On 7/13/2016 at 10:21 AM, hardtack said:

I have just come from Medicare after making a claim for my son's ongoing treatment for a footballing injury.  So far THIS govt has frozen the scheduled fee (from last Jan 1st if memory serves) meaning the gap will continue to grow and grow unless I want to travel to the planet  Koozbane where I hear there are specialists who charge this mythical scheduled fee for their services. Next, I was just informed by the Medicare staffer who dealt with my claim, that the Govt has withdrawn any tax rebates this year for family claims made during the financial year due to budgetary constraints.  I can only hope he has been misinformed, but somehow I think not.

Couple this with the fact that the Health Act contains a clause stating that insurance companies are forbidden to make payouts in claims for the Medicare gap and I am literally up [censored]-creek sans paddle.

 

Hardtack that sucks.

At an idealogical level I agree with budgetary constraints but on a personal level it seems incredibly unfair that you miss out on appropriate compensation  for your son's injury in this case, particularly considering your difficult circumstances.

Without knowing the intimate details of your case I do question the insurance policies football clubs / leagues are taking out for their players. Bad news travels fast but I do hear a disproportionate number of bad luck stories of severe injuries not being covered. 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Hardtack that sucks.

At an idealogical level I agree with budgetary constraints but on a personal level it seems incredibly unfair that you miss out on appropriate compensation  for your son's injury in this case, particularly considering your difficult circumstances.

Without knowing the intimate details of your case I do question the insurance policies football clubs / leagues are taking out for their players. Bad news travels fast but I do hear a disproportionate number of bad luck stories of severe injuries not being covered. 

Thanks Wrecker, it does suck... big time! 

I have itemised all treatments and costs including the Medicare gap that I am out of pocket and plan to approach the competition organisers and possibly the AFL if no satisfactory result can be forthcoming.  The insurance the clubs take covers, I think, up to $2,000 in costs incurred, but only the gap in private health insurance and income loss; the Medicare gap is untouchable.  To make matters worse, the insurance they took out pays only 75% of the outstanding private health gap and there is a $70 excess taken off the total amount owing.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Hardtack that sucks.

At an idealogical level I agree with budgetary constraints but on a personal level it seems incredibly unfair that you miss out on appropriate compensation  for your son's injury in this case, particularly considering your difficult circumstances.

Without knowing the intimate details of your case I do question the insurance policies football clubs / leagues are taking out for their players. Bad news travels fast but I do hear a disproportionate number of bad luck stories of severe injuries not being covered. 

So its 'bad luck', with a dash of your political correctness to sooth any concerns your conscience (or others consciences) may hold in this idealistic model you worship.

Aren't we lucky your not the sheriff of our shire.

7 hours ago, DV8 said:

So its 'bad luck', with a dash of your political correctness to sooth any concerns your conscience (or others consciences) may hold in this idealistic model you worship.

Aren't we lucky your not the sheriff of our shire.

Thanks for your input Stalin.

23 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

 

At an ideological level I agree with budgetary constraints but on a personal level it seems incredibly unfair that you miss out on appropriate compensation  for your son's injury in this case, particularly considering your difficult circumstances.

 

This is where the two worlds collide and it will forever thus be hard to reconcile. I work in the TCF industry - on an ideological level I feel we have never been able to compete with low labor cost countries and we should divert our energies into industries where this country can compete. But then  what about the machinists or pattern makers who only know one thing ? We can glibly talk about retraining but retaining into what ? What about their jobs that they will lose.

I want to see a rapid move to renewable energy and I also am fairly strident in my views on forestry but I also have sympathy for the dislocation it will cause in employment in both the mining and forestry sectors. It is real people losing real jobs.

I have less problems with budgetary constraints vs services/care that need to be provided but it is a problem none the less.   ( you, HT, have highlighted the unfortunate failing in services provided - or at least  - recompense for services provided - it sucks the big one) 

There is no simple answers to these problems.

( my biggest conundrum comes with taxation - I have no problem with paying a fair ( or even high) rate of tax. To me it is not the tax dollars collected that is my issue - it is the way tax dollars are wasted that girds my loins - note that I do believe there is mass evasion by large companies in paying their fair whack)

16 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Thanks for your input Stalin.

