The Angertainer Steps Down: Rupert Murdoch’s Non-Retirement

One particularly bad habit the news is afflicted by is a tendency…

The ALP is best prepared to take us…

There's a myth created by the Coalition as far back as I…

On the day of Murdoch's retirement...

By Anthony Haritos Yes, we were cheap. And we were very nasty. Yes,…

We have failed the First Nations people

These words by Scott Bennett in his book White Politics and Black Australians…

Fighting the Diaspora: India’s Campaign Against Khalistan

Diaspora politics can often be testy. While the mother country maintains its…

The sad truth

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's comment that: ... she did not believe there are…

A tax incentive to accelerate diversity in Australia's…

Science & Technology Australia Media Release A new tax incentive to drive diversity…

It was all a con

By Andrew Klein I remember that as a teenager we had to…



We all know that economists are generally not very good at predicting the future. The truth is, when they tell us what is likely to happen in any given set of circumstances, they do so with great uncertainty knowing full well the model they swear by, has numerous flaws.

One definition of a conspiracy, I have heard, is when two economists agree on something. It sounds amusing but when you analyse it more closely, it’s not that funny. In fact most economists do agree most of the time and the reason is because they all studied the same course at university and now belong to the same club. Any deviation from the norm would leave any of them at odds with their peers.

While they carefully examine a plethora of data, graphs, trends, past history etc., what that data doesn’t reveal is the imponderables, the unknown factors that lurk in the shadows like those that precipitated the GFC; the one only a few saw coming. Economists are mild mannered people who avoid competing with each other. On the contrary, they reaffirm each other as they remain within a club that adheres to a common set of principles considered to be universal truths.

There is one area, however, where those universal truths take on a different perspective and where there is a divergence of opinion; the area of government debt. Understanding the nuances of this highly complex matter holds the key to knowing how the world’s economic game is played. This is the point where, what is taught at university is put to one side and where the law of the jungle takes over.

Most economists work in the private sector and therefore owe their allegiance to the private sector. There are, however, a few brave stalwarts who do not conform to the university model or the private sector approach but their voice is drowned out by the throng on the payroll of the private sector. We all know that it is the private sector where the wealth is created; wealth, first and foremost, that benefits the private sector; specifically, the very few at the top of the tree.

debt The way in which the wealthy at the top of the tree improve their wealth is by borrowing. When soundly managed, borrowing money to invest in a properly researched business plan will always make private individuals wealthy. Providing goods and services to ready markets is what keeps the world turning.

The last thing those people at the top want is for governments to get in the way. They don’t want government borrowing money to do things business can do. In their eyes, the best thing a government can do is budget for surpluses, as large as possible, and as often as they can. This way, government controls the money supply through taxation which, in turn, helps control inflation and wages growth.

When too much money is in circulation, demand increases, supply comes under pressure and prices rise to compensate. That’s inflation and that is not good for anyone, especially the private sector. Inflation interferes with their profits, and by extension, the personal wealth of those at the top of the tree.

By producing surpluses, governments control the money supply and don’t need to borrow. In short, they run the economy as if it were a household economy. This, they claim, is good economic management of our taxes. And everybody believes them. Except, that is, the small handful of economists who don’t work for the private sector, who understand what is really happening.

Most governments prefer to leave investment to the private sector. The private sector is then free to borrow to create the wealth, unencumbered by governments trying to soak up money with annoying bond issues. Neo liberal economics favours less government of the market, less interference.

afraid But we should always remember that the wealth created by the private sector is not for the nation; it is for themselves. The nation always comes second. By continually producing surpluses, governments are treating the nation as second class citizens by restricting their own investment in the creation of a nation’s wealth. Surpluses deprive a nation of reaping the rewards it could gain through investment.

Business is always wary of governments who borrow, regardless of the need. The business attitude is to let them do the borrowing and make the profits. Governments should control the money supply so that inflation is kept in check. They should also extend to business lots of grants and subsidies to help sustain employment levels while business makes more and more money.

For business, all this could be seen as economic heaven if it really worked that way. But business is brutal and unforgiving. Things can, and do, go wrong and when they do, generally greed is the culprit. Business’s get greedy, take on more than they should. Then, they forget how they started, they forget the principles of developing a business case, they get sloppy and careless.

When this happens those at the top of the tree make sure they are protected to the exclusion of those who work for them. Those who work for them suddenly find themselves redundant, out of a job, thrown on the scrapheap or pressured into working for less. That is how the gap between the rich and the poor is maintained and widened.

It should come as no surprise that it is conservative governments, generally, that foster this kind of freelance wheeling and dealing. They are more likely to encourage private investment at the expense of building national wealth that should rightly be owned by the people. They are the ones who, generally, sell off government owned assets, even highly profitable ones to improve their household budget mentality.

Reform governments are the ones who then have to come in and restore government services, particularly health and education, areas left in crisis due to funding cuts conservative governments make to create their surpluses. Reform governments clean up the mess and rebuild services essential to a properly functioning society.

So, why is it that most people think it is the other way around? Why do most people believe conservative political parties are the better financial managers? How many times have we heard Tony Abbott score political points when he refers to Labor’s “debt and deficit disaster” when we know that the debt Labor incurred during the post GFC period kept Australia on a growth trajectory while the rest of the developed world went backwards?

I blame the economists whose voices we can’t hear. Not the ones in the private sector; they are complicit. The voices of the rogue economists, the stalwarts who understand what is really happening are the culprits. Their voices aren’t loud enough.

NBN This is the real conspiracy. Remember, it is the borrowers of money that make the money, not the savers. When governments borrow and invest in infrastructure, like the NBN, invest in transport, health and education, the nation profits; the dividend is the future.

When governments sit back and let the private sector run services that governments should run, like Medibank for example, they forego the wealth inherent in those services. When that happens the nation as a whole, is the loser.

From where I’m sitting there is something fundamentally wrong with this.


Login here Register here
  1. M-R

    “By producing surpluses, governments control the money supply and don’t need to borrow. In short, they run the economy as if it were a household economy. This, they claim, is good economic management of our taxes. And everybody believes them. Except, that is, the small handful of economists who don’t work for the private sector, who understand what is really happening.”
    And where do the non-private-sector economists find the arena in which to speak out ? – the place in which they will be listened to ? – the radio/TV program within which to clarify this for all of us ? – the newpaper to print their articles ?

  2. Lee

    Good explanation John.

    A lot of people believe that the private sector does things better and politicians convince people that we should cut public services in favour of private because it saves money.

    I’ve worked for the public sector for 30 years and my experience has repeatedly demonstrated that private does not always do it better. For starters, there are some essential services where a profit cannot be made. The private sector is quite simply not interested in providing those services. I’ve also noticed that when a job is contracted out from the public sector to the private sector, it is not unusual for it to require doing again, at least in part, as it was not done properly the first time by the private sector. They have been known to take short cuts because they are solely interested in increasing their bottom line. I have friends and family working in other government departments. They’re all noticing the same practices in their own fields. I have other friends who have formerly worked in the public service and are now working in the private sector, contracted to the public service. All of them have noticed short cuts in the work done in their respective fields by the private sector, and some inferior quality work compared to what they did when employed in the public sector.

    I believe that there are some services that governments must provide and be expected to provide, with the labour necessary to do so. In addition to providing a better service, this would help to create full employment. In turn, more people can then afford to spend and the private sector benefits from this.

    It is true that there is some wastage of money in the public sector. However, if it creating full employment and the nation is sovereign to its own currency, is that money really wasted? The public sector also needs to provide some transparency of their dealings and so some resources are taken up with that, resources that are not required in the private sector.

  3. John Fraser


    @John Kelly

    Perhaps you could name names.

