Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: G-S on 8 Feb 2010 04:57 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: >>> G-S wrote: >>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>> Marts wrote: >>>>>>> G-S wrote... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't >>>>>>>> used the public health system in over 20 years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your >>>>>>> Medicare card. Or if >>>>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare. >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've >>>>>> been in private hospital. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin. >>>>>> >>>>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although there >>>>>> are less effective alternatives that are in the PBS list) and >>>>>> aspirin I buy over the counter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try again... >>>>> >>>>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a private >>>>> hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare entitlement on >>>>> your behalf? LOL. >>>> >>>> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public >>>> health, I said I had not. >>> >>> And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on your >>> behalf for services they provide to you, is to your benefit? Really? >>> >> >> I would use the private hospital no matter what the cost of that >> hospital to me. >> >> The government subsidizing those private hospitals reduces the cost to >> me of course, which means I receive a benefit from the private >> hospital subsidies. >> >> But the benefit I receive is less than (substantially less than) the >> tax that I pay (and that applies to the total of benefits that I >> receive). >> >> So the NET benefit is negative. > > Must be hard work shifting those goalposts around so much. ! > > Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8 Nope... I just hadn't defined them that closely before, but since you asked. Or are you trying to say that something that nets me a negative gain is a real benefit? Coz I don't see it... G-S
From: G-S on 8 Feb 2010 04:59 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Marts wrote: >>> G-S wrote... >>> >>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've been >>>> in private hospital. >>> >>> So, when you were in private hospital, not one cent of the attending >>> doctors' >>> bills were paid for on Medicare and the private insurer made up the >>> rest, plus >>> the gap payment that you'd have to make out of your own pocket? >> >> I have no idea what percentage of the doctors bills were paid by >> medicare (some I assume) however that money went to the doctor and not >> to me. >> >>> (the hospital stay itself would've been fully covered by the private >>> health >>> insurance, presuming that you have top cover). >> >> I do have top cover. >> >>> Or, if you go to the optometrist (if you or your family have to wear >>> glasses), >>> that you paid cash for the consultation? Most optometrists bulk bill on >>> Medicare, but slug you heaps on the hardware... >> >> I paid cash for my last several eye examinations, I don't got to an >> optometrist and I can't be stuffed getting a referral from my GP to >> claim part of it on medicare. He does a prescription as part of the >> eye exam. > > You don't need a referral to visit an optometrist. > > Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8 You do to visit an opthamologist (I think that's what he's called) though and that's who I visit. I had an earlier type of corrective eye surgery for which semi regular visits are recommended. G-S
From: Nev.. on 8 Feb 2010 05:13 theo wrote: > On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >> theo wrote: >>> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object to, >>> rather than the person you want. >> It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough votes they >> win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If they >> can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your >> preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get the >> person you want? > > You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the > people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide > which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the > party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will > certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they don't get > preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own agenda, > or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett. Everyone who you want to represent you or wants to represent you has the opportunity to nominate themselves for election on your ballot paper (subject to electoral rules). There's nothing stopping the party of your choice from standing multiple candidates against each other in your electorate to allow you to choose which one you prefer. If they choose not to stand because the organisation they belong to tell them they can't, then that's a problem you have with the rules of the political party of your choice, its not a failing of the electoral system, and you should stop pretending that it is. > The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it > disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the recent > past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no > representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of > the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in voting can > make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each > electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats > and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% swing > in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but contrived to > keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold. 51% is a clear majority. That's democracy for ya. That independant candidates have been elected to parliament in the past and present disputes your assertion. In fact at the current time, the Commonwealth government, and every single State and Territory lower house government include politicans who were elected on Greens and/or Independant tickets. So much for your alleged 2 party stranglehold. > Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary votes > are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to help, as > GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have had. Every voter has the opportunity to distribute preferences on their ballot paper in precisely the way that they wish so any talk of preference deals between parties or candidates causing voters to vote against their wishes are rubbish. If people choose to follow the advice of their first preference on how to distribute the remaining preferences, then that is their decision. IF they are too stupid to understand or too lazy to learn how the election process works I have precisely 0% sympathy for them. It's not a secret, information on how elections work is readily available, for free, particularly around election times. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: Nev.. on 8 Feb 2010 05:16 G-S wrote: > But it would make certain that a candidate who didn't have the support > of the most people wouldn't win (as the fundy I mentioned in another > post managed). I have no idea what a fundy is, but tt sounds like the system is working perfectly if unpopular candidates can't win. That's how democracy works. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: Nev.. on 8 Feb 2010 05:22
G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> G-S wrote: >>> Nev.. wrote: >>>> G-S wrote: >>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>> Marts wrote: >>>>>>>> G-S wrote... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't >>>>>>>>> used the public health system in over 20 years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your >>>>>>>> Medicare card. Or if >>>>>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've >>>>>>> been in private hospital. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although there >>>>>>> are less effective alternatives that are in the PBS list) and >>>>>>> aspirin I buy over the counter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Try again... >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a private >>>>>> hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare entitlement on >>>>>> your behalf? LOL. >>>>> >>>>> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public >>>>> health, I said I had not. >>>> >>>> And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on your >>>> behalf for services they provide to you, is to your benefit? Really? >>>> >>> >>> I would use the private hospital no matter what the cost of that >>> hospital to me. >>> >>> The government subsidizing those private hospitals reduces the cost >>> to me of course, which means I receive a benefit from the private >>> hospital subsidies. >>> >>> But the benefit I receive is less than (substantially less than) the >>> tax that I pay (and that applies to the total of benefits that I >>> receive). >>> >>> So the NET benefit is negative. >> >> Must be hard work shifting those goalposts around so much. ! >> >> Nev.. >> '08 DL1000K8 > > Nope... I just hadn't defined them that closely before, but since you > asked. > > Or are you trying to say that something that nets me a negative gain is > a real benefit? > > Coz I don't see it... If you earn $1000 and pay it off your mortgage, you can't say that you received no benefit from the money you earned, just because you never had it in your hand to spend on other things. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 |