The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Government cost cutting must not be borne by most vulnerable > Comments

Government cost cutting must not be borne by most vulnerable : Comments

By Ray Cleary, published 30/1/2008

Rising inflation and the pressure to significantly cut spending mean the Rudd Government is facing its first major challenge since taking office.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
plerdsus,

You're calculations don't take into account that the costs of providing the public standard of health care are much less than that of private. The private health expenditure total is about twice that of the public expenditure, but with a third less people. This results in an average cost ratio of 3:1.

Thus $19 Billion in private health cost would be covered by about $7 billion in the public system. Or essentially, the 30% health rebate could pay for the public care of about 50% of those on private health cover. The statistics I've seen suggest less than a third of current private health subscribers made the jump after the introduction of the rebate.

This means that overall its a welfare program that costs the government money and mostly helps those wealthy enough to help themselves. It's classic Howard middle (and upper!) class welfare taking away resources from the public system. If it was means tested to target only those where it may make a difference then it could be an overall money saving program.
Posted by Desipis, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 5:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it that people like this Ray Cleary choose to twist the statistics to lie to us?

Is it that they are natural born liars, & can't help themselves, or they just dishonest, & work on the theory that most of us won't care enough to read too carefully?

Whichever it is, I only got to his first lie, so didn't see all that much. I always stop reading, when I'm being lied to. I can probably guess most of the pitch. "Give us more money to help the bludgers, whops, I mean the drunks no the disadvantaged.

So what's the truth? Is he so dumb that he believes this cr4p? Or is he just another com man? I don't suppose it matters much, so long as you realise that if you trusted this bloke, you would be ripped off for sure.

Interesting that you all saw through him. May be his theory is not correct.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 8:19:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"State governments give money to state schools only". This is incorrect - in QLD at least, quite reasonable sums go from the state's coffers to help fund non-government schools. The previous federal government's contribution however, was very much more unequal with around two thirds of the funding going to the one third of children in private education. I have no problem with the ordinary old Catholic school recieving some government funding but I take exception to the large sums that Howard was granting to elite's such as Kings college. The parents of some of these kids could afford to buy a state school - why were they recieving such upper class welfare?

And having had many arguments with an elite college student, I can state with confidence that there are those amongst the wealthy who are not intellectually gifted enough to be college material either but mummy and daddy can afford to provide them with a top of the range start (partly paid for by those who earn very much less).

Lastly, yes the scriptures do say something to the effect of "the poor will be among you always". They don't go on to decree "so bugger 'em, let 'em rot". Having recently returned from the U.S, I have witnessed first hand the results of such an attitude and rest assured - it's not a pretty sight.
Posted by Fozz, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 8:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does the word GREED come mind? I am sure you all know the differences between labour and liberal! Its like a tennis game! At the moment its 15/40 and its the rich too serve again!
Posted by evolution, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 11:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it interesting that the author proposes that the government should cost cut - from somewhere. "somewhere" is yet to be defined, however. I agree in part with the baby bonus, except I'll go further - don't bother sending out the baby bonus which WILL get blown on shoes, clothes, trips down to the Gold Coast etc etc. I speak from personal witness of a young lady. I fail to see why people should receive any payment at all for a lifestyle choice to have children. If someone wants to have children - well, support the child/ren yourself. This money would be much better spent in health, education (for all)and general infrastructure e.g. roads etc - that is needed now and in the future.
Posted by zahira, Thursday, 31 January 2008 12:21:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh - You said it all. I come across the "vunerables" all the time in my work, and their resistence to changes in their lifestyle is unimaginable, even when the financial benefits are described.
Posted by enkew, Thursday, 31 January 2008 6:23:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy