Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy is partially correct in that the large decrease in spending is not kicking in immediately. Yes, the rate of increase is dropping immediately. However, the real disappointment kicks in in 2017 when the actual amount of funding being provided for health decreases by a whopping $50 billion over the next eight years.
Jimmy has selectively only worried about funding until 2017, this avoiding the truth about the decrease in REAL spending.

Cheers

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Jimmy has selectively only worried about funding until 2017, this avoiding the truth about the decrease in REAL spending.

Cheers

The liberals seem very good at avoiding the truth

[mighty_tiger_79]

I love how there is vision of Hockey protesting against a raise in uni fees when he was 22 and how the liberals are having a crack at Macklin and labor about the co-payment - saying labor are playing politics.

well I thought it was politics

but I love how hypocritical both sides are

[dedja]

[bulldogproud2]

I love how there is vision of Hockey protesting against a raise in uni fees when he was 22 and how the liberals are having a crack at Macklin and labor about the co-payment - saying labor are playing politics.

well I thought it was politics

but I love how hypocritical both sides are

Also love the fact that Abbott defends the co-payment concept by stating that price signals are so important in the economy. If he applied this logic consistently, then he has to argue in favour of a price on carbon (i.e. a Carbon Tax) as this is a price signal. Then again, we do know that Abbott has actually been a key supporter of a Carbon Tax for many years. He just won't state it politically anymore. However, he was one of the very first politicians to advocate its usage.

'Tony Abbott's past as a climate change "weather vane" has come back to haunt him - again.
The Opposition Leader has been shown spruiking a carbon tax in an old interview that was aired on Q&A on ABC Television yesterday.
"If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?" Mr Abbott argues.
"Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more, then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the Tax Office and get a rebate?
"It would be burdensome - all taxes are burdensome - but it would certainly ... raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs

Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

Gee, sorry for selectively using the actual budget which only goes to 2017. Silly me, reading the actual document. Wot wos I thunking?
Obviously (due to my sudden loss of education) I should just listen to the "majority of commentators and analysts" and not read the damn budget myself. Maybe a couple of you should read it for yourselves. (BTW, I actually posted the 2013 budget but none of you picked that up)
Maybe I'm wrong though. Should I be looking at Table 2.4 that shows overall payments to the States?
http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2b.htm

However, the real disappointment kicks in in 2017 when the actual amount of funding being provided for health decreases by a whopping $50 billion over the next eight years. Jimmy has selectively only worried about funding until 2017, this avoiding the truth about the decrease in REAL spending.

So, you're worried about 2017 onwards? When's the next election? "Before 14th January 2017"
When Labor get back in, they can give it all back. You're worried about a period in the next term of government. They can change the budget just like this Government have. That is the right of every Govt.

I'm not being selective - I'm just being real and not listening to the hysterical like Koutsantonis who probably wrote his script before the budget was even handed down. Cutting 600 beds when he's getting more money than last year.

Its all a huge con. These cuts to the SA Health expenditure budget were in last years MYBR:

Commencing in 2013–14 $116m
To commence in 2014–15 $100m
To commence in 2015–16 $106m
To commence in 2016–17 $ 57m

So, there were going to cut their expenditure by over $1b pa by 2017 anyway

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Love your passion Jimmy. The libs need blokes like you right now and wow how they definitely do need them. Defence of the indefensible like a knight of Malta you will be remembered for your loyalty and valour in the face the tidal wave of opposition set out to overthrow those who have set out to deceive and disempower us. Bless you Jimmy for you are the last of the true believers.

[Jimmy_041]

Too hard to argue against when the facts are before you so you resort to ridicule?
But that's fine Roxy, you go on relying on your "majority of commentators and analysts"
It's easier than doing some research and they've gotta be right
Labor were planning the $1b pa cuts as far back as January last year.

Is the ABC one of the "majority of commentators and analysts"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-28/new-minister-to-tour-public-hospitals/4487700?section=sa

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Too hard to argue against when the facts are before you so you resort to ridicule?
But that's fine Roxy, you go on relying on your "majority of commentators and analysts"
It's easier than doing some research and they've gotta be right
Labor were planning the $1b pa cuts as far back as January last year.

