The place of private healthcare (1 Viewer)

[Tangent]

Calvary is viable. The government would save a whole truckload of cash if it let them be. But lol Canberra Labor is the biggest hotbed of socialistic godless homo pomos in the country. Their motivation is ideological.

Ouch, hitting below the belt there. Whats wrong with being a godless homo...what is a homo pomo???

Why all of a sudden is the government doing this though? Private hospitals to tend to b better than public hospitals. This sounds like the governments being the bully in a playground, exercising their power.
If they want abortions, then they can go to the public hospital cant they?? Atleast they can get abortions, unlike qlders.

Dont fix something that isnt broken

EDIT: I finally agree with katie on something. Plz stop with the propaganda, it hurts my agnostic ears

 

[Lentern]

The Government has no obligation to continue to provide temporary support for an artificial industry. It is a shame that some will suffer a financial loss, but mining a stimulatory (and contentious) Government scheme for long term profit isn't the best of ideas for a small business seeking a sustainable future.

Much like solar panels, there is a strong argument to support an insulation subsidy scheme for those at the lower end of the earnings scale. There's also an argument to provide a scheme for for residential property investors, particularly those renting to people at the lower end of the earnings scale, but broadscale, long term support for an industry that was highly likely to boom given the advent of significant climate change? No, not really.

Of course it has no obligation to continue providing temporary support so long as it makes clear at the beginning that the support is temporary which it didn't so it doesn't which is my point.

 

[Generator]

Ah, no.

The insulation program is a part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, and as the Government has stated:

The Government’s stimulus strategy has been carefully designed to taper off as the economy strengthens. The peak impact occurred in the June quarter and while stimulus will continue to support the economy, its impact will be diminishing over coming quarters in line with the expected pick up in private sector activity.

Source (see bottom of page).

In any event, any and all Government programs are open to policy review in light of changing circumstances and new priorites. Opportunistic small business owners cannot escape this reality.

I kind of miss this place. Hello peoples :wave:

 

[Iron]

r0tk~~~

 

[Lentern]

Ah, no.

The insulation program is a part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, and as the Government has stated:


Source (see bottom of page).

In any event, any and all Government programs are open to policy review in light of changing circumstances and new priorites. Opportunistic small business owners cannot escape this reality.

I kind of miss this place. Hello peoples :wave:

I'm not completely aware of the ins and outs of the governments Stimulus package but if it was made clear that it was a temporary thing then I do not have a problem with what the government did and the onus was on those who benefited from it to: enjoy the benefits by all means but do not become reliant upon them. The situation with the hospital however is quite different.

 

[loquasagacious]

I'm not completely aware of the ins and outs of the governments Stimulus package but if it was made clear that it was a temporary thing then I do not have a problem with what the government did and the onus was on those who benefited from it to: enjoy the benefits by all means but do not become reliant upon them. The situation with the hospital however is quite different.

Generator is correct that Govt funding is by it's very nature subject to the ongoing review and change, I see no reason for Govt to be especially gentle in removing welfare from businesses who have suckled at it's teat. Would you seriously argue that a Govt continue to fund bad programs or services merely because some businesses benefit from it???

 

[Generator]

For those relying on Iron's initial post, here's a reasonable article that outlines the intentions of the ACT Government and opposition to the transaction from Catholic circles - Gallagher, Pell row over Calvary - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times

It's a shame that the conspiracy theories of a noisy minority (unfortunately I'm looking at you, Iron) detract from a reasonable policy argument put forward by the ACT Government. I can understand opposition to the sale on the grounds of pure economic efficiency (as Iron said, it will likely cost the Government more to run Calvary as a pure public institution than by funding the Little Company of Mary to operate the facility into the future), but I see no valid reason to give any creedence to opposition on the grounds of supposed threats of funding freezes to further the ideological aims of the ACT Government.

