The Forum > General Discussion > Liberal = Liar?
Liberal = Liar?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Page 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
All should be well aware of the politics of all of the political parties by now, so lets leave barracking for one side or the other out of this.
First cars, the cars the major makers thought were required are no longer in demand. Major problem. A change in direction takes years, is hugely expensive and is a punt the taxpayer shouldn't be stumping up for.
Nonetheless I think some consideration should be given for partnered research with a reputable maker, Toyota, for the simple, practical car of the future.
Regarding expenditure and speaking broadly, of course government has an increasing cost burden. That is obvious from aged health and support needs, alone.
Just sticking with expenditure on the aged for a moment, but hoping not to make them the whipping boys any more than some have done already, of course there will be some limitations introduced to restrict services for them and especially health services.
While on that subject, the change in Australian population demographics, the contribution of diversity if you like, will see the previously unthinkable become not only possible, but implemented in short order to keep public health care afloat. Once taboo questions, such as should a person who abuses his health be provided with expensive (and limited) treatments, the benefit of which are immediately trashed through his own decisions and lifestyle?
Priorities will be set, even if such decisions are disguised.
Such decisions cannot be related to age because there are (say) sixty year olds and sixty year olds. However it is perfectly reasonable, principled and ethical to give preference to patients who are the best prospects, even if they were not first in line for service.