Is the ABC one of the "majority of commentators and analysts"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-28/new-minister-to-tour-public-hospitals/4487700?section=sa

I didn't realise you had switched the topic to the state budget. My comments regarding "majority of commentators and analysts" are based on the federal budget and are correct.

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy, just answer me one thing please. Has it been announced by the Liberal Party that there will be a decrease in funding in the health portfolio of $50 billion over an eight year period commending in 2017 or not?
Just a yes or no answer will do.
Also, has the Federal Government not also immediately axed the National Preventive Health Agreement with the States, meaning the States have to come up with an extra $1 billion of funds themselves.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Gee, sorry for selectively using the actual budget which only goes to 2017. Silly me, reading the actual document. Wot wos I thunking?

Jimmy, perhaps you should look at the ACTUAL budget for the Department of Health to get the full figures. You will, of course, observe a fall of $428 million in funding for the 2014/15 year and over an $8 billion cut in funding over the forward estimates. Yes, we will get you educated one of these days *grins*
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budge ... glance.htm

[bulldogproud2]

[quote="Jimmy_041
http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2b.htm[/quote]

Jimmy, please look again at what you have quoted. You will find it is the 2013/14 budget. That, of course, was the budget created by the Labor Government LAST YEAR. It quite rightly shows the increased funding of the LABOR GOVERNMENT. As stated in my last post, look at the budget of the Department of Health for 2014/15. You will notice a decrease in funding of over $8 billion over the next four years. Then, of course, there is a decrease of $50 billion in the next eight years.
As with most Liberals, you are living in the past. Thankfully, in your case, it is only one year in the past and not a throwback to the 1950's that Abbott and Hockey want!

Cheers

[shoe boy]

OH Jimmy!!

Tony and his clowns will remember you on their xmas list.

[Jimmy_041]

Gee, sorry for selectively using the actual budget which only goes to 2017. Silly me, reading the actual document. Wot wos I thunking?
Obviously (due to my sudden loss of education) I should just listen to the "majority of commentators and analysts" and not read the damn budget myself. Maybe a couple of you should read it for yourselves. (BTW, I actually posted the 2013 budget but none of you picked that up)
Maybe I'm wrong though. Should I be looking at Table 2.4 that shows overall payments to the States?
http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2b.htm

However, the real disappointment kicks in in 2017 when the actual amount of funding being provided for health decreases by a whopping $50 billion over the next eight years. Jimmy has selectively only worried about funding until 2017, this avoiding the truth about the decrease in REAL spending.

So, you're worried about 2017 onwards? When's the next election? "Before 14th January 2017"
When Labor get back in, they can give it all back. You're worried about a period in the next term of government. They can change the budget just like this Government have. That is the right of every Govt.

I'm not being selective - I'm just being real and not listening to the hysterical like Koutsantonis who probably wrote his script before the budget was even handed down. Cutting 600 beds when he's getting more money than last year.

Its all a huge con. These cuts to the SA Health expenditure budget were in last years MYBR:

Commencing in 2013–14 $116m
To commence in 2014–15 $100m
To commence in 2015–16 $106m
To commence in 2016–17 $ 57m

So, there were going to cut their expenditure by over $1b pa by 2017 anyway

Just shows how much you actually read on here bp2

[bulldogproud2]

Gee, sorry for selectively using the actual budget which only goes to 2017. Silly me, reading the actual document. Wot wos I thunking?
Obviously (due to my sudden loss of education) I should just listen to the "majority of commentators and analysts" and not read the damn budget myself. Maybe a couple of you should read it for yourselves. (BTW, I actually posted the 2013 budget but none of you picked that up)
Maybe I'm wrong though. Should I be looking at Table 2.4 that shows overall payments to the States?
http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2b.htm

However, the real disappointment kicks in in 2017 when the actual amount of funding being provided for health decreases by a whopping $50 billion over the next eight years. Jimmy has selectively only worried about funding until 2017, this avoiding the truth about the decrease in REAL spending.

