Hi all,

A few quick responses:

@Private Health: If the govt re-directed the ~$3.5 Billion it spends subsidising private health insurance buying health care directly that would be ~$3.5 Billion the private health companies don't need to pay out. Private health insurance would not necessarily cost more than now as it would not need to cover so much. Some folks would drop their cover and self-insure instead, which is their choice. There would be less jobs doing admin in private health industry - but more jobs providing care. I know what I would prefer!

@Defence: If you look at the defence force we propose (http://www.newaustralia.net/defence.html)I think it is pretty silly to say that we would be "virtually defenseless". If you want "virtually defenseless" have a look at the frigates we have now, or better still HMAS Kanimbla & Manoora!

@Splitting the Greens: The Greens are committed to non-violence and pacifism. The pictures of defence hardware on our site would scare them all off in no time! They also want to increase tax and spending not just shift it. The point of NewAustralia is to attract votes from disaffected Lib/Lab voters and thereby increase the net Environmental vote. Note our preferences would go first to the Greens & Dems so will probably increase the chance of getting more Green senate seats.

@Super: No changes planned here by us.

@Labor & the environment: I think the axing of the Solar rebate says it all really, plus the massive Carbon Polluters Reward Scheme. Then their is the Vic Labor govt building desal plants and draining the Murray with pipes back to Melbourne, etc, etc. I see no reason to preference Labor ahead of the libs on envionmental issues at the moment.

@Welfare: See http://www.newaustralia.net/society_welfare.html.

Cheers,
Alan.

Bronwyn,

I am a Greens member and support most of their policies but I find it perplexing and extremely annoying that they persist in ignoring the population issue with arguments along the lines you noted in your response to Ludwig. If you have read most of the reasoned posts on this thread you can see why population is THE major reason - with profligate consumption a close second - why we will never, ever be able to prevent the sustained and largely irreversible destruction of our environment and along with it its productive capacity so long as we don't at the very least stabilize our own population growth. Since our per capita consumption is amongst the highest in the world we owe it to the rest of the world to do so too.

I might add that it is not an either or argument. We HAVE to curtail population growth AS WELL AS material consumption.

The Green's population policy is ... well alright but it's immigration policy is sickeningly naive and unrealistic as it implies a complete opening of doors to refugees and other non-economic migrants. Absolutely suicidal - certainly for the environment and for a reasonably unimpoverished existence for the existing inhabitants of this continent.

I do not by any means discount the New Australia Party as a possible alternative if the Greens don't come to their senses. As Ludwig says ...a good boot up the?? is needed.

Bronwyn, you have inadvertently outlined the great problem with the Greens; they are only addressing half of the equation of human impact on our environment and on our own future wellbeing, and just ignoring the other half.

It is USELESS for them to address per-capita consumption and “sustainable practices” while just letting our population continue to grow at the most absurd rate without protesting very loudly. What they would effectively be doing, if they were successful with this strategy, is to actually facilitate the importation of more and more people and hence an ever-greater impact on our environment and an ever-reducing quality of life for all of us, while making it ever-harder to turn the situation around towards a genuinely sustainable future.

The Greens are NOT putting forward sustainable policies for as long as they don’t address the population growth issue. They're talking through their quoit if they think they are addressing sustainability!!

They are working with the devil!! They're aiding and abetting the liblabs!

They are so far off-track that we really do – DESPERATELY – need a new party. A new party running on a platform of achieving genuine sustainability quickly would effectively be very different indeed to the Greens.

Few people in the general community have got much time for the Greens. But I reckon the concept of achieving a sustainable future quickly, as opposed to rushing towards the cliff, could be sold to the community and engender great support…especially the policy of reducing immigration down to net zero.

Here’s hoping that New Australia will see this imperative and embrace it, above all else.

Alan, having your cake and eating it is not normally an option when it comes to policy.

>>Private Health: If the govt re-directed the ~$3.5 Billion it spends subsidising private health insurance buying health care directly...<<

Your earlier post indicated you intended to follow Treasury's suggestion that:

"[the] $3 billion annual cost to revenue could deliver far better health outcomes if directed to additional capacity in public hospitals"

Which is your policy? To direct these unpaid subsidies to increasing public hospital capacity, or to lowering the cost of the Funds' purchases?

If the former, my questions still stand: the present Private Health Insurance system would collapse under the weight of a - minimum - 43% price rise. Is the destruction of the Health Funds your intention?

If the latter, what is the point of removing a subsidy at the point of sale, only to reintroduce it in the purchasing process? Who wins from that? Certainly not the Public system.

I'm not sure how a purchasing subsidy might work in real life, but it certainly would increase, rather than decrease, administration costs.

As for this little throwaway line...

>>There would be less jobs doing admin in private health industry - but more jobs providing care. I know what I would prefer!<<

The money to pay for these folk comes from the Private Health Funds themselves. This would also signal that "subsidising private health insurance buying health care directly" is not your intention, since the cost of care is not a direct substitution for "jobs doing admin" in Private Health Insurance Funds.

Incidentally, a far faster way to deliver more jobs providing care would be to reduce the wasteful administrative overheads in the hospital system itself.

But you know how it is with public servants. Once you give them an office chair, it takes a nuclear explosion to get them out again into the productive workforce.

I think a genuinely honest and open audit of our Public Health System is long overdue, and would shock most people. The majority of the Hospital costs are associated with the major specialists and surgeons, the contracts they enjoy are on a par with those of the financial sector. Use of theatres, wards, staff etc, all provided for their private customers, free of charge, plus monetary returns that reflect their "connections" rather than their skill or labour, just for starters. That is the only area in health NOT to be cut back, far from it, indeed!
I can't help but wonder what would happen if we hired some o/s Doc's on more normal contracts, or even PAYE, what all the well-heeled vunder-menschen would do? It would certainly lower OUR costs.

maybe its time govt got out of all health..the state govt dental sceme is a scam..[privatuise the lot,and just insure the people with health care costs [per head/[per-year up to say 3000 in any year..the health indiustry either meets it or not...but they want the business theyt meet the dollars the patients are able to meet

lok at the total heath subsidy[figure out whats being spend now and divide it up ammoung the lower income levels of the common weal[the current sysytem isnt working[and we know its easiuer to keep us healthy than cure the disease]...

im against the eugenics aspect[clearly thats the current policy[every day in usa alone the equivelent of 5 jumbo jets die from adverse reaction to perscribed drugs..[we would have a simular equivenency in oz[or maybe higfher because of govt subsidy of drugs

much more attention should be paid to the doses needed to cure number[i know that the current medication for many subsidised mnedicines is 1/60 meaning 60 people need to take the medicine[subsidised medicin [for one CURE to result...

drugs arnt helping and yet they are one of the highest cost..[add..is well known to be dietry related..[the lsd they give the kids is only making them phycotic,..many of the tranquilisers are killing people[prozac alone has killed over 12,000..

one in 10 hostpital admmissions is drug adversae reaction..[drug related..[one in ten result in death..booze is right up there