Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Fiona Reynolds: "For example, I went to see a specialist on Tuesday. The fee for the 30 minute consultation was $129, the Medicare rebate was $67.40."

Seems to me Australia, like every other place in the world, is in a supply and demand economy. For instance, if the return was $129, would anything stop the specialist putting the fee up to $200? Would this stop you from seeking his/her advice?

I, like John Pratt, would like everything to be top quality and free (especially when it relates to me and mine). Though, I am thinking the service/goods provider is thinking along a different tangent of "likes". I'd call this a welcoming to reality.

There's a good reason medical people charge the figures they do: They can.

People can get surgeon shaky for a buck, and a half, or they can look for somebody just a little better. Like I say, it's all about supply and demand, and the costs reflect this fact. The tribe shaman was the second rated guy in the tribe a thousand years ago - and not much has changed since then and now.

John Pratt: "I believe all medical services should be free because we live in a rich country and can afford it."

I've always been under the impression medical services in Australia are free?

Ultimately what you'd like to see with one off payments (broad based) is wealthy people donating them to worthy causes. I'd have thought this baby payment was a perfect excuse for a hospital to push a worthy maternity cause for example. That such a scheme isn't happening probably proves how government dependent many Australians have become - only the government can solve all problems and such.

I wonder how many people would think they'd spend the money more wisely than the government. I'd also wonder how many of them were asked to donate to something worthy. The politics of wealth will always be divisive, and ultimately destructive.

John Pratt: "Paul, so private insurance is all about allowing the rich to avoid waiting lists?"

Private health coverage is about people (they may or may not be rich) getting the best possible health care. Yes, avoiding waiting periods would be part of that. Do you have a problem with people getting what they pay for?

What is the level that you count a person as being "rich"? Just out of interest.

Progressive politics is about making our society more equitable, not making the rich richer.

You'll never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Progressive politics should be about making every person richer. Australians (most of them like North Americans) have never witnessed real poverty. They've never seen it, and they don't understand it. Frankly, I find it distastful that people earning an income of 150K ($A = $US 0.94) could be crying poverty.

John Pratt: "Eliot, I thought the progressive side of politics were always going to take from the rich and give to the poor. Isn't that what means testing is all about?"

"Progressive politics" should be about making the whole of society wealthier - not just different sections of it.

Ultimately what you are writing of is doomed to failure. Again, you're falling for the trap of looking at an economy in isolation. The costs that fall on to one segment of the economy will be passed along the line.

Does the free health system work as it presently stands? If the answer is no; how will adding more people to the list improve it? The other problem is that if health costs do rise this will come through in the inflation figures - hurting people least able to cope with interest rate rises. It'll no doubt lead to a wage push by health workers - having now to cope with higher workloads - again this will come through in the inflation figures. This will make any savings people achieve from opting out of a system negligible.

Do millionaires really need government handouts?

No. However, it depends on the type of "handouts". A payment to encourage children should apply equally to all people having children if this process (having children) is judged beneficial to society. In fact professional people are exactly the people that should be encouraged to have children (payment may if nothing else may be seen as a thankyou). Are they not exactly the people that are most likely to be (on percentages) "good parents"? A system that rewards a drug addicted mother, at the expense of a proven suitable parent, is a morally bankrupted system.

Jenny Hume: "With waiting lists as they are people would be foolish to opt out of private cover if they have it, as so many procedures that can be life saving if done earlier often have three months or more waiting lists at public hospitals."

Health coverage is the most important insurance a person ever holds. Rarely does this become apparent until a person is actually sick. At a time of sickness rarely if ever does money matter.

Whichever way we look at it health costs are going to soar as the population ages so where the user can pay, he or she is going to have to pay. 

Never has a truer word been written. If people can afford coverage they'd be totally crazy to abandon it. .

John Pratt: "Tomorrow night's Budget will include changes to allow people to earn twice as much before facing a surcharge if they do not have private health insurance. The Government says that increasing the Medicare levy threshold to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples will take the pressure off middle-income earners."

Has everyone noticed how "means testing" social programmes has suddenly become a "progressive" thing to do? And how issuing what amounts to food stamps to Aborigines has, too?

Tomorrow night's Budget will include changes to allow people to earn twice as much before facing a surcharge if they do not have private health insurance.

The Government says that increasing the Medicare levy threshold to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples will take the pressure off middle-income earners

But Australian Health Insurance Association chief executive Dr Michael Armitage says the move will just make private health insurance more expensive for those who are likely to keep their cover, including the elderly.