    Give up some of the rogue economists so that we can all read what they have to say.

  4. Matthew Oborne

    isnt that the way these things work, get you googling the Bildeberg group, chemtrails and such and you will miss the obvious conspiracies that are in our faces enough but never given a name like ashbygate, It is obvious the government pushed asio into raids, it is obvious the right wing media set us up for soldiers to die while Abbotts polling improves, It is obvious this government misleads Parliament on a regular basis, it is obvious we are currently pulling apart any enviromental or sustainable program, and it is obvious the governent considers the public purse as something they can dip into, but instead they have people chasing shadows. Noteworthy that Alex Jones at election time sides with republicans because guns equals freedom, even more interesting that conspiracy can be polled (look at new yorkers polled beliefs on 911)

  5. John Kelly

    For John Fraser and others, of course:

    Welcome to heteconomist: MMT and the Crisis

    This website names names, although I am sure you realise my criticism was not really directed at them..

  6. M-R

    Lee, the only problem with that blog is that, like all blogs (and I should know),it preaches to the converted: no-one holding opinions or beliefs contrary to a blogger’s will bother reading a single post s/he writes.
    The only way for anyone to be heard is through mainstream media, alas ! – and we all know in what direction the vast bulk of them are pointing …

  7. Lee

    “The only way for anyone to be heard is through mainstream media, alas ! – and we all know in what direction the vast bulk of them are pointing …”

    I think the people who rely solely on mainstream media for their information have closed minds anyway. Any article that runs contrary to their beliefs will not sway them because their minds are already made up.

  8. M-R

    You’re bloody right, m’dear ! – and so … where the devil does that leave us ?
    The problem at base is to find a soapbox from where we can harangue crowds who might, just might, listen.
    We need a genuine forum.
    And there isn’t one. 🙁

  9. John Fraser


    @John Kelly

    No no John I never thought your criticism was directed at the "rogue economists", I just want to read economists who are not beholden to multinationals.

  10. bobrafto

    The rot started with little Johnnie and it’s not the Australia I once knew.

    ‘Fair go, mate’ is now but a myth to me.

  11. Kaye Lee

    I agree we are preaching to the converted on this site but I hope that we are also providing them with facts to use in discussions with family, friends and colleagues.

    Don’t forget, over 400,000 young people did not register to vote last time and 30,000 votes in marginal seats could have changed the outcome. Surely the youth of today are pissed off enough to get rid of these people who would destroy their future? They are less influenced by MSM. Social media is where they get their news. My children are 23 and almost 21 and, while they show little interest in politics, they and their friends think Abbott is a fool. The coalition gets a lot of its support from what we used to call “the blue rinse set” though ima thinking there are quite a few of those blue rinsers also rather perturbed with Tony right now. My money is on our youth combining with angry grandparents to save our future.

  12. John Turner

    Those commenting should visit and read some of thearticles by Stephanie kelton, Randell Wray and any of the other bloggers. J D Alt is a favourite of mine, particularly his article about how over a six year period the USA went from a depressed economy to the most powerful and productive economic entity the world has ever seen. Not once did they worry about where the money was coming from.
    One thing people competent in thinking about economics can do is comment on any article or on the comments following any article where the writer shows any ignorance on the subject. Never let the right wing trolls get away with the crap they write.

  13. stephentardrew

    John the link don’t work mate. Needs a spanner or two.

  14. stephentardrew

    By the way John I am in absolute agreement with your article.

  15. John Kelly

    Try googling ‘heteconomist’

  16. Ross

    Finding Bill Mitchell’s Bilbo blog is only just the start. You clink on the link and It’s one of those “what the, I didn’t know that, so that’s how it works” moment. Then you want to find out more because politicians and the mouths on a stick economists in the media are saying something different.
    A great idea would be for our ABC, both TV and radio, to run a nationwide education program to explain how our Fiat economy actually works. (Especially “government debt”)
    Won’t happen off course, can’t have the great unwashed finding out our federal treasurer wouldn’t know an economy if it painted itself purple and danced naked on a harpsichord singing “look at me I’m an economy”

  17. Terry2

    How would you feel, if as a parent you were funding the costs of tuition for your child at a private educational institution and you found out that the institution operated a scholarship program worth $60,000 but which was not made known to potential students or their parents and was awarded using criteria that were not made public and once awarded was not publicised.

    You might feel outraged that this situation could exist at an educational institution you are supporting with your fee payments and you might feel mortified to learn that the recipient of this scholarship had a father in a prominent political position for a party that the institution had sympathies with and who could benefit from government bounty.

    You might feel that bringing this state of affairs to the public notice would be an act of civic duty and in the public interest and certainly in the interests of any parent considering enrolling a child at that institution. You might feel that shining a light into the dark crevices of privilege and conservative largesse would be applauded and the ‘whistleblower’ thanked and the institution taken to task.

    Well, a young lady is currently being prosecuted for making this state of affairs public and will be sentenced in November after having pleaded guilty to revealing this corrupt behaviour.

    please give her your support, this must be a very stressful time for her.

  18. Matthew Oborne

    Kaye makes what could be the most important point, the Libs will call a snap election to keep the youth vote out, it is important to get those youth registered to vote way before they again attempt to discard the youth vote by getting in early, it is their future on the chopping block and they must be given a chance to understand that.

  19. Lee

    I’ve met older people who are so disillusioned with our political system that they didn’t vote either. I read a comment last week from a university lecturer in politics that both formal studies and history have repeatedly shown that not casting a vote is equivalent to telling the government not to bother about you. The entire electorate needs to know this.

  20. Totaram

    Re: things the private sector can do better: The stupidest idea I have come across is privatised prisons. You only have to think about how a company that runs prisons will grow its business – more prisoners! Is it likely that they want prisoners to be rehabilitated into society? You only have to look at the USA to see what happens. Harsh sentencing laws, mandatory sentencing etc. and the largest percentage of their population in prison compared to any other OECD country. Yet, we have gone down this road in Victoria, at least, and no one wants to end it.

    Another book people here might like to read:

    Economists and the Powerful: Convenient Theories, Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards (Anthem Other Canon Economics).

    by Norbert Haering and Niall Douglass

  21. Lee

    Re: waste in the public service – Today I caught up on some reading of another article posted on this site a couple of weeks ago and it included a link to an article by Prof Joseph Stiglitz (another economist for those who haven’t heard of him), who said:

    “While the focus for the moment is on public-sector waste, that waste pales in comparison to the waste of resources resulting from a malfunctioning private financial sector, which in America already amounts to trillions of dollars. Likewise, the waste from not fully utilizing society’s resources – the inevitable consequence of not having had such a quick and strong stimulus – exceeds that of the public sector by an order of magnitude.”

  22. Lee

    Thanks for the reading recommendation Totaram. When I went to Amazon I found this in the “customers who bought this book also bought” section – Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Blyth.

    Book Description
    Publication Date: March 27, 2013
    Governments today in both Europe and the United States have succeeded in casting government spending as reckless wastefulness that has made the economy worse. In contrast, they have advanced a policy of draconian budget cuts–austerity–to solve the financial crisis. We are told that we have all lived beyond our means and now need to tighten our belts. This view conveniently forgets where all that debt came from. Not from an orgy of government spending, but as the direct result of bailing out, recapitalizing, and adding liquidity to the broken banking system. Through these actions private debt was rechristened as government debt while those responsible for generating it walked away scot free, placing the blame on the state, and the burden on the taxpayer.
    That burden now takes the form of a global turn to austerity, the policy of reducing domestic wages and prices to restore competitiveness and balance the budget. The problem, according to political economist Mark Blyth, is that austerity is a very dangerous idea. First of all, it doesn’t work. As the past four years and countless historical examples from the last 100 years show, while it makes sense for any one state to try and cut its way to growth, it simply cannot work when all states try it simultaneously: all we do is shrink the economy. In the worst case, austerity policies worsened the Great Depression and created the conditions for seizures of power by the forces responsible for the Second World War: the Nazis and the Japanese military establishment. As Blyth amply demonstrates, the arguments for austerity are tenuous and the evidence thin. Rather than expanding growth and opportunity, the repeated revival of this dead economic idea has almost always led to low growth along with increases in wealth and income inequality. Austerity demolishes the conventional wisdom, marshaling an army of facts to demand that we recognize austerity for what it is, and what it costs us.