Typical.

I think Malcolm got over the line by about 98,000 odd votes, that's not a great mandate but he has claimed a majority of seats to govern but alas today he has stumbled at the first hurdle with his Captains decision to not back Rudd for the UN Secreatery General office. The decision has nothing to do with Rudd the candidate but it was totally a power struggle within the LNP cabinet and Turnbull's influence. A hundred years of precedent of backing Australians of whatever political persuasion  for international posts has been trashed because some conservative inner party hacks decided so because they hold the numbers. Malcolm as leader looks less than convincing by the day! 

12 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

I think Malcolm got over the line by about 98,000 odd votes, that's not a great mandate but he has claimed a majority of seats to govern but alas today he has stumbled at the first hurdle with his Captains decision to not back Rudd for the UN Secreatery General office. The decision has nothing to do with Rudd the candidate but it was totally a power struggle within the LNP cabinet and Turnbull's influence. A hundred years of precedent of backing Australians of whatever political persuasion  for international posts has been trashed because some conservative inner party hacks decided so because they hold the numbers. Malcolm as leader looks less than convincing by the day! 

A little off to the side of your post

Daisy took me task on this last time but I am going to repeat it - the oft used word in political circles "mandate" in my mind is so poorly used by politicians. 

Politicians keep harping on about a mandate to do this and that. I think the last time a Government had a mandate was in 2004 when Howard won a majority in BOTH houses of parliament. (someone will correct me if I am wrong)

Since then all Governments have been empowered to do is put forward their policies as legislation and negotiate with Senators to get it enacted. When a Government  does not have a majority in the Senate all it says to me is a majority of the public is happy enough for a Government to put forward it's platform but want strong oversight by the Senate to make sure that only the policies with more universal support get enacted.

I have heard from so many that they are sick of Governments having to deal with obstructionist Senates and legislation constantly getting knocked back. The facts will tell you otherwise - if people were truly sick of this circumstance the they would strongly vote to have a Government win both houses of Parliament.

The only mandate Turnbull has is to have the primary voice to put forward his policy agenda. He then has responsibility to ensure he can satisfy the Senate and get it enacted.

On 29/07/2016 at 10:22 PM, Earl Hood said:

I think Malcolm got over the line by about 98,000 odd votes, that's not a great mandate but he has claimed a majority of seats to govern but alas today he has stumbled at the first hurdle with his Captains decision to not back Rudd for the UN Secreatery General office. The decision has nothing to do with Rudd the candidate but it was totally a power struggle within the LNP cabinet and Turnbull's influence. A hundred years of precedent of backing Australians of whatever political persuasion  for international posts has been trashed because some conservative inner party hacks decided so because they hold the numbers. Malcolm as leader looks less than convincing by the day! 

I'm not sure Turnbull did squib this one.

I don't think Rudd would have made a particularly good Secretary General.

A man who snipes and undermines his own party in the manner that he did is not suited to such a high office.

50 minutes ago, Choke said:

I'm not sure Turnbull did squib this one.

I don't think Rudd would have made a particularly good Secretary General.

A man who snipes and undermines his own party in the manner that he did is not suited to such a high office.

Rudd's performance during the Gillard years should just about disqualify him and then if you want to pay any attention to the noise about how he treated his staff then I more that suspect you are spot on.

8 hours ago, Choke said:

I'm not sure Turnbull did squib this one.

I don't think Rudd would have made a particularly good Secretary General.

A man who snipes and undermines his own party in the manner that he did is not suited to such a high office.

Choke you might be right but it should be the UN selection committee's job to determine Rudd's suitability for the job, not Malcolm. In terms of qualifications he ticks the boxes, former PM, foreign minister and now it turns out DFAT had advised the PM that Rudd was a suitable candidate. 

And I am not sure in party sniping discounts one, given Kurt Waldheim once had the job. His former employment as a Nazi commander in WW11 didn't go against him.  

14 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Choke you might be right but it should be the UN selection committee's job to determine Rudd's suitability for the job, not Malcolm. In terms of qualifications he ticks the boxes, former PM, foreign minister and now it turns out DFAT had advised the PM that Rudd was a suitable candidate. 