"In one fell swoop, the Government has affected the public sector by adding another 400,000 people reliant on it and they've made private health insurance more expensive for those people who remain," he said.

Dr Michael Armitage is exaggerating if he thinks 400,000 people are suddenly going to become reliant on the public sector. Many people just can't afford private insurance. It is one of the "luxuries" that was cut from many low income families years ago. They have been slugged the Medicare levy and are still using the public system. If you live in a regional area there is no choice between public or private - often the only service available is public.

Ian McAuley, from the University of Canberra, commented that ‘What we have had in private health insurance when we count measures such as the rebate, the one percent tax penalty and the Lifetime Health Cover etcetera are five rounds of increasing industry assistance now costing about $4 billion a year. That is $3 billion in direct outlays and at least $1 billion in forgone revenue because of the one per cent incentive. The Democrats have commented on numerous occasions about the inefficiency of the 30% private health insurance rebate and the inappropriateness of spending billions of dollars of the health budget in a manner which undermines the health system as a whole. There is ample evidence that private health insurance is not only inflationary causing overall spending on health care to rise, but is inefficient, misallocates resources and undermines equitable access to health care.

These two items might help inform discussion about both the budget and social policy for the future of Australia:

 "The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show mothers are increasingly doing paid work from the family home, while juggling the responsibilities of raising children and earning an income....

Australian Institute of Family Studies director, Professor Alan Hayes, says women are under more pressure than their mothers and grandmothers were..."

And John Pratt might find this interesting...

"The Australian Family Association (AFA) says although more than 265,000 babies were born in 2006, fertility rates are still too low.

The AFA says the Federal Government's baby bonus could be responsible for the 2006 boom, which was the highest for 30 years.

Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show women are getting older when they have babies and can expect to have 1.8 children in their lifetime."

Which rather suggests the baby bonus didn't work in fact. More likely we are witnessing an echo of the baby boom - these are the grandkids coming along finally.

 Australia's population growth rate and skills shortage crisis is being driven by other failed policies:

"LESS than a third of people from non-English speaking countries who migrate to Australia on skilled workers' visas are gaining work in their fields and many of them are adding to the skills crisis they were brought in to solve, a study has found.

Those who graduated from Australian universities and were assessed as competent by local accrediting authorities were the least likely to find employment relevant to their qualifications, according to the report, "How are skilled migrants doing?", published in today's People And Place."

Scott Dunmore: "Paul, I don't quite know why you'd throw that line in; to my certain knowledge that process began fourty odd years ago to the point where the proportion of employment in the "goods" sector as opposed to "services' has been completely reversed."

This is a reflection of the growing wealth of Australia (it's repeated across the western world). Though, you'd have more knowledge of particular industries than I would. Looking at the unemployment figures I'd say that a number of industries have sprung to life over that period - no doubt in the service sector.

Okay, why would I throw that line in? It's obvious for a number of reasons that Australia will not in our lifetimes be returning to major low level manufacturing - and neither should it want a return to it. One major reason is, simply, people do not, and they should not, want either themselves or their children working in such industries. There isn't a parent in the entire western world wanting their children growing up to stitch shoes etc.

To make such jobs acceptable one would need the aid of major restrictive tariffs. What is the point of making cost of living unbearable for large percentages of the population to keep jobs nobody aspires to hold? It simply doesn't make any sense at all.

However, what restrictive employment practices will cause is a loss of high level, niche manufacturing (some that don't yet even exist) - especially in the small, and growing business sector. The types of skilled manufacturing that does rely on a relatively educated workforce. The type of manufacturing that Australia is in competition against other western nations - such as Canada and the United States. Australia does have a lot to offer (it also has natural handicaps such as distance), and restrictive employment relations can be that straw that breaks the camel's back.

In my opinion Australia should be looking for every edge it can get. That, though, is a decision that Australians need to make for themselves - and it's apparent how they currently feel. I, however, wouldn't write off a change of mindset over the next decade. A lot will happen between now and then.

Not sure if this answers your question. I'm not sure if this was the actual question or it had to do with inflation. Take the first post is my rule.

No, Eliot Ramsey, let's be factual.

The quote was banned, according to the moderator, because it breached

2: "Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11th 2001"

She did not suggest that it was banned because it breached the blog's code of ethics by being "so utterly offensive, stupid, dishonest and infantile, " as you claim.

F Kendall: "P.S. I love Bob Ellis's passion, values, wit, ethics and his wonderful facility with words.  I always enjoy his writing. "

The quote I intended to link Webdiarists to was so utterly offensive, stupid, dishonest and infantile that it breached the blog's code of ethics. And that was merely the not too stomach churning to quote.

Anyway, getting back to the hideous suits they dress politicians in these days...

"The Australian jobs market remains as tight as a drum.

Against the expectation that employers will start cutting staff to prepare for the economic slowdown, the number of new jobs created during April has soared.

There were 19,000 full-time positions and an extra 6300 part-time jobs created in the month against the backdrop of more Australians joining the workforce looking for employment. Analysts were expecting jobs growth of just 10,000."

Nope. Cannot see how that might affect inflation.

Eliot Ramsey

You'll have doubtless heard news reports of the Federal Government's rejecting claims made in a leaked Treasury document that its industrial relations policy will result in job losses and higher levels of inflation.

Of course it will, and this should be apparent to anyone.

Australians voted on a French employment model against the United States model. That is Australians voted to accept higher levels of unemployment and living costs in return for certain employment conditions. They also voted to do away with their manufacturing industry. That this question wasn't addressed properly pre election (at least to my knowledge); isn't a good reflection on the standard of Australian journalism.

"She says the real driver of inflation is public spending, which the Government plans to cut in next week's Budget."

How very neoliberal of them. Fear not Craig Rowley, I'll be back after budget time to go through their [non] neoliberal policies with you.

Well, what do you know? The ghost of Milton Freidman wandering the corridors of Capital Hill in a fitted polyester suit with shoulder-pads.

The fact is without reforms in other areas, they're merely, to coin a phrase; pissing in the wind. The up coming Australian budget will make or break the Australian economy - and none should be mistaken about it.

I observe and note the clothes that men wear.

It's odd to read ER's comment on "shoulder pads" on Julia Gillard.  (I dismiss the "polyester" comment - can he tell the difference between polyester and "cool wool"?  I think not.)  I didn't see the clothing that caused him to sneer, but I guarantee that her shoulder pads were far more discreet than the ridiculous projections that not only politicians, but many Australian men, wear in their suits.

Watch how, when many - most? - men move, the suit arms hollow out below the shoulder , making it obvious that the shoulder pad projects far beyond their physical shoulder.  Such  shoulder pads are not there for their legitimate purpose of giving structure to the  line of the costume, but jut out well beyond that, to, presumably,  suggest a physique that the owner certainly does not have.

Sometimes this goes to an absurd level.   It's the sartorial equivalent of the real estate, car dealer  bluster.  

Women did something like this in the 70s? 80s?  but soon realised how silly it was, and gave it away. 

Observing such  can cause quiet sniggers.  To cite it in public debate would seem ... well ... um .... adolescent?

P.S. I love Bob Ellis's passion, values, wit, ethics and his wonderful facility with words.  I always enjoy his writing.  That doesn't mean that I always agree with what he says.  An honest and intelligent commentator:  unfortunately rare.

Kathy, I hadn't read Hating Hillary Clinton until this evening - thank you for the link.

Having now done so, I have to say that I agree with Bob Ellis's assessment of Ms Clinton - though not with the same intensity as he displays. Similarly, I share his hopes regarding Mr Obama - but again, without being so over the top.

The husk that sticks in my throat (as, I presume, it did in yours) is Ellis's tendency to use sexual innuendoes to denigrate Ms Clinton. You are right, Kathy, it's not on - just as it is never on, in my book, to use gender, ethnicity, or creed as a rationale for attacking anybody. But if those bits were removed, I think he's spot on.

Eliot, as to Ellis's being a pig, I agree so far as the subject matter of the link that you provided (and that I deleted) is concerned. However, in other respects I think that Ellis has provided some telling commentary on a vast number of subjects over many years.

Such a pity that Goodbye Jerusalem had to be pulped... 

Fiona: "So why bother dragging in your polyester herring to the detriment of an otherwise intelligent observation?"

Colour. That anyone would wear a polyester herring bone suit with shoulder pads is in itself indicative, I say.

Fiona Reynolds: "I mean, it's the substance that counts."

Or total lack of substance in the case of the neo-Monetarist loonies who think production factor price rises won't push up inflation.

Fiona: So why bother dragging in your polyester herring to the detriment of an otherwise intelligent observation?

Fiona:  " By the way, none of this means that I disagree with your assessment of Bob Ellis. Au contraire."

Then you'll appreciate how utterly despicable is Ellis's suggestion in the article extract you deleted.

Fiona: Eliot, without question.

Fiona Reynolds: "Maybe I was reading your wardrobe critique in a particular context. One that you provided."

Or perhaps one of your own assuming.