    Has anyone read it and what did you think of it?

  23. trevor

    Capitalize the Profits and Socialize the losses.

    Economic Theory and political arguement in the mainstream press of Ozland. et al, et al, et al,

    The other never have “loud Voices”. The History of the “Rulers” makes that a certainty.

    “Rogues of economics” Is there such a Title? Probably sits next to Zen and the Art of Motor cycle Maintenance.

  24. Annie Byam

    Lee …. ( ref your comment : October 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm )

    Glad I found this comment —- I am not getting comments in my inbox much any more – unless everyone has done a bunk, and are not posting ??


    I have often yacked on about the ABC and how vilified it is …. on this site. Most people seem to think the ABC are definitely leaning towards the right ( the LNP ) side of the fence, and have ‘become like most MSM ‘ ….little tools for Abbott. ….. I have mostly disagreed.

    Tonight’s Victorian ABC News blew their alleged ‘right wing tendencies’ to hell.

    1) —- around 6 mins. 40 secs. into the telecast, the AMA chief speaks out on the ‘confusion and lack of transparency’ as to how we would / could deal with the Ebola virus. ( which puts paid in a way to Julie Bishops continual claims that we ‘have plans in place’ …… if it breaks out ‘ in our region’ ????? ( whatever the hell that might mean )

    You can either take my word for it – or plough through the news programme – or use your button to FFWD to the time it was mentioned. ….There was more of course, to the segment.


    2) Bill Shorten fronts Australian Christian Lobby conference – about gay marriage …. he was speaking to a mostly radical Christian organisation, and he is Catholic himself …… yet he got up and spoke … the ABC gave him more than a few minutes on the subject. One of his aims was at the LNP to lift their adverse reaction to gay marriage. He was questioned heavily … by the radicals there.

    ……… ( in part ) ” “When I see people hiding behind the bible to insult and demonise people on the basis of who they love, I cannot stay silent. I do not agree,” ………

    and ……….. ” “These prejudices do not reflect the Christian values that I believe in. ………..I think they paint the accusers as people who would rather judge than understand.”

    Cory Bernardi tweeted nastily ( typical ). Morrison re-affirmed the LNP’s stand on the subject. ( typical ) Both were given minor time.


    3 ) … two days ago …. this article on ABC’s “The Drum” …. written by Insiders journo, Barrie Cassidy.

    Cassidy does not pull any punches :

    [ excerpt ] …….. ” As disturbing as the events in Ottawa were, we are entitled to ask whether the political response here in Australia, on the other side of the world, was helpful or merely exploitative, writes Barrie Cassidy.

    The threat of terrorism is real, but is it exaggerated?

    The need to be vigilant is obvious, but do we have to live in fear?

    Every time someone goes berserk overseas, do we have to behave as if it happened around the corner?”

    ……………Worth reading the whole lot – if you wish.


    Thing is, viewers who watch the ABC News – no matter what State it is shown in ….. CAN think for themselves.

    The ABC rather slyly ( this evening anyway ) slanted their articles definitely AWAY from the right. I have seen it done before, and no doubt will see it again. On the ABC, on Channel 9 and I think channel 10.

    I cannot understand why everyone is so afraid of the big bad ( ancient ) wolf – Murdoch. ……. If he relies on his news rags, they are being replaced very much by on-line media ….. and he ( hopefully ) is going down the gurgler.

    Just sayin’ ……..

  25. Annie Byam

    Another one —— from the ABC lifting the lid off yet another lie told by the Abbott and his cronies.

    ( excerpt ) ………

    The claim: — Peter Dutton says the Federal Government has provided $18 million to services like the Red Cross to fight Ebola in Africa.

    The verdict: — The Red Cross has not received specific funding from the Federal Government to support its Ebola program in West Africa. The Federal Government has provided $2.5 million to four Australian NGOs: Caritas, Plan International, Save the Children and World Vision.

  26. Pingback: The Real Conspiracy | THE VIEW FROM MY GARDEN

  27. Florence nee Fedup

    Maybe we should be looking at how wealth is created. I am sure it is not by the rich alone. In act if rthe majority lose faith, they go down the drain. Yes, time to be talking social; not economy.

    No society can be rich, powerful and strong without a eager, well skilled and healthy workforce. Gillard had the vision that is needed. Was all about building. Yes building 5the skills of the nations’ people. Ensure they hiver the ability to stay healthy.

    Strong families created strong communities. or societies. There the worker needs to ensure his kids are being cared for, educated for the future.

    Then a competent government then ensures the infrastructure is being put in place, to allow industry and economy to grow.

    Yes, the latest technology, such as NBNCo for state of the art communications and more. . Good road and ports are also needed We need top of the range research. Both basic and that tailor to needs of industry.

    Good governance demands that we care for our environment. Yes, we need to deal with carbon emissions and any other form of pollution.

    To have a strong economy, one must first build a strong society. Not the other way around.

    It means ensuring that individuals reach their full potential.

    It is not about cutting. Not about lowering taxes. It is not about welfare.

    Things that government pay for now, are not privileges but entitlement. This is because the whole community, including industry benefit from a educated and healthy society.

    Look after the people, they will look after the economy.

  28. Florence nee Fedup

    All Medicare is, a universal medical insurance scheme. No reason why it cannot be run by government or privately. Same humans are employed. Run as an public identity, means no profit has to be found. No evidence that privatisation has led to better deal for society. I say society, not people. Maybe the opposite is true.

    Same goes for public health and public schools. They deliverer professional results for all.

    The con is, that we have been led to believe it is only about the economy. That only private industry can deliver. That he government has no role to play, In regulating industry.

    I wonder why Abbott has changed from believing that the Commonwealth should be in charge, back to Federation, where states are equal to the Federal government. A sudden reversal on his parts.

    What does he mean by Pragmatic Federalism.

    Well I have news for him. While he controls the purse strings, leaving the states without the power to raise their own money, things will proceed as they do now. PS Taxation powers t5hat were in -place up to WWW 11

    Trouble is now, going back to the past will not work. Thanks to modern day travel and communications, states going their own way will not work. Having states control by the Commonwealth, as they are now will continue to flounder.

    The Founding Fathers got it right for the time. Whitlam did begin to deal with the Constitution with ongoing review of all. The one effort of Whitlam that floundered after he was depose. That is a shame.

    We need to be careful of what Abbott is suddenly. out of nowhere is proposing. I am sure there is a string in the tail.

    For a decade or more, Abbott’s mob have been accusing Labor and it’s people of launching a class war. Must have been projection on their part. We are now in the mist of a fully blown one. One like we have not seen during my seven decades or more. Yes, another war Abbott has created. Was against the people.

    We need, I suspect, to stop seeing things through the prism of economic theories. Prism of left or right. Prism of us and them.

    Abbott says he is a nationalist. Not sure what he means. What I do know, it is about the whole nation., not just those at the top.

    Each should pay according to their ability. Even the bible says that I believe.

    We need to stop talking about debt and deficits. About leaners and lifters We need to talk about what is good for society.

