Jimmy_041 wrote:Yep, which highlights my point that there is a lot of misinformation about the budget being published.
Much like with the carbon tax.
by Q. » Fri May 30, 2014 12:43 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Yep, which highlights my point that there is a lot of misinformation about the budget being published.
by bulldogproud2 » Fri May 30, 2014 12:54 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:dedja wrote:plus the Pope ... first Jesuit
Mebbe they all sat around the tea pot and carved up the world map like a couple of centuries ago
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/20/the-jesuits-take-over-the-nation/
by bulldogproud2 » Fri May 30, 2014 1:19 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:I am the first one to say keep religion out of politics unless the churches start paying their taxes like every other corporation, but I couldn't help researching this following a conversation with a very proud jesuit last weekend
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/jesuit-old-boys-now-our-leaders/story-fn59niix-1226718806547#
Funny how the latest budget; so horrible to the poor and vulnerable, came from, and is almost exclusively defended by, the jesuits in power...........
by bulldogproud2 » Fri May 30, 2014 1:32 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:I am beginning to see the problem now
So are most of the critics but there's no bonus in admitting the deception for the opposition.
Happy to debate several parts of this letter with any of you, but, obviously, it doesn't suit you to be honest....
When you published the post I thought you were being sympathetic rather than baiting up for a debate. What are your concerns with the letter?
Well, for a start, the concerned doctor doesn't have to charge the $7 co-payment, so although he is trying to convey his concerns, he is actually only trying to protect his own income which would reduce by $2 per visit.
by gossipgirl » Fri May 30, 2014 1:36 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Fri May 30, 2014 1:44 pm
bulldogproud2 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Well, for a start, the concerned doctor doesn't have to charge the $7 co-payment, so although he is trying to convey his concerns, he is actually only trying to protect his own income which would reduce by $2 per visit.
Good to see that you are actually against the co-payment idea, Jimmy, and believe it should be combatted by doctors taking a pay cut of hundreds of dollars a week by forgoing $2 per patient visit.
Cheers
by bulldogproud2 » Fri May 30, 2014 2:06 pm
by stan » Fri May 30, 2014 2:13 pm
by shoe boy » Fri May 30, 2014 2:41 pm
by bulldogproud2 » Fri May 30, 2014 2:50 pm
stan wrote:This budget was just some lib basic politics. Right after the election hammer the budget to make sure the surplus is achieved by the next election. Maximum pain right after the election, then ease it right up to the next election, then run around saying look how good we are and hope that all is forgotten from 3 years ago, which in most cases it probably will be/
Also for the first budget just keep hammering home the debt crisis and do not, I repeat do not allow facts to be brought up at any point.
Its worke in the past and will work again. Not hard to see really.
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Fri May 30, 2014 3:09 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:bulldogproud2 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Well, for a start, the concerned doctor doesn't have to charge the $7 co-payment, so although he is trying to convey his concerns, he is actually only trying to protect his own income which would reduce by $2 per visit.
Good to see that you are actually against the co-payment idea, Jimmy, and believe it should be combatted by doctors taking a pay cut of hundreds of dollars a week by forgoing $2 per patient visit.
Cheers
I am against people like this who take advantage of the vulnerable by spreading blatant lies. The AMA sent out their advice to their members on 15th May and made it very clear that they don't have to charge it. I received a notice from the Norwood Medical Centre on 15th May saying they wont be charging it.
This doctor is either very badly read or making a blatantly incorrect and misleading claim for political purposes whilst making out to be benevolent.
Well, benevolent to the point where it hits his own pocket that is..........
by Jimmy_041 » Fri May 30, 2014 3:32 pm
shoe boy wrote:I am against people like this who take advantage of the vulnerable by spreading blatant lies. The AMA sent out their advice to their members on 15th May and made it very clear that they don't have to charge it. I received a notice from the Norwood Medical Centre on 15th May saying they wont be charging it.
This doctor is either very badly read or making a blatantly incorrect and misleading claim for political purposes whilst making out to be benevolent.
Well, benevolent to the point where it hits his own pocket that is..........
by Jimmy_041 » Fri May 30, 2014 4:08 pm
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:bulldogproud2 wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Well, for a start, the concerned doctor doesn't have to charge the $7 co-payment, so although he is trying to convey his concerns, he is actually only trying to protect his own income which would reduce by $2 per visit.
Good to see that you are actually against the co-payment idea, Jimmy, and believe it should be combatted by doctors taking a pay cut of hundreds of dollars a week by forgoing $2 per patient visit.
Cheers
I am against people like this who take advantage of the vulnerable by spreading blatant lies. The AMA sent out their advice to their members on 15th May and made it very clear that they don't have to charge it. I received a notice from the Norwood Medical Centre on 15th May saying they wont be charging it.
This doctor is either very badly read or making a blatantly incorrect and misleading claim for political purposes whilst making out to be benevolent.
Well, benevolent to the point where it hits his own pocket that is..........
So some doctor wrote a poorly informed letter which was published in a hick newspaper somewhere, it's certainly not the first time and won't be the last that someone misinterprets or deliberately skews the facts. That shouldn't be the main discussion. The focus should be on the impact of the co-payment and other budget measures which unfairly disadvantage the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. And why should doctors have to subsidise the government, do you subsidise the government by rejecting potential income? The $2 to the doc and $5 to the medical research fund was simply an attempt at smooth the path. It failed. Doctors are pissed off, the AMA is pissed off, The Rural Doctors Association of Australia is pissed off, the Australian Council of Physicians is pissed off, and the majority of the general public are pissed off. The medicare co-payment is simply not resonating with most Australians as it goes against our collective values. It stinks and needs to be flushed down the shitter.
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Fri May 30, 2014 5:28 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Fri May 30, 2014 6:05 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:shoe boy wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:It is probably a good time for all SA senators to stick up for SA and start demanding a reversal of the budget decision to cut education and health funding to the state.
Are they cutting funding?
Jimmy you really are showing your true colours.
I'm just dumb shoe boy
Are they cutting funding (that means what we are getting now) or cutting the promises made by a dying desperate previous government?
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Fri May 30, 2014 6:17 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Sat May 31, 2014 11:43 am
by bulldogproud2 » Sat May 31, 2014 2:27 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Undeniable evidence that, in fact, hospital funding is increasing?
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Sat May 31, 2014 2:34 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Undeniable evidence that, in fact, hospital funding is increasing?
by bennymacca » Sat May 31, 2014 2:35 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |