plerdsus,

According to the latest budget numbers the federal government spends $9B a year on acute (hospital) care. Double that to include the state contributions and you get $18B. This is a bit short of $1k per person.

Basic private hospital cover with no excess runs at a bit over $1k per person which seems reasonable until you realize that this only covers 25% of the scheduled fee, the remaining 75% is still paid by the government. They're spending $4.4B this year on 'motivating' people to move to private health care which saves them 25% of the cost for the 10% of the people or about $1B (2.5% of $42B).

It's not the costs of the actual facilities that is the issue, its the cost of the insurance system that is, as this is where the government money is going.

Col Rouge,

"It is a matter for The “low earning”, as individuals, to resolve how to improve their earning opportunity."

The problem is that they will attempt to resolve their problems through crimes such as theft, robbery, drug dealing, prostitution. These all result in a greater cost to the community than adequate education and welfare systems which create positive opportunities. Have a look at the countries that top the Human Development Index list. Then look at the rates of social spending. Hyper-capitalist nations such as the US don't do so well.

"It extinguishes the consumer choice motivator, which is the most critical input measure of any service delivery."

The consumer choice motivator (aka free market) is a very useful mechanism for optimizing service delivery, but it is by no means perfect or a solution to every problem. It also depends on _informed_ choice which is frequently not the case in todays society.

"I support small(er) government."

I support smarter government. There is plenty of pointless bureaucratic crap in government, but plenty is needed to support our civilized society. A lot of the achievements and profit made within the capitalist system are dependent on the civilized structure which would not exist without tax payer support.

Desipis “The problem is that they will attempt to resolve their problems through crimes such as theft, robbery, drug dealing, prostitution.”

Are you suggesting “Welfare” be paid as a form of blackmail or protection money, in return for a peaceful life?

If that was so, I would have considered “organised crime” as a career opportunity.

“Hyper-capitalist nations such as the US don't do so well.”

The US scored .951 and Australia scored .962 (both below Iceland at .968), I would say you are “splitting hairs”.

However HDI needs to be considered subject to the following caveat

“A large part is standard of living, . . Others like freedom, happiness, art, environmental health, and innovation are far harder to measure.. . ”

Americans have a respect for wealth but also the social expectation to engage in private “philanthropy”.

Philanthropy is among the HDI “harder to measure” and more significant in USA than Iceland.

The US has a lot of fee based education but many students qualify for scholarships which significantly subsidise the cost of education. scholarships provided by the philanthropic bequests of private individuals.

Bill Gates earns heaps and spends most of it on philanthropic pursuits to benefit others.

Warren Buffet has incorporated the majority of his Hathaway interests into a charitable foundation, rather than leave it to his children.

The USA provides more charitable support to less developed countries than any other nation on earth.

“The consumer choice . . . but it is by no means perfect”

Consumer choice is like democracy, neither is perfect but both are better in their field than anything else which has ever been tried.

“depends on _informed_ choice which is frequently not the case in todays society.”

We are individually responsible for researching our own decisions, including the “vulnerable”.

“I support smarter government.”

Then leave it “small”, until government has proved its intellectual capacity to handle more.

“civilized structure which would not exist without tax payer support.”

“tax payers” can provide as much through private choice as through government taxes and with less bureaucratic overhead.

Hear hear Desipis, I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

Col Rouge, "I would note that the welfare payments you speak of are not payments at all but are income tax breaks". Incorrect. Welfare is targeted for a specific purpose, to ensure that the fundamentals of life are met, in this case medical reasons, shelter and education. When a wealthy minority who have little or no need of support claim half of the health rebate, this is welfare. When a wealthy minority receive a grant meant to assist struggling first home buyers, this is welfare. When elite private schools recieve an injection of funding straight from the public purse while the parents of many of it's students could afford to buy a whole government school, this is welfare. It exists to help those who would struggle to afford such fundamentals. To have those who could easily afford them and much more besides plug their feeding tubes into the system thus reducing the amount available to those who cannot afford is the grossest of abuses.

It seems that many of the wealthy are not shy of accepting substistence in the form of such publicly funded featherbedding.

"I do not elect parliamentarians to tax me". You didn't elect anyone this time around, the mob that you voted for got the boot so whether you want to pay tax or not is irrelivent.

"I suggest that there is no greater common good or social benifet possible from levying higher taxes to support more welfare" I doubt that wealthy health rebate recipients, wealthy home buyers and elite schools would agree with that since that is where their trough is filled from - the moneyed classes will always attempt to throw the burden of taxation back upon the shoulders of the common people.

Your comment about welfare never substituting for the sense of achivement attained through self determination is the most bizzare of all in the context of what we are discussing - the wealthy are living off welfare, plain and simple.

Col Rouge,

"Are you suggesting “Welfare” be paid as a form of blackmail or protection money, in return for a peaceful life?"

I'm suggesting we teach people how to fish rather than just hoarding our own supply. Although I guess we could just feed them cake.

"The USA provides more charitable support to less developed countries than any other nation on earth."

As a % of GDP it's quite low. Even with the private donations included, it is lower than the government aid of many other developed nations.

"Consumer choice is like democracy, neither is perfect but both are better in their field than anything else which has ever been tried."

Yes. In some cases consumer choice is more effective. In other cases a democratic government is more effective. You need to assess the situation to determine if 'consumer choice' will actually work as intended.

"We are individually responsible for researching our own decisions"

Making people responsible for things without giving them the skills or resources to do them... that'll work well.

"Then leave it “small”, until government has proved its intellectual capacity to handle more."

I'm usually much happier with government run institutions than with ones run by large corporate organizations. The irony is that all the bureaucracy you hate about government organisations is just as common in large corporations as well.

It is interesting to note the outcry when the "vulnerable" (meaning the poorest) are offerred any type of assistance to improve their lot or just to maintain a living existence, yet the billions of tax dollars spent on corporate welfare and policies (like WorkChoices which exploited the most vulnerable lower incomes for the sake of obscene profits) are largely ignored and even applauded as good for the economy. How can increasingly larger numbers of vulnerable groups be good for the economy?

As far as inflation goes, how can increasing pensions (just as one example) create inflation. Pensioners are living on appallingly low incomes now and barely scrape by, any increase won't be spent on mad consumerist pursuits it will be spent paying for the ever rising prices of groceries (of which the spoils are less and less going to the producers of those goods but to middle men and duopoly supermarkets), petrol and electricity bills.

There is plenty of fat in government that could be cut (via natural attrition or generous retrenchment packages) and many examples of duplication of services both at State and Federal level.

More money is needed NOT LESS for social and community programs that will offset the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor and much less emphasis on economy at the expense of 'community'. It is about developing polices that include not exclude, and provide equal access to opportunities.

If the economy is doing so well why are more and more people struggling to make ends meet, paying off ridiculously high mortgages which take up a much higher portion of income than previously, and higher demands on charities and community services.

And moreover...are we being fed untruths on interest rates and inflation etc - is it a case of damn lies and more lies?

Middle class and higher income earners are spending more money on material things that is true but they are generally spending it with money they don't yet have ie. the bank's money in the form of CREDIT of which the banks give out freely and make money on interest payments. There is an irony in this and maybe a need to encourage banks to behave more socially responsible.

There is also an irony or contradiction in governments telling us to halt spending to curb inflation while at the same time espousing the virtues of capitalism which fosters rampant consumerism for growth with no thought to sustainability. I can't think of a system (as yet) that might work better than the one we've got but we can curb some of the excesses of capitalism through responsible regulation and bring back public ownership of our most essential services and utilities. Why aren't governments doing this and why are they moving more and more to the right and buying into the myths of the virtues of a free market.

And...given that we are one of the most highly taxed nations (personal tax, GST, government charges, stamp duties, local government rates, petrol and alcohol taxes and a myriad of other hidden taxes in an increasingly 'user pays' society) there is not much chance that the masses will be out spending too much 'real' money antyime soon.