    I have this belief that economic theories are only about how things should or might work. Different theories work at different times. That is where the right fail. They believe it is only theirs that work. Do not understand that one has to act, according to what is happening at the time. Could never, and can never accept that Rudd was right.

    One thing small government spending and ever decreasing taxes will take us nowhere. Yes, even Labor has been giving them what they want. Still demanding more.

    As for over production, what does that means. People still need things produced. What it is about, is lack of funds to buy. The second world wart soon solved that problem, by putting money in the pockets of the workers. Trouble is, they had the money but no goods to buy. All went to the war effort.

    Sorry for rambling on. Not much science in my answers, just beliefs I have formed over the years.

    I believe what we need is a civil society. If so, that is what we should be building. Yes building. This is not the time for demolition of governments contribution to that society.

  29. Florence nee Fedup

    Listen carefully to what the likes of Pyne and Abetz are saying. They are giving control of all skill training, research and university courses to industry., They are critical of such things as sociology and left wing economist. They are vetting what research can proceed. Has to meet identified ne3ed of industry. No place for dreamers and lateral thinkers. People who come up with the ideas needed for the future.

    This is true of the CSIRO and boards such as reskilling auto workers. All community and union places have been demolish.

    They are by passing the public service and experts groups for advice. They have set up panels, that only consist of employers.

    One needs to tune into Senate Estimates. If is an eye open. Not even communicating with their own departments. Head officials know nothing. As Faulkner said last week, in desperation, you know nothing, you have not been told, should I be worried.

  30. Florence nee Fedup

    We have ten thousands, maybe a million of those under 40 that have never voted. Added to that, is the high, deliberately high informal vote, especially in places like NSW and Western Sydney. This suits the right.

    We need to convince these people it is in their interest to take a interest in politics. Convince them it is not about the economy but what is right for them. Most of all, they have to come to believe they can make a change. That is what is missing.

  31. Florence nee Fedup

    How much will be wasted, when the planned renewal industry projects are abandoned in the next few weeks. Private industry has already poured millions into these projects. How much will it coast us, for the jobs that do not eventuate.

    Yes, that is waste of a high order.

    How much will it cost us, in Abbott’s push to prop up the coal and coal burning industries.

  32. Florence nee Fedup

    Shorten spoke about much more than gay marriage.

  33. Florence nee Fedup

    One must wonder if Abbott has found CHOGM too hard. Now wants to change the system. Does not say why he no longer believes. Maybe someone will ask him. Does not say what his reform is.

  34. Lee

    “All Medicare is, a universal medical insurance scheme. No reason why it cannot be run by government or privately. Same humans are employed. Run as an public identity, means no profit has to be found.”

    Run as a public service, Medicare can afford to break even. No one will run it privately unless it operates at a profit, which means Medicare will provide smaller rebates and for less services than if run as a public entity.

  35. Florence nee Fedup

    Lee, run privately, they will also cherry pick what they choose to cover. I sense that some things private and Medicare is doing now, is trying to get control of how doctors work., Will tie people into medical schemes they devise and control. Believe some schemes are already being trialled. Some are offering contributors direct medical intervention. Like giving out machines to take blood pressure and managing asthma. Having what seem like hotlines for medical advice. Not sure what it is about.

  36. Lee

    Florence, there was an article in MSM a couple of months ago about Abbott wanting to set up a system like the US, whereby private health insurers basically dictate to GPs about how they will practice medicine. That’s the last thing we need.

  37. Annie Byam

    Florence nee … ( your comment – October 26, 2014 at 11:08 am ) ..

    Bill Shorten did indeed speak about much more than gay marriage, and didn’t allow the moment to slip by him, to aim a few well sharpened arrows at the Coalition.

    Sometimes one has to ‘read between the lines’ with what Bill Shorten says ….. perhaps he needs to speak more plainly and openly to the Australian public … not be so nebulous and cyrptic with his comments.

    Just hope he gets to where he is aiming at !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: