Pericles,

I don't follow your reasoning. If we wanted to cancel the private health insurance (PHI) subsidy and spend the money on (say) solar panels then you would be right. The total cost of health care covered by the PHI's would stay the same while the subsidy would go - so premiums would have to rise 30%+.

However, we propose that the $3.5 billion now spent on subsidising PHI's would be spent on providing health care that the PHI's now pay for. This means that there is $3.5 billion less health care the PHI's need to buy. For example PHI's now cover dental. Out plan is to use part of the $3.5 billion to provide free essential dental care.

So the PHI's miss out on a $3.5 billion subsidy, but then have $3.5 billion less health care to buy - assuming the public and private provide equal care per dollar.

I guess your view on the PHI subsidy depends on your view of whether health delivery is best delivered by the private or public sectors. If you like the US system then you would maximise PHI involvement in health provision.

Cheers,
Alan.

Austin, you appear to be someone with some knowledge in this area; perhaps you would give your opinion of an alternative to fighter/bombers.
What about an interlocking grid of land based missile defence posts? I realise it would be far more expensive (at least in the short term) however:
The money would all be spent at home.
It would be a clear indication of defensive, rather offensive strategy.
Reduced running costs and upgrade costs.
Small bases would require small townships to service -increased decentralisation and job opportunities.
Permanent reinforced bunkers could be complimented with mobile (truck) batteries.
I sincerely believe in the 21st century we should be looking at the real possibility of an end to war. The first step must be to stop threatening our neighbours, while maintaining a sensible defensive capability.
Who came up with the idea that "The best defence is offence" anyway, George Armstrong Custer?
'Pre emptive strike' is just a pretty way to describe king hitting.

That much is clear, Alan.

>>I don't follow your reasoning<<

Nor I yours.

>>The total cost of health care covered by the PHI's would stay the same<<

But you have reduced the (Private Health Insurance) product content, and raised the price. This is likely to cause a decrease in participation, which will inevitably reduce the amount of money available from PHI to soak up the pressure on the Public system.

Has this been taken into account in your calculations?

I suspect not, but since you are quite understandably not in a position to apply yourself to any detail, we will have to differ on our opinion of the value of the policy.

Nevertheless, it would be perhaps a good idea to explain at least the philosophy behind your position.

Is your party actively opposed to the concept of Private Health Insurance?

Because there's nothing more certain that the system as it stands will collapse without the subsidy.

Which will once again leave Private Health Insurance available only to the rich, who would be willing to pay twice or three times the present amount, i) because they can and ii) because they would perceive that waiting times for the Public system would border on dangerous.

The present system may not be idealogically perfect, but a million Australians earning less than $26,000p.a. presently carry PHI.

You might like to start practising in front of a mirror what you would say to these people, when you make the product accessible only to rich folk.

A Party that favours the wealthy?

Not a good look.

NewAustralia, the Sukhoi 35 has been around since the 80s so I wouldn't call it new. Like the F15, it may have gone though a few refits but that doesn't make it state-of-the-art. If the 35 year old design is a better performer than the brand new JSF, why would the Yanks be spending billions on its development? And wouldn't the very fact that it was a new design put it ahead of a refitted old design?
As for us stating that all consumables (by that I assume you include all spare parts) be made here, how's that going to happen? I've had Japanese motorcycles and cars that have required parts always made in Japan. If we can't make the Japanese allow us to manufacture the spares, what chance have we with the Russians?
Most importantly, we have to stay ahead with the latest technology merely to keep up with our neighbours. I already mentioned Indonesia, India and China. I presume that you are aware off their strengths. If Poland had modernised and mechanised its army, the Germans wouldn't have overrun them so easily.

Grim, I wouldn't suggest an alternative to fighter/bombers, my post was in their favour. Fixed missile deployments cannot be moved to where the action is. Fighter/bombers can. I also would like to see an end to war, but we have to be able to defend ourselves from aggressive neighbours. I don't see how we are threatening them or why you think we are.
'Pre emptive strike' can also mean not getting caught with your pants down while 'The best defence is offence' is certainly true if you want to come out ahead. If you are about to be attacked, do you wait for it or make your own move?
Here's the saying I would agree with - 'Peace through superior firepower'.
Actually, Custer said, 'Holy mackerel, look at all those goddam injuns'.

Hey Austin, as a westerner, I doubt Custer was worried about being in the fish.
The problem with "peace through superior firepower" is that everyone wants it. We saw how MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction) a race like that can get; Even without a clearly defined enemy of anything like equal calibre, the US stills spends more than half it's budget on defence.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many countries on the planet which would feel much safer if the US kept it's armaments within it's own territorial borders, rather than roaming around the high seas.
The main reason Australia has to spend so much desperately needed cash on 'Defence' is to fulfil some perceived obligations to play the role of deputy sheriff.
If we grant every country the right to exist as we do, we have to accept they aren't going to enjoy being stood over by the biggest kid in school any more than we would.

Grim, when all is said and done, the only way that we could afford not to upgrade our defence capabilities would be if all other regional forces did the same and, in some cases, cut back.
I would be an advocate for unilateral disarmament if we could trust all others to disarm but human nature says that they wouldn't.
So, like it or not, I'd stick with superior firepower.

BTW, there is a new sheriff over there and a new deputy sheriff over here but has much else changed?