(Miscellaneous debris)

[Gozu]

Psyber,

Putting aside your unswerving devotion to Downer, being a former doctor what's your thoughts on Labor scrapping the call out GP system thing? I don't know much about it so what I've read might be Liberal spin/self-interest but I read that if you want a doctor to come out at night you will now have to ring some hotline and they will assess whether it warrants one being sent out? Is that right?

[Psyber]

Psyber,
Putting aside your unswerving devotion to Downer, being a former doctor what's your thoughts on Labor scrapping the call out GP system thing? I don't know much about it so what I've read might be Liberal spin/self-interest but I read that if you want a doctor to come out at night you will now have to ring some hotline and they will assess whether it warrants one being sent out? Is that right?

Basically, yes.
There has been a lot of discussion about the policies on medical fora, which I have not been directly involved in because I've never worked as a GP.
I've read some of it out of general interest. Nothing is set as the government appears to keep changing its mind about the details on the run..

Most large GPs practices provide after hours services from a roster within their own practice group. Some larger ones and most smaller ones refer the after hours calls to a deputising locum service.
Some GPs who had been providing services themselves have suggested they would stop doing so and go work at a Superclinic instead because it appeared that would pay them better than working for the Medicare rebate would. At that stage it appeared the government wanted to get the Superclinics going even if they cost more to run than GP services via Medicare.

Then, more recently, came the idea of "Medicare Locals" run by the *Divisions of General Practice which would run centralised locum services after screening by the nurse run phone line.
I assume this current official line is the version you are referring too.

However, the latest rumour is that the government can't get enough GPs prepared to work for them, on the reduced terms offered under "Medicare Locals", and will set up after hours services run by Nurse Practitioners who will bypass GP clinics and liaise directly with local public hospitals - some think this was the intention all along and just kept quiet until after the election. This appears to mean you will ring the nurse run telephone line, be assessed, then, if they think appropriate, referred to a nurse run after hours clinic, assessed again, and if they think necessary be referred to a hospital where, again, a nurse will screen you and decide whether you need to wait around to see an overworked doctor at the understaffed hospital.

That is you get triaged three times by nurses to decide whether you get to see a doctor at all.
However, it does mean GPs will probably revert to providing their own practice based services as before, so you will have the option to short cut it.
[Unless of course the government doesn't like the competition existing and slashes the after hours Medicare rebates to discourage them doing so.]

*"Divisions" are government funded bureaucracies allegedly representing GPs in the area, and aimed at in theory making liaison between government and GPs more effective.
They were the brainchild of a Liberal Minister of Health, and embraced by GPs at first, but the disillusionment is growing.

[Psyber]

This popped up today: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 5935120191

The Daily Telegraph counted at least 20 staff resignations in recent weeks, many privately citing disillusionment with the new Government. The most critical mass departure was from the office of Health Minister Nicola Roxon, who is known to be difficult to work for. Senior staff including Owen Torpey, Mark Ward, Ruth Kearon, Laura Ryan and Katie Hall have all recently resigned.

[Gozu]

Psyber,
Putting aside your unswerving devotion to Downer, being a former doctor what's your thoughts on Labor scrapping the call out GP system thing? I don't know much about it so what I've read might be Liberal spin/self-interest but I read that if you want a doctor to come out at night you will now have to ring some hotline and they will assess whether it warrants one being sent out? Is that right?

Basically, yes.
There has been a lot of discussion about the policies on medical fora, which I have not been directly involved in because I've never worked as a GP.
I've read some of it out of general interest. Nothing is set as the government appears to keep changing its mind about the details on the run..

Most large GPs practices provide after hours services from a roster within their own practice group. Some larger ones and most smaller ones refer the after hours calls to a deputising locum service.
Some GPs who had been providing services themselves have suggested they would stop doing so and go work at a Superclinic instead because it appeared that would pay them better than working for the Medicare rebate would. At that stage it appeared the government wanted to get the Superclinics going even if they cost more to run than GP services via Medicare.

Then, more recently, came the idea of "Medicare Locals" run by the *Divisions of General Practice which would run centralised locum services after screening by the nurse run phone line.
I assume this current official line is the version you are referring too.