And I am not sure in party sniping discounts one, given Kurt Waldheim once had the job. His former employment as a Nazi commander in WW11 didn't go against him.  

Yeah I guess.

I'm still not sure it's a disaster of judgement on Turnbull's behalf.

I might be biased against Rudd after voting for him (first and only time I've voted labor) and he made a fool of me.

Just read this earlier today:

"With counting now finalised the Coalition government has a majority of exactly one in the House of Representatives. The seat of Herbert was decided by just 37 votes and turnout was down 3 per cent. So as flawed as our democracy is, if you want to a say in who is running the show you really need to… turnout."

Boy is that frustrating. 

Source: http://junkee.com/a-record-number-of-australians-failed-to-vote-at-this-years-election/82078

11 hours ago, Choke said:

Yeah I guess.

I'm still not sure it's a disaster of judgement on Turnbull's behalf.

I might be biased against Rudd after voting for him (first and only time I've voted labor) and he made a fool of me.

Fair enough Choke the Rudd for UN thing is all rhetorical really, who cares. But I am curious about your comment that he made a fool of you. In what way? Was it His retreat on climate change? The mining tax, the pump priming after the GFC? These are often thrown up to be a part of his problems but mostly tje problem was his people management ability. 

By the time he returned to be PM he didn't have time to do much damage. 

14 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Fair enough Choke the Rudd for UN thing is all rhetorical really, who cares. But I am curious about your comment that he made a fool of you. In what way? Was it His retreat on climate change? The mining tax, the pump priming after the GFC? These are often thrown up to be a part of his problems but mostly tje problem was his people management ability. 

By the time he returned to be PM he didn't have time to do much damage. 

Basically yes.

He claimed that climate change was 'the greatest moral issue of our time', and then squibbed.

He got my vote under false pretences and it makes me feel foolish that I was ever so naive to believe him.

Wasting the stimulus package was also a massive disappointment.

2 hours ago, Choke said:

He got my vote under false pretences and it makes me feel foolish that I was ever so naive to believe him.

 

Don't be hard on yourself. As foolish as you think Rudd made you feel , pollies make themselves look foolish x 10.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Don't be hard on yourself. As foolish as you think Rudd made you feel , pollies make themselves look foolish x 10.

Yeah but they seem to not feel the pain or embarrassment of it.

10 hours ago, Choke said:

Basically yes.

He claimed that climate change was 'the greatest moral issue of our time', and then squibbed.

He got my vote under false pretences and it makes me feel foolish that I was ever so naive to believe him.

Wasting the stimulus package was also a massive disappointment.

Choke I agree with your thoughts on Rudd and his climate change Squibb and his many other foibles but I always find the discussion of the problems of the stimulus package during the GFC interesting. 

Joe Hockey used to go on about the stimulus package waste with over priced school halls etc, the bonus cheques posted out to pensioners and of course the infamous pink batts insulation program. That completely missed the point in my mind. 

The problem with these "in hind sight" comments is that at the time you had no idea of what the economy was facing and was going to do. 

With such uncertainty you know businesses are going to reduce spending and investing, they are going to start unloading employees etc, sending our economy into free fall, like what happened in the U.S. and parts of Europe.  Rudd responded by pumping money into construction, sending cheques to pensioners and others to ensure that money would be spent and pumped immediately into the economy to stimulate demand. This was  a classic Keynsian economic response to a downturn, and it worked.

You had to put money into poorer people's hands as you know they will spend it. And you had to sponsor ready to go construction programs such as school shelters that can be designed and built relatively quickly. Yes there were rip offs and inefficiencies but it was about getting cash into the hands of those who might spend it. 

It it seems to have worked well so far.

I agree, the theory behind the stimulus was sound.

But even at the time people were saying it was going to the wrong places. This isn't a hindsight thing, people knew it at the time and the government still did it.

It did work, it kept us out of recession, but it could have worked much much better. It SHOULD have been better.

20 hours ago, Choke said:

I agree, the theory behind the stimulus was sound.

But even at the time people were saying it was going to the wrong places. This isn't a hindsight thing, people knew it at the time and the government still did it.

It did work, it kept us out of recession, but it could have worked much much better. It SHOULD have been better.

Agree.

The theory and overall end result was sound  -  the execution was horrible