Fiona: Keep digging, Eliot - I like watching a man at work.

"Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001"

This is not, nor has it ever been a suggestion of mine.

Fiona: The passage that you quoted, and the link that you provided, contained such an allegation. We try not to touch that stuff on Webdiary for good reason. By the way, none of this means that I disagree with your assessment of Bob Ellis. Au contraire.

Kathy Farrelly: "Now, I am no fan of Hillary's, but, such comments as, "Her towering frigidity" and, "she is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex," and other such claptrap are reprehensible."

He's an out and out pig, isn't he? I cannot help it, but every time he attacks someone like that, I just immediately want to take their side.

Fiona: In case you can't work out why the second half of your post has been cut, Eliot Ramsey, I take this opportunity to remind you of Webdiary's Editorial Policy:

Webdiary will not publish comments or host discussion on the following matters:

...

2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001

Nice try, though.

Fiona Reynolds: "One sentence in particular drew my attention..."

And naturally, it's the one sentence not specific to the Government's ability to manage the economy.

It wouldn't make any difference if its Ministers wore "fitted polyester suits with shoulder-pads" or "pink tu-tus with lace trim", if they're stupid enough to think energy commodity and labor supply cost push factors won't affect inflation they're in dire straits.

But you are right.  Wayne Swan's "fitted polyester suits with shoulder-pads" are not important. But why do you and Catherine Deveny find them so threatening?

You'll have doubtless heard news reports of the Federal Government's rejecting claims made in a leaked Treasury document that its industrial relations policy will result in job losses and higher levels of inflation.

It's only to be expected they'd reject advice not consistent with their own "understanding" of such things, but just how terrifying is this statement by a spokesperson for Julia Gillard's office?

"She says the real driver of inflation is public spending, which the Government plans to cut in next week's Budget."

Well, what do you know? The ghost of Milton Freidman wandering the corridors of Capital Hill in a fitted polyester suit with shoulder-pads.

If Julia thinks public spending is going to drive inflation, wait till someone tells her about the coming oil shock.

Just keep in mind, boys and girls, the OPEC Oil Shock of the early 1970s was the result of oil prices merely doubling - not increasing by 600 per cent in a year.

Returning to the topic introduced by David Roffey, I notice that some work is being done on one of the issues. 

For example, Senator Ursula Stephens is examining the situation where for much of the past decade community welfare services have been forced into bidding wars to compete for government funds to provide much-needed services and programs. 

Now I dare not name the ideology that brought about this situation -- one in which  welfare workers and social workers spend a large slab of their time meeting compliance requirements and filling in funding applications rather than providing the services much needed by communities across the country -- but there must be a much better chance the situation will change. 

Fiona: "You will note that I mean what I said about the armistice, Paul."

I'm simply attempting to state my point Fiona. It's one thing to be critical of a government (it's a free world of course). It's another to present that government as having failed with politices it never had. I pointed earlier to an in depth study carried out, and the only thing Mr Rowley could do was attack the people having carried out the study. Like, forget attacking anything they've actually written about and produced documented evidence about.

The only reasoning he could come up with was that they (on the site) were neoliberal, and that they were trying to disown a neoliberal. Why would any neoliberal want to disown another neoliberal? It obviously makes as much sense as not looking at any figure and saying somebody is something because you'd like to think they are - or it suits your case to present them as such.

If people are going to go down the path of presenting Mr Howard (after looking at the evidence) as neoliberal (because of a policy here or there), they must also accept that Mr Rudd is neoliberal. Personally I don't accept either of them are neoliberal. Though, Mr Rudd is much more inclined in that direction than Mr Howard - and his budget will prove it. Mr Howard of course headed the classic big conservative government, and I honestly can't think of a better example in the world for showing a classic big conservative government.

Paul, as Fiona has pointed out, this argument is going nowhere except backwards.  It's time to agree to disagree and move on. 

The Reserve Bank caused the inflating of asset prices in Australia, which in turn lead to a tight labor market. The Bank did this by overly pumping liquidity into the market. The situation will be reversed by taking that liquidity out of the market - which is underway as I write this. "Capacity constraints" is a minor issue dressed up to take the eyes of the most important issue. That is of course the same issue I've been writing about for over six months.

I've already addressed the point about deregulation during the 1980's. Not only did government tax take rise under John Howard, so did government spending (in the 1990's). In fact the rise in government spending was so dramatic it would make some European nations blush. Was there a person in Australia not being given some form of welfare? 

All this of course is on public record - and it'll be this fact that causes Mr Rudd so many problems. It's never easy taking welfare away from any person (deserving or not).

The reason Mr Howard is called a neoliberal is obviously something to do with politics. I've no reason to get involved with the politics of the issue - I couldn't care less. Ultimately Mr Rudd's budget will prove me correct . Rest assured I'll be on here reminding you about it.

Fiona: You will note that I mean what I said about the armistice, Paul.

I don't particularly care if it changes anyone's mind, but I'd like to point out that the Reserve Bank of Australia had repeatedly said to the Howard Government since 1997 that one of the capacity constraints in the economy that would adversely affect our economic growth and our prosperity is a chronic skills shortage.

First there was this in the November 1997 Statement on monetary policy:

This judgment is consistent with persistent reports of skill shortages and pressure on wages in the construction sector.

Then in the November 1999 Statement on monetary policy cited:

... evidence that the strength of the labour market may be generating skills shortages in some areas.

And that:

Skilled vacancies, according to the survey conducted by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, are at historically high levels.

The November 2004 Statement on monetary policy said:

... business surveys suggest that a broad range of firms are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable labour ... These developments are consistent with survey data showing that firms are finding it increasingly difficult to attract suitably skilled labour, pointing to the possibility of stronger wage pressures emerging in the period ahead.

In November 2006, the Reserve Bank concluded that:

...shortages are widespread across most industries and skill levels...

In August 2007, the Reserve Bank noted that:

...labour shortages have tightened over the past year and that these shortages are constraining output.

The Howard Government ignored these calls for a decade. Why? It was because of its neoliberal policy positions. It thought the market could sort out the skills supply and demand problem all by itself.  The market has clearly failed to work as forecast by the neoliberals of the Howard government now past.  Thankfully, there's a chance now to do something sensible to address that market failure.

The two of you, Paul Morrella and Craig Rowley, have been creating a huge and unnecessary amount of work for the moderators with your increasingly acrimonious exchanges over the past week or so.

If you haven't each already worked out where the other is coming from on this subject (and related ones) I would be surprised. I'd also be surprised if either of you thinks that he can convert the other to his viewpoint.

So, for the sake of all of us, please give it a rest. Or, if you absolutely must address each other, please don't descend into personal abuse. 

PS: I am uninterested in anything, whether marked NFP or not, along the lines of "well, he started it, Miss" - so don't even try.

BTW Craig Rowley you left this particular part out from your linked article:

4.68      Could the rises have been prevented? The answer is almost certainly no, although some fiscal policy settings such as the changes to the capital gains tax (CGT) in 1999 may have contributed to the rises that took place. The coincident factors of readily available finance resulting from deregulation and major reductions in interest rates meant that demand in the housing market would inevitably intensify, with increases in house prices an inevitable result. When the other pro-cyclical factors of rising incomes, rising employment, increased numbers of people seeking housing for investment purposes and wealth effects are added to the equation, a 'perfect storm' was an inevitable result, as could be seen in the very rapid increases in house prices that occurred.

Of course it doesn't deal with Mr Howards neoliberal polices - doesn't even mention them - because he never was a neoliberal. The Australian financial sector was of course de-regulated in the 1980's. I'm certain in saying Mr Howard was not then Prime Minister.

The housing market in Australia, as in other nations, over heated because of a massive spike of liquidity. This was brought on by the loose monetary policy of Central Banks.  Mr Howard doesn't, and will never pass, the neoliberal test on numerous fronts. Mr Rudd is of course much more a neoliberal and his up coming budget will prove my point. If Mr Howard were a neoliberal I'd have no problems writing he was. You seem to have a problem admitting who Mr Rudd is - for reason that only you know.

Craig Rowley: "Looking at the public record I found plenty of references to the neoliberalism of the Howard government."

That you can find people as uneducated about the term as yourself; doesn't make your opinion any more valid. To accept your opinion I'd have to disregard a decade of documented figures. I'm not willing to do that - and neither should anyone else be.

Craig Rowley: “The Howard government's neoliberal policies, those that contributed to causing those three outcomes, are highlighted by Appendix 5 of the Senate Committee Report (which gave you a link to and then pointed out several times). Have you read it yet?”

It's clear to anyone reading this report it has nothing to do with "neoliberal policies". The figures prove that Mr Howard over a decade expanded tax take, expanded government services, and expanded government spending (welfare). In short this wasn't a neoliberal government.

Mr Rudd, by cutting government spending and services along with taxation, is in short closer to a neoliberal government than Mr Howard ever was. Mr Rudd has also publicly made it clear he supports privatization of government assets – and all of these things are on the public record.