However, the latest rumour is that the government can't get enough GPs prepared to work for them, on the reduced terms offered under "Medicare Locals", and will set up after hours services run by Nurse Practitioners who will bypass GP clinics and liaise directly with local public hospitals - some think this was the intention all along and just kept quiet until after the election. This appears to mean you will ring the nurse run telephone line, be assessed, then, if they think appropriate, referred to a nurse run after hours clinic, assessed again, and if they think necessary be referred to a hospital where, again, a nurse will screen you and decide whether you need to wait around to see an overworked doctor at the understaffed hospital.

That is you get triaged three times by nurses to decide whether you get to see a doctor at all.
However, it does mean GPs will probably revert to providing their own practice based services as before, so you will have the option to short cut it.
[Unless of course the government doesn't like the competition existing and slashes the after hours Medicare rebates to discourage them doing so.]

*"Divisions" are government funded bureaucracies allegedly representing GPs in the area, and aimed at in theory making liaison between government and GPs more effective.
They were the brainchild of a Liberal Minister of Health, and embraced by GPs at first, but the disillusionment is growing.

Thanks, I think

[Psyber]

Thanks, I think

Unfortunately, there wasn't really a simple answer to the question because the situation keeps changing.
So, I figured you needed the context, and some idea of the direction of flow.
[There was no real consultation with the key players prior to announcing policy, but that is usual in Health.]

[Leaping Lindner]

Even small l Liberals think the guy was a joke.

I don't think anyone who has actually met and talked to him does.
His problem under John Howard was that rare thing in Politics - Loyalty.
He had promised his support when JH became leader and stuck to his word, whether he like where it was going or not.
This is understandably a difficult concept for the lefties, or even the ALP centrists.

You could also argue that he was a "wet" who gave up everything he held dear and believed in to blindly follow John "dry" Howard. Principles are all well and good but they don't get you a spot on a front bench.

[Psyber]

Even small l Liberals think the guy was a joke.

I don't think anyone who has actually met and talked to him does.
His problem under John Howard was that rare thing in Politics - Loyalty.
He had promised his support when JH became leader and stuck to his word, whether he like where it was going or not.
This is understandably a difficult concept for the lefties, or even the ALP centrists.

You could also argue that he was a "wet" who gave up everything he held dear and believed in to blindly follow John "dry" Howard. Principles are all well and good but they don't get you a spot on a front bench.

At a party function, not long after he stepped down from the leadership in John Howard's favour, he said that he felt a united party that could win the next election was more important, for the country, than differences on some issues. I talked to him later about specific issues, and he said he felt he should support the policies agreed by the Cabinet as a whole, for the sake of unity and stability, regardless of personal opinion.

He was always going to be in the Cabinet, whoever was leader, and having given his word to the Cabinet he was never going to play back room games.
I've always assumed it was his speech and manners that made some people dislike him on an emotional basis, despite having never met him.
[His accent was shaped by his family, attending Geelong Grammar, and having gone to University in the UK.]

[Leaping Lindner]

Even small l Liberals think the guy was a joke.

I don't think anyone who has actually met and talked to him does.
His problem under John Howard was that rare thing in Politics - Loyalty.
He had promised his support when JH became leader and stuck to his word, whether he like where it was going or not.
This is understandably a difficult concept for the lefties, or even the ALP centrists.

You could also argue that he was a "wet" who gave up everything he held dear and believed in to blindly follow John "dry" Howard. Principles are all well and good but they don't get you a spot on a front bench.

At a party function, not long after he stepped down from the leadership in John Howard's favour, he said that he felt a united party that could win the next election was more important, for the country, than differences on some issues. I talked to him later about specific issues, and he said he felt he should support the policies agreed by the Cabinet as a whole, for the sake of unity and stability, regardless of personal opinion.

He was always going to be in the Cabinet, whoever was leader, and having given his word to the Cabinet he was never going to play back room games.
I've always assumed it was his speech and manners that made some people dislike him on an emotional basis, despite having never met him.
[His accent was shaped by his family, attending Geelong Grammar, and having gone to University in the UK.]

Fine. But I find it very hard to admire someone who is more than willing to drop his principles over party "unity". As for always going to be in Cabinet I'd dispute that. How many "wets" were in cabinet??? Ruddock is the poster child for this sort of carry on.
And as for his accent I personally couldn't care. After all I went to Hackney High and am more than use to that sort of speech.

FWIW. My dad was on the Hahndorf council until recently and spoke very highly of Downer.

[Jimmy_041]

College poof

[fish]

College poof

Welcome back to the Politics Forum J_041 - we've hardly seen you since the State Election...

...you're not Michelle Chantelois are you?

[Media Park]

I mainly read about FEDERAL politics on here, but I couldn't see a place for STATE stuff.

Reading the paper today, and it seems that STATE Labor want Rann AND Foley out.

My question is why you would have a deputy leader that your party never intends to promote to the top job?

What's the point of saying "well you're our number two, but you'll never lead."?

Doesn't make any sense for me.

[Gozu]

I mainly read about FEDERAL politics on here, but I couldn't see a place for STATE stuff.

Reading the paper today, and it seems that STATE Labor want Rann AND Foley out.

My question is why you would have a deputy leader that your party never intends to promote to the top job?

What's the point of saying "well you're our number two, but you'll never lead."?

Doesn't make any sense for me.

It's because the Right control the party. Even though Foley is a clown and would be a disaster as premier because the Right control the party he'll probably be the one to replace Rann. Even though the public would prefer Jay Weatherill but he's from the Left of the party. I mean supposedly the Right think Turbo Tom would be a good future leader of the party, it's a joke. The Right much like federal Labor have pretty much destroyed the party and turned it into a Liberal Party-lite. That's why they come up with great ideas like selling The Parks and anything else they can think of because they're basically wolves in sheeps clothing.

When both state & federal Labor get kicked out at the next elections they'll be in opposition for a very long time.

[Psyber]

I know that at least one of my two old high school mates, who have been state ALP Ministers, would prefer to see Isobel Redmond as next state Premier rather than either of "those clowns" as he put it.
He asked me to tell her so for him when I saw her next.

[Psyber]

Health care costs: the Medicare rebate has increased by overall about 64% of CPI since 1975 - both major parties are whittling away at Gough Whiltlam's origiinal scheme.
Practice Incentive Payments paid as bonuses to GP practices [but not to specialists] for bulk billing the elderly and children are all the keep up the statistics and the facade.
[Which is why Dentists don't want Dental care to come under Medicare.]

http://www.news.com.au/money/medicare-g ... 5939949653

Medicare fees for a doctor's visit have not kept pace with fees of other health professionals.
The average fee charged by physiotherapists is $65, almost twice the Medicare fee for a general practitioner.
Dentists charge an average of $65-$70 for a dental check up.
While 78 per cent of doctors visits are bulk billed, with no cost to the patient, more than one in five people have to pay out of their own pocket.

[Gozu]

"Q&A not a hit despite shoe thrower":

Q&A may be the most talked about TV program today, but just 656,000 people watched an audience member throw his shoes at John Howard last night.

The former prime minister - who is promoting his memoirs - was the sole guest on the cult hit show, which was the 23rd most popular TV show last night.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 5943624261

[Psyber]

Fine. But I find it very hard to admire someone who is more than willing to drop his principles over party "unity". As for always going to be in Cabinet I'd dispute that. How many "wets" were in cabinet??? Ruddock is the poster child for this sort of carry on.
And as for his accent I personally couldn't care. After all I went to Hackney High and am more than use to that sort of speech.

FWIW. My dad was on the Hahndorf council until recently and spoke very highly of Downer.

Doesn't that happen in all political parties- at least until the knives come out when the opportunity arises or the polls look bad, as we saw recently??

[Jimmy_041]

"Q&A not a hit despite shoe thrower":

Q&A may be the most talked about TV program today, but just 656,000 people watched an audience member throw his shoes at John Howard last night.

The former prime minister - who is promoting his memoirs - was the sole guest on the cult hit show, which was the 23rd most popular TV show last night.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 5943624261

Maybe he could have come up with something a bit more original - what is happening to the traditional humour values of Uni students these days?

[dedja]

Why throw your shoes when all you had to do was give the man a cricket ball and let him do the rest ...

[Media Park]

I hate to say it, but I am finally sick of that JWH bowling footage...

[dedja]

I'm not ...