 

[Iron]

For those relying on Iron's initial post, here's a reasonable article that outlines the intentions of the ACT Government and opposition to the transaction from Catholic circles - Gallagher, Pell row over Calvary - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times

It's a shame that the conspiracy theories of a noisy minority (unfortunately I'm looking at you, Iron) detract from a reasonable policy argument put forward by the ACT Government. I can understand opposition to the sale on the grounds of pure economic efficiency (as Iron said, it will likely cost the Government more to run Calvary as a pure public institution than by funding the Little Company of Mary to operate the facility into the future), but I see no valid reason to give any creedence to opposition on the grounds of supposed threats of funding freezes to further the ideological aims of the ACT Government.

How did your article refute our fears? What 'reasonable policy argument' did the minister give for wanting the take-over? Having the Canberra 'community' (read: Labor Government) control ACT health? Controlling something it already partially funds? So governments are now entitled to close down any private school it likes and force all children into state controlled political education? Re-education camps for adults from 'noisy sectors of the community'?

Why do you put it past them?
It's people like you who enable dictatorships generat0r

 

[Lentern]

Generator is correct that Govt funding is by it's very nature subject to the ongoing review and change, I see no reason for Govt to be especially gentle in removing welfare from businesses who have suckled at it's teat. Would you seriously argue that a Govt continue to fund bad programs or services merely because some businesses benefit from it???

With respect how could you see a reason for Governments to be gentle in removing welfare when your are ideologically opposed to welfare existing at all? I would seriously argue that a government ought to be responsible and responsible government does not mean sudden and radical changes in subsidies without due warning.

 

[loquasagacious]

With respect how could you see a reason for Governments to be gentle in removing welfare when your are ideologically opposed to welfare existing at all? I would seriously argue that a government ought to be responsible and responsible government does not mean sudden and radical changes in subsidies without due warning.

You are correct that generally speaking I am opposed to welfare, especially corporate welfare. In the case of individual welfare it is possible to make a strong case that changes be phased in to minimise the transistional/structural impacts of the change. This is because individuals have a limited capacity to cope with radical welfare changes whereas businesses have a greater ability to do so.

Also when I say radical changes I am referring to major change or removal of welfare, these are considerably more radical than the kind of changes which are typically promoted as radical like tweaks to eligibility tests, etc. And I don't see any particular need to have transition arrangements for those kind of tweaks.

The area which I agree with you is that it is desirable for Government to have a strategic direction and roadmap rather than 'policy on the run'. Unfortunately though this isn't really the case and businesses need to consider this... planning should be based on the environment we're in - not the environment we wish we were in...

 

[Lentern]

You are correct that generally speaking I am opposed to welfare, especially corporate welfare. In the case of individual welfare it is possible to make a strong case that changes be phased in to minimise the transistional/structural impacts of the change. This is because individuals have a limited capacity to cope with radical welfare changes whereas businesses have a greater ability to do so.

Also when I say radical changes I am referring to major change or removal of welfare, these are considerably more radical than the kind of changes which are typically promoted as radical like tweaks to eligibility tests, etc. And I don't see any particular need to have transition arrangements for those kind of tweaks.

The area which I agree with you is that it is desirable for Government to have a strategic direction and roadmap rather than 'policy on the run'. Unfortunately though this isn't really the case and businesses need to consider this... planning should be based on the environment we're in - not the environment we wish we were in...

I think I can essentially agree that whilst governments shouldn't make these kind of decisions willy nilly that they always have and therefore it shouldn't particularly come as a surprise to the hospital and therefore the hospital should have been prepared.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You are correct that generally speaking I am opposed to welfare, especially corporate welfare. In the case of individual welfare it is possible to make a strong case that changes be phased in to minimise the transistional/structural impacts of the change. This is because individuals have a limited capacity to cope with radical welfare changes whereas businesses have a greater ability to do so.

Also when I say radical changes I am referring to major change or removal of welfare, these are considerably more radical than the kind of changes which are typically promoted as radical like tweaks to eligibility tests, etc. And I don't see any particular need to have transition arrangements for those kind of tweaks.

Yeah even I'd agree its best to phase out welfare slowly.

I'd suggest allow people to continue to receive full payments for say 6 months, and then after that period they slowly get reduced by 1% a week, or so.