So, you're worried about 2017 onwards? When's the next election? "Before 14th January 2017"
When Labor get back in, they can give it all back. You're worried about a period in the next term of government. They can change the budget just like this Government have. That is the right of every Govt.

I'm not being selective - I'm just being real and not listening to the hysterical like Koutsantonis who probably wrote his script before the budget was even handed down. Cutting 600 beds when he's getting more money than last year.

Its all a huge con. These cuts to the SA Health expenditure budget were in last years MYBR:

Commencing in 2013–14 $116m
To commence in 2014–15 $100m
To commence in 2015–16 $106m
To commence in 2016–17 $ 57m

So, there were going to cut their expenditure by over $1b pa by 2017 anyway

Just shows how much you actually read on here bp2

????? The link you posted on your previous page was to the 2013/14 budget, which of course was set by Labor.

You then gave, on this page, a link to Table 2.4 which did come from the 2014/15 budget delivered by Joe Hockey. However, this is only a selection of the budget. To give the true picture you need to look at the ACTUAL FULL budget for the Commonwealth Department of Health. If you do (and I hope you do) you will find that there is a total DECREASE in spending of over $8 billion planned by the Liberal Government over the forward estimates.
How can you say that I don't read when there plain and simply is a decrease in spending proposed by the Liberal Government on health of $8 billion over the next four years and then a further whopping cut of $50 billion over the eight year period commencing in 2017???

You now try to change the subject to looking at the State budget. This thread Is about the Commonwealth Government, not State politics. Don't try to change the topic just because you know you are wrong.

Now, please stick to topic and tell me whether there is an increase (as you claim) on spending by the Liberal Government for Health over the next four years or, as everyone else knows, a decrease.

Cheers

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Sorry for being off-topic but to reply to Jimmy's comments re the midyear review, it actually shows the following INCREASES to the State Health budget by the Labor Government over the years he quotes. They are as follows:

2013/14: INCREASE of $34.934 million
2014/15: INCREASE of $15.448 million
2015/16: INCREASE of $13.063 million

You will find those figures here:

http://servicesa.cdn.on.net/mybr2013/do ... 201314.pdf

(By the way, they are on page 63)

Cheers

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

It appears clear to most that the budget will see a reduction in health funding as it will for funding in many of areas (although health is being hit hard). It is the impact of these cuts that I fear will limit access to health services for some people, most probably the most disadvantaged. I think this will haunt the Liberals all the way to the next election should it pass through the senate, especially as the reality of reduced services and increased costs in hospitals and GP clinics starts to bite.

[woodublieve12]

how likely would it be that the budget gets through the senate you reckon?

[bulldogproud2]

It appears clear to most that the budget will see a reduction in health funding as it will for funding in many of areas (although health is being hit hard). It is the impact of these cuts that I fear will limit access to health services for some people, most probably the most disadvantaged. I think this will haunt the Liberals all the way to the next election should it pass through the senate, especially as the reality of reduced services and increased costs in hospitals and GP clinics starts to bite.

True, I think we can all agree that there less funding being devoted towards Health in this budget (even more pronounced from 2017 onwards). The worry, and all our thoughts, should be on the impact that it will have on the most vulnerable members of our society. Health and Welfare Services should be the last options when it comes to cutting budgets. By all means, improve efficiency within the delivery of services but to actually stop funding these services is an outright shame!

Cheers (but not happy ones)

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

how likely would it be that the budget gets through the senate you reckon?

I have no idea. Labor are against it and one would assume the Greens are also. Clive talks a tough talk but then seems happy to open the door for compromise. Bob Day said this morning on radio that he felt some form of co-payment was justified to stop people from unnecessarily going to the doctor, but that $7 was a bit too much. He also indicated that this was the position of the Liberal Democratic Party with whom he had had discussions. I haven't heard much from Nick Xenophon and who knows what the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party will vote for or against?

It will be very interesting to see what deals are done and with whom in order to get things through the Senate.

Capture.JPG (79.67 KiB) Viewed 4459 times