That's not even half an answer, NewAustralia.

>>(5) Private health insurance rebate: Providing health funding via the insurance companies is inherently inefficient as each company has to spend money on their own execs, advertising, etc.<<

OK, so that accounts for 10%.

We are still $6 billion-plus out of pocket.

The idea, you suggest, is:

>>The funding comes from shifting spending - Roads to Rail, Defence to Education, Private Health to Public Health.<<

But if you have persuaded people that there is no point in taking out Private Health Insurance - or made it ridiculously unprofitable to do so - then there will be no money to transfer.

I failed to make this point clearly in my last post, so let me see if I can rephrase it so that it is more obvious.

If I (and 10 million others) spend $700 a year on my Private Health Insurance, the government puts in an extra $300.

That's $10 billion all up.*

The Health Funds have expenses of around 10% of this figure, so that's $9 billion that actually goes into the hospital system. It pays for beds, it pays for surgery, it pays doctors and nurses and ancillary staff. etc. etc.

You make it unattractive to take out Private Health Insurance.

So, nobody does.

You get back the $3 billion, sure, which you can dump into the Public Health system.

But the hospital system as a whole is $6 billion out of pocket.

It was previously provided by policyholders. It doesn't exist any more. So you can't shift it to the Public system, because it isn't there.

The demand for services rises every year, as does the cost of providing them.

Where is the missing $6bn coming from? And how will it continue to be funded in future years?

(Clue: no country in the world has yet made a success out of universal free health services.)

*note: the actual figures are a little higher than this, but I use round numbers to keep it simple.

We don't need another green party. It will only split the green vote and further reduce its influence.

The Greens have been putting in the hard yards for years and are steadily increasing their percentage of the vote at every election. They deserve the green vote and are the only group in the foreseeable future to have any chance of doing something constructive with it.

As you said, Alan, nobody agrees with every policy in a party's platform. Why don't you get over your discontent with some of their policies and get behind the Greens and support them as the only realistic alternative we have to the major parties.

Your policies are so similar to the Greens that you'll achieve nothing but fracture the green vote by setting up another party, which is the last thing we need. If you want to do something really useful for the environmental movement, why don't you contribute to Bob Brown's current campaign and save him from losing his senate seat. His is the best voice the environment has in Australia. If he goes, we're really in trouble.

Ludwig,

I agree that preferential voting should be a matter of choice, but politicians of all kinds maintain that that it is the best and fairest (the way it is) and there is no chance of change.

With reference to voters having control over their preferences; you forgot to say that voters have control over their preferences under the current system.

The cards handed out by parties are they way THEY want us to cast our preferences after their deals with other parties and candidates. Too many lazy voters go along with it, but I and, I’m sure, many others, make up their own minds. I don’t recall ever having voted the way my preferred party or independent wanted me to vote with regard to preferences. Politicians are the last people we should be taking notice of.

I don't think I'll be joining of voting for the new party by the way.

Remember that bloke we had on day after day pounding his new party before the last Federal election? I can't remember his name, or what he called the party.

Ludwig,
Many times the programs are used only as marketing tools, there are many ways to avoid to realize them.
For me, most times the political programs are marketing tools or word games!
I am interested what is back from the programs, the real goals the real consequenses on the parties I support, Greens and ALP.
From the moment the New Australia Party will damage Greens and ALP and parallel it prefers the Coalition automatic I am against it.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Scrap health rebate: Treasury
Leo Shanahan
The Age, February 24, 2009

THE private health insurance rebate paid to millions of Australians is very poor policy and should be dumped, according to a confidential briefing to Treasurer Wayne Swan.

Documents obtained by The Age reveal that Treasury, in one of its first briefings to the Rudd Government after its 2007 election win, urged Mr Swan to seriously consider scrapping the rebate. The briefing said the billions of dollars lost annually to the rebate would be better spent on public hospitals.

The Age has also learned that Health Minister Nicola Roxon has been advised on options for scrapping the rebate, with discussion papers going to cabinet at least twice last year.

.....

In its November 2007 briefing, the Treasury told Mr Swan: "You should give serious consideration to the future of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. This rebate represents very poor policy.

There is no doubt that its $3 billion annual cost to revenue could deliver far better health outcomes if directed to additional capacity in public hospitals."

- Maybe Treasury are idiots as well?

Cheers,
Alan.

so whats your opinion on pensions?

i would note more questions but seemingly multi t-asking means,the rest of the questions dont get reply

so there we are how your party feel about 27 billion spent on pensioners...compared to govt spending an extra 27 billion as it does today of super...

arnt we burdond twice..[now paying both for todays pensions..[as well as tomorrows pensions in the form of super..[leveraged to gift wealth to the elites...to the total of 54 billion per year]...just to avoid some future pension payments..equating to 27 billion in todays dollars

is this subsidy to the wealthy susss or sustainable...what has the 27 billion subsidy to the stock speculators,recieving todays dollars...[for what effectivly is 4 percent increase in wealth...only..[..over the 20 years..since keating gave it to the elites gambeling in the market place]..to do with govt

i keep it simple for you..[making some infurances you can chose to ignore or expand on...while were at it how you feel about coorperate welfare..[like govt subsidising drugs...so people can buy them for a few bucks...simply because some docters voted them..to get govt subsidy

but i digress..[lets just talk about the gift by govt..to the wealthy of 27 billion each year...for investment into stock gambeling