What do you all think about this hospitals takeover? I am the first to admit that our hospitals are in melt down and I can't see a takeover by the government (any government) improving that. situation. I want to know what we are going to get for our money. I want to know HOW they are going to achieve their promises. We have a right to know, after all it is our money they are playing with and the future health of this country.

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)

I was told yesterday that all hospitals will not be included in this great overhaul. Has anyone else heard this, and if so, what are the details please?

BTW how about ignoring personal attacks, those who resort to personal attacks will soon get the message and go away.

Thank God we have a senate. Hopefully Tony Abbott will find holes in the hospital scheme now rather than later when it's too late to change anything. I shudder to think what this loose cannon of a Prime Minister will do next.

Heaven help our country.

Tanwin, you are correct in saying that the GST cannot be changed without

ALL the States agreeing. BUT, the Federal GST Act can be altered by a new

Federal Act of Parliament which will get through the Lower (Labor) House

& then blocked by the Upper House. When this happens, Rudd will blame

& blame again Tony Abbott for personally blocking Health Reform. It does

not matter in the least, that this is not true, it will be preached & preached

as an election issue & believed by the faithfull.

What annoys me most, is that Monday & Tuesdays fiasco cost well over

$1million of tax payers money, with Rudd being fully aware that it could NOT

achieve a result. It's only purpose was Political grandstanding, in

preperation for the October/November Election. BUT, most important of

all, the Electorate has totally forgotten about Carbon trading & insulation.

BTW I have totally discounted the possability that Colin Barnett will roll over

in the next couple of months. Not really a possability, but a probability.

Unfortunately political outcomes will nearly always defeat ethics & the

good of the Country.

I stress that this is an opinion only, so please fwed, explain in detali where

I am wrong, not just another BS.

It does not matter in the least, that this is not true, it will be preached & preached as an election issue & believed by the faithfull.

Yes I agree.

I'm glad we've got a thread going about the hospital takeover, it's a very important issue and I hope to learn much more about it here. Please keep it going with any interesting news because there's a lot no one understsands yet. And PLEASE keep it civil! PS can we please cut down on the copy and pasting, it's so incredibly boring, just say what you think in your own words, it's not rocket science.

I cant see why the break-neck speed in getting all the States signed up without all the finer points being revealed, or have they not yet been planned?

It sounds like policy on the run to cover another failure and reminds me of the ETS that Rudd tried to inflict on the world. Whats happened to that?

This is not a hospital takeover.

This is a takeover of the way that the health service is funded.

The States receive funding now to run the health departments but redirect to funds to suit themselves at the demise of the hospitals etc.

They are stealing our taxes allocated for health service funding.

Rudd wants to ensure that the funds get to where they are meant to go and not into politicians junket trips/Grand prixs/arts/arts and farts and other crap.

I think you make a very good point Octopus, but, it is theoretical, at best. What

do you think will change if this stupidity proceeds? Do you think that if we borrow

a further fortune, from the International money market to fund a massive

increase in the 350,000 population of Canberra, with another layer

of Federal Public servants, that it will stop the State Politicians junket

trips/Grand prixs/arts/arts and farts and other crap? Nothing will stop

these State junkets, so the inevitable result will be an increase in

Federal borrowings & an increase in the GST by a minimum of 25%.

All to achieve 2 outcomes. More bureaucracy in every hospital &

everybody forgets the other fiascos until Rudd wins the election in


& an increase in the GST by a minimum of 25%.

innes, please tell me where you got the information that Kevin Rudd's government will increase the GST [b]to[/b] a minimum of 35%.

That is scary stuff and if done before an election would be political suicide.

I am sure you have a reputable source for this information - otherwise it is once again scaremongering.

GST is low at 10%.

If you look around the world to other "Western nations"you will find that we are the one of lowest.

17.5% in UK 20% in USA on most items.

They call it different names but it basically the GST.

This means that the high consumers are the high tax payers.

They still have a high TV licencing system in UK per TV.

No wonder hotels and motels are so expensive

In World values of 100% the total worth of the nation of Australia is 1.5%

Our contribution to Carbon "Greenhouse Gas", is therefore only a maximum 1.5% of world output.

Refugee intake last year at 6300 is about 1.5% of world intake and this what we agreed to do when we signed up to the United Nations.

If we leave the United Nations we are throwing away free insurance and will have to build up our own defence forces.

This is also the case if we remove the Union Jack from the corner of the flag.

Free insurance down the drain.

fwed, let me put it into simpler terms, just for you.

Our GST is currently 10% !!! If you increase that percentage by 25%

you have a new percentage of 12 1/2%

ok innes, point taken although it was a strange way of putting it.

It will be interesting to see what the tax review brings us.

I guess an increase in the GST is a possibility but not a certainty.

I see New Zealand is thinking about raising the GST over there but they say in will be offset by a reduction in income tax.

While that might be ok for working families, it is not good for pensioners.

It is only an opinion & it is my personal one. I think that most agree

that the GST is syphoned off by the States in order to finance junkets

etc. If the GST is reduced by 30%, the junket money will have to come

from somewhere else; ergo 12 1/2 to 15% GST. I agree with you octopus,

that our GST is low by World standards, but when Howard tricked us

into taking up the most inefficient tax known to man, it was supposed to

replace the other minor taxes. I believe that we only have 130+ of those taxes

now. People wonder why rents are so high in Australia. If you own investment

property, with land value of more than $380K in NSW (2 houses in outer Sydney)

you will pay Land Tax of $100 + 1.6%. That is over 1/3 of your rental income !!!

My biggest objection is not the taxes per se, it is the rediculous inefficient

bureaucracy involved in collecting them. As an example, I read somewhere,

that prior to the E pass, the cost of collecting the Harbour Bridge Toll was more

than 80% of the money actually collected. This is sheer madness.

Terry McCrann puts it in a nutshell.

Very simply, the money hospitals need will increase at a faster pace each year than the GST revenues. Because health costs are growing at a faster pace than the nominal economy.

[url=]Click here for full article[/url]

Worth reading, as he does lay out the facts in an easy to understand manner.

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)

To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment