Pathology Bulk Billing to end July 1. Please sign petition...

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by lgpking22

Obviously not but if you think the working class can keep paying for old peoples health care its not possible if that means less resources for older people close to death or not operating on people who are 100 percent in need who knows but its already starting to happen you cant throw money at a black hole forever.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with everything you've said here. Sorry.

You don't reckon that the "working class"—whatever that means?—should keep paying for old people's health care? You mean those "old people" who've worked for 50 years and paid tax without the benefits of compulsory superannuation? Or who've developed and initiated and maintained all those societal amenities you now enjoy? Or who've protected your democratic lifestyle from aggressors in several global conflicts and in Asia?

And your suggestion of denying full health care for people "close to death" is really offensive. How do you define close to death? And how do you even define "old"? Retirement age of 65? 75 maybe? Or even 95?

You also suggest that we not provide medical operations for people not "100 per cent" in need. Is that only your putative old people, or does it apply to younger people as well? And who exactly makes the decision? Does it mean that if someone has a myocardial infarction, and has a coronary bypass, then we don't treat them later on if they develop diabetes because—according to you—they're not 100% fit?

I'm also concerned that you regard adequate health care for our older population as "throwing money at a black hole". Seriously? Do you truly think that older people are worthless to society when their working life is over? Did you not know that 43% of the current Australian volunteer workforce are aged 55 years or more—compared with around half of that figure for 18 to 24 year olds? And that figure excludes what's termed "informal" volunteering (people looking after their own elderly or disabled family members). In fact, the government itself admits that if older volunteers were to withdraw their free labour, society wouldn't be able to cope financially by replacing them with paid workers.

Your entire attitude reeks of that of the well-known Aryan gentleman who practiced the "elimination" of the mentally ill or physically handicapped elderly who were considered "ultimately, unworthy of life", (see the Aktion T4 programme).

And lastly, can I ask you how old you are, at least in broad terms?

[Stefan]

Easy scrap bulk billing across the board and link free health care to the seniors card.

Give low income earners a health car card.

Not hard but like everything in this country we just keep rolling down the same road until complete failure of the system, its obvious the one we have is unsustainable but the me me me mentality of the general public will prevent change.

[GasoLane]

Looks like the petition did it.

http://www.dontkillbulkbill.com/?utm...ntkillbulkbill

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Easy scrap bulk billing across the board and link free health care to the seniors card.

Give low income earners a health car card.

And the rest of us? I pay a medicare levy. I'm threatened with extra tax if I don't take out private, whose fee structure spreads the cost across all users rather than on risk basis (like normal insurance) requiring me to subsidise all the older members.

How much more do I have to pay to support a system I'm discouraged from using at every turn???

[lgpking22]

Originally Posted by SYZ

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with everything you've said here. Sorry.

You don't reckon that the "working class"—whatever that means?—should keep paying for old people's health care? You mean those "old people" who've worked for 50 years and paid tax without the benefits of compulsory superannuation? Or who've developed and initiated and maintained all those societal amenities you now enjoy? Or who've protected your democratic lifestyle from aggressors in several global conflicts and in Asia?

And your suggestion of denying full health care for people "close to death" is really offensive. How do you define close to death? And how do you even define "old"? Retirement age of 65? 75 maybe? Or even 95?

You also suggest that we not provide medical operations for people not "100 per cent" in need. Is that only your putative old people, or does it apply to younger people as well? And who exactly makes the decision? Does it mean that if someone has a myocardial infarction, and has a coronary bypass, then we don't treat them later on if they develop diabetes because—according to you—they're not 100% fit?

I'm also concerned that you regard adequate health care for our older population as "throwing money at a black hole". Seriously? Do you truly think that older people are worthless to society when their working life is over? Did you not know that 43% of the current Australian volunteer workforce are aged 55 years or more—compared with around half of that figure for 18 to 24 year olds? And that figure excludes what's termed "informal" volunteering (people looking after their own elderly or disabled family members). In fact, the government itself admits that if older volunteers were to withdraw their free labour, society wouldn't be able to cope financially by replacing them with paid workers.

Your entire attitude reeks of that of the well-known Aryan gentleman who practiced the "elimination" of the mentally ill or physically handicapped elderly who were considered "ultimately, unworthy of life", (see the Aktion T4 programme).

And lastly, can I ask you how old you are, at least in broad terms?

what an amazing rant you had there nazis war veterans youve done well to get them all in on it just chuck in some nuns and me punching orphans in the face and your set.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SYZ

You don't reckon that the "working class"—whatever that means?—should keep paying for old people's health care? You mean those "old people" who've worked for 50 years and paid tax without the benefits of compulsory superannuation? Or who've developed and initiated and maintained all those societal amenities you now enjoy? Or who've protected your democratic lifestyle from aggressors in several global conflicts and in Asia?

Pack your bags honey.. we're going on a guilt trip!

It's a flawed argument, because its not like retirees consumed NOTHING while they were working... They benefited while they worked, and they're benefitting now.

OTOH, its doubtful there'll be a pension by the time I retire, so I have to contribute to super. I'll have to work longer til I'm allowed to retire. I have to contribute to private health while paying a medicare levy. Meanwhile, simply living will cost me far more than it ever did them.... our generation pay so much more in housing costs then they ever did, that we have less capacity to save over our lifetimes. While they get to retire and hang onto their home tax free, which is probably worth a fortune, yet asking them to dip into that property value to make even a small contribution toward the cost of their retirement is out of the question.

Entitled much?

[Tassie f100]

See in this mornings paper the Govt has had a change of mind on this.Bulk billing will continue until???