all along as long as the results more or less meet muster.

                And rotten as I think he is, in a choice between the lesser of several evils involving the system of government employed within Game of Thrones, physical torture involving water, sharp objects and Golems or and evening with Cory Bernardi, people might just side with Abbott.

                In all serious they did side with him in the last election because Labor’s leadership was in such a parlous state of disarray that it very much seemed as if they could hardly not change sides. It seems a pity to a few of us that in many ways, indeed most, Labor had more going for it. But I do feel that disgust with their treatment of refugees undermined them on the left while everything else was being pummelled mercilessly from the right…….Where was I? It is was credible election result, is what I meant!

                The good news is that Abbott is already going about things the right way to be shown the door at the soonest possible forthcoming ballot. Our interest now should be in trying to stop him from running amok in the meantime!

                Like

          • doug quixote January 7, 2014 at 8:18 am #

            I agree with HG on this one. But thank you for the research.

            Like

  8. hudsongodfrey January 6, 2014 at 9:46 pm #

    Here’s something we can all agree on and I’m sure will find its appropriate place somewhere here or hereabouts.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-06/bill-shorten-offended-by-bernardi-comments-on-families/5186562

    Cory Bernardi creeps me out!

    Like

  9. steam shower room February 3, 2014 at 11:05 am #

    Never before heard of a steam shower enclosure up until I stumbled on this site, so glad I did so really
    would like one now and funds permitting will probably be buying one very soon

    Like

  10. Seeker of justice February 5, 2014 at 7:15 pm #

    The issue which seems to get lost is MEDICARE IS NOT FREE FOR TAXPAYERS! It’s called the Medicare Levy. Most taxpayers pay it, unless one is exempt, which is very rare. The Levy kicks in at a very low income threshold.

    It riles me no end when anyone trots out the line that it’s free. I have chronic illness which needs ongoing medical supervision, so I visit doctors regularly. By doing so, I’m keeping productive. If I neglect my health, I can’t work. So where is the logic there?

    But, even so, I have to cut some appointments because I cannot afford the gap payments. It is quite risky, but I have to undertake the risk because I have no choice. The argument that we’re all getting all medical treatment free is just a nonsense. And it has been for some time, with gap payments increasing.

    Not to mention, the biggest users of Medicare (the aged, disabled) in all likelihood won’t pay because they’re on pensions, thus exempt! I support this of course, but the whole argument is flawed.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The poor are undeserving | melisse reynolds - January 9, 2014

    […] Abbott dumps on low income Australians from the ski fields of France. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: