Should Hockey terminate his plans for a GP Co payment? (1 Viewer)

[Sathius005]

Source: Sky news
Joe Hockey has been urged to reboot his budget and scrap the unpopular $7 GP co-payment, with former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello saying governments have to cut their losses.

The treasurer is struggling to convince crossbenchers to back his budget, with key measures such as the Medicare co-payment and welfare changes facing defeat.

Mr Costello said the coalition should 'reboot the whole argument' by bringing forward the next intergenerational report, which highlights long-term pressures on government spending.

It should also dump measures unlikely to pass the Senate, he said.

'Sooner or later you have to cut losses,' he told the Ten Network on Sunday.

'The $7 co-payment ... it's just not going to happen, so let's move on.'

Mr Costello also rebuked his former colleague for complaining that business had not adequately backed his budget.

'There is no point blaming business ... he's got to get it through, it's his responsibility,' he said.

Mr Costello's frank advice came as crossbencher John Madigan questioned whether Mr Hockey has empathy for those that would be hit hardest by the unpopular budget.

Mr Hockey met with the Democratic Labour Party senator on Thursday as part of his campaign to woo the crossbench.

But Senator Madigan on Sunday said he still believed the budget will exacerbate social problems like domestic violence, vandalism and drug and alcohol abuse.

Recounting that the treasurer had described himself as one of the most hated people in the country because of the budget, the conservative crossbencher said: 'I empathise with him. He's got a tough job'.

'(But) I wonder how much empathy he's got for those people who are going to be hit hard by this budget,' Senator Madigan told ABC Television.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne also appeared to criticise the all-or-nothing approach to budget negotiations being taken by some colleagues.

Mr Pyne said he had been texting, phoning, meeting and talking to the crossbenchers for months to convince them of his contentious plans to deregulate university fees.

'Any minister who goes to the Senate with a package and says it's either this or nothing is essentially daring the Senate to vote down their whole package,' he told Sky News.
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/poli...-to-dump-co-payment.html#sthash.6mjxpgOq.dpuf

 

[Sathius005]

A GP Co payment is a tax on visits to medical specialists and General practitioners. This turns GP's into tax collectors.
GP visits are bulk billed- which preserves the universality of Medicare. The health of any one of us is the concern for all of us.

 

[SylviaB]

A GP Co payment is a tax of visits to medical specialists and General practitioners.

Not a tax, it's a price on medical services.

 

[wannaspoon]

I think a cost of $7 to visit a doctor is hardly going to break the bank. It's money that is also going to a great cause. Then again, it is a slippery slope, an increase here and there is only going to make it more and more expensive to stay healthy.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Definitely.

While they're at it they should probably put an adequate tax on the mining companies and what not that will generate far greater tax revenue than slogging the citizens for more. Doubt that will ever happen though.

 

[enigma_1]

Yeah obviously. Hoe Jockey's just playing with everyone That's not nice.

 

[Axio]

A GP Co payment is a tax on visits to medical specialists and General practitioners. This turns GP's into tax collectors.

This is the kind of one-sided biased sht I'd expect from the ABC.

 

[seremify007]

I'm all for the Co payment. Agreed that the health and welfare of citizens benefits society, but by the same token, there has to be an element of user pays otherwise rational behaviour would lead to people just continuing to use and exploit it (tragedy of the commons?). $7 is not a big amount, and it'll help reduce the burden on the rest of society who would otherwise foot the bill especially as the population grows and ages. Hopefully it'll also help create a bit of disincentive to stop people who visit doctors for the sake of it. After all, some of the basic questions can be handled by a pharmacist.

 

[Gary_Oak]

Yes, i think that a fair approach.... to prevent abuse.... and certain groups of people will still get it for free (or at least 10 visit paid, and rest for free).

I strongly believe in a user pay society

 

[SylviaB]

Definitely.

While they're at it they should probably put an adequate tax on the mining companies and what not that will generate far greater tax revenue than slogging the citizens for more. Doubt that will ever happen though.

yes let's tax the crap out of an industry that's (at least for now) in decline

and what is "adequate", exactly? Rio Tinto is Australia's largest tax payer.

 

[Sathius005]

Government considers $7 GP fee compromise to exempt pensioners, disadvantaged

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sadvantaged-20140812-3dk4v.html#ixzz3AA1SaOvh

Source: SMH
The government says it is looking “seriously” at a plan that would exempt pensioners and other disadvantaged Australians from paying the proposed $7 GP fee.

Health Minister Minister Peter Dutton says he has sought costs for an alternative plan being put forward by the doctors' union, the Australian Medical Association.

The AMA's counter policy would void the fee for the elderly and disadvantaged as well as indigenous Australians who visit their doctor through Aboriginal Medical Services.

Mr Dutton says he has asked his department to cost the policy.

“We're having discussions with the AMA and they've put forward an alternate model. They still believe and support a co-payment model and we're having a look and pricing what it is that they've suggested to us and we'll negotiate with them” he told 2UE Radio in Sydney.

Mr Dutton will also need to negotiate with the crossbench senators because Labor and the Greens are opposed to the proposed fee.

He says he is also considering other compromise models, including Liberal-Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm's idea of reducing patient medicine costs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

“If there are further changes we can make that people believe can make it fairer, I'm happy to listen to that,” he said.

“I believe we can negotiate this,” Mr Dutton said.

The government says the main concern raised about its GP fee is not the $7 cost but the ability of the poor to pay.

The flagged compromise follows a trio of government backbenchers publicly calling for the GP fee to be exempted for pensioners.

Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen has said such a move would be politically sensible for the government.

Meanwhile the consultant who first proposed the fee to the Abbott government's commission of audit, Terry Barnes, says there is a case for making the co-payment fairer for the less well off, the elderly and those with chronic illnesses.

But he says the AMA needs to release their policy for the same kind of public scrutiny that his proposal and the government's proposal have received.

"Why shouldn't the AMA's proposal be made public, they've seen everybody else's?" he told Fairfax Media.

"This is more than just a matter for vested interests," he said and urged the government to extract concessions from doctors and not just cave in to the union's demands.

Labor leader Bill Shorten said the minister's willingness to exempt the “GP tax” for some showed it was an “ill-conceived idea” that it should be dumped altogether.

“The whole GP tax is a clunker. It's rotten, its unfair, it's a broken promise,” Mr Shorten told reporters in Sydney.

“Don't do half hearted measures, drop the whole GP tax,” he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sadvantaged-20140812-3dk4v.html#ixzz3AA1GgM6u

 

[bangladesh]

I'm all for the Co payment. Agreed that the health and welfare of citizens benefits society, but by the same token, there has to be an element of user pays otherwise rational behaviour would lead to people just continuing to use and exploit it (tragedy of the commons?). $7 is not a big amount, and it'll help reduce the burden on the rest of society who would otherwise foot the bill especially as the population grows and ages. Hopefully it'll also help create a bit of disincentive to stop people who visit doctors for the sake of it. After all, some of the basic questions can be handled by a pharmacist.

you still have to consider those who need regular visits to the GP in order to monitor their condition, but overall i agree with you

 

[jdennis]

Not a tax, it's a price on medical services.

Not true. The money is being directed into the medical research fund. It is not being used to cover the costs of public healthcare, therefore it is not a "price on medical services".

 

[jdennis]

yes let's tax the crap out of an industry that's (at least for now) in decline

It's not in decline. Mining companies are posting bigger profits each year. Not to mention the corporate welfare handouts they get from the government - apparently the end of the "age of entitlement" only affects normal people and not Tony's friends like Gina Rinehart.