Money from the Government to the People

[Ald123]

Let me explain what happens when instead of the Goverment actually being the one responsible for providing services and held to account by voters, they palm this responsibility to the private sector.

Imagine a doctor 100 years ago charging $20 a visit.

You had to pull $20 out your own pocket and pay the man.

But then the concept of universal medical care was conceived.

The Goverment charged you higher tax and they paid the doctor $20

But the doctors with no vocations revolted against this because they could not become rich businessmen.

So the Goverment said we will pay the $20 and the doctor can give the gap to the patient to pay.

The doctor raised his fees to $50 and the patient now pays $30

The doctor then bought out all the hospitals and medical centres and raised the fees again
So then the doctors came up with medical insurance so that they could charge even more fees.
The Goverment running out of money forces the people to take it so that it can stop paying so much
In the end you are living in a confusing fee uncertain situation where you no longer have universal medical care despite the fact that you are paying levies, insurance, etc,


So do you see how we are back to square 1?

So in the same way, get rid of childcare rebates, family tax benefits, Medicare, first home buyers grants, aged car rebates and all the dammned bureaucracy associated with it , because it's killing the country.

Let's get back to the situation where we pay the tax to the Goverment and we make it their problem to provide universal medical care and provide more doctors so that their demands drop.

In the same way we need to get the banks in line, property developers and real estate agents and investors.
The country is broken and needs to be rebuilt.
The country is munted.

 

[DB008]

Liberal Democrats

 

[Smurf1976]

There's a proper role for private enterprise and there's a role for government too.

Where it goes wrong is when the "private" enterprise ends up becoming effectively an arm of government and an extension of the public service.

If government represents a minor part of the market for particular goods or services then there is no real problem. Government just buys from whoever as would anyone else. So we don't need a government factory making spoons for use in government offices, we just need a public servant to go to a nearby shop and buy a few spoons as anyone else would.

But if government is providing the vast bulk (or all) of the revenue to a privately run business, and the entire industry is reliant on such government funding, well that's where it all goes wrong in a big way. The political imperative to get results is a bad mix with the profit motive of private enterprise and results in an excessive rise in costs and/or drop in quality. Been there, seen that play out personally and government is almost always the weak party in negotiations since they need the outcome delivered far more than they need to contain the cost.

If the industry is inherently something where government is a minor participant then leave private enterprise to get on with it. We don't need government to start making spoons or selling office furniture.

If the industry is dominated by public funding (or is exclusively publicly funded) then at best private delivery results in added administration and bureaucracy as well as taxpayer-funded private profit. At worst it results in an outright ripoff. If the source of funding is taxation and the work is of an ongoing nature then just employ public servants directly and be done with it. No middlemen required.

Here's a tip. With so many formerly government-run things having been outsourced over the past 25 years there's surely enough now to evaluate the success of this approach. Now try asking someone, either politicians or a senior bureaucrat, how much money has been saved by this approach compared to retaining the functions in house? It's taxpayer funds being used either way, so surely it's not unreasonable to know which is the better approach?

The answer will shock you for the simple reason that in few if any cases has an evaluation, even a basic one, actually been done after the change. And if they have been done then it sure isn't publicly available indeed it doesn't seem to be available even to MP's or the heads of government departments. That I find truly amazing but I'm assured by more than one source that it is indeed the case. 20 years after something was outsourced, nobody has ever assessed whether or not it was really a good idea. Amazing.

There's a proper role for private enterprise and there's a role for government too. It's when the two become intertwined to the point of co-dependency that it goes wrong.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Medicine works best when there's just enough financial reward and status to attract high achievers who enjoy the process of helping, but not so much that it attacts greedy business-minded types.

Remember what builders did when the Gillard government had a free-for-all schools building program? They gouged the system like there was no tomorrow. Don't for a moment think that doctors wouldn't do the same. Privatising medicine would be an horrendous disaster.

There's a massive trend for Chinese (and to some extent Indians) to take up the large majority of available university spots in medicine and dentistry. They get pushed by their parents to study++ so that they can bring glory and satisfaction to the family. The child's suitability, aptitude and personal desires are largely ignored. The sequalae of such an approach is becoming obvious now. If incomes for doctors can be kept at medium-ish levels, that should prevent such status- and income-seeking behaviour.

For those seeking money alone, banking, finance and business ownership/entrepreneurship will always be the most suitable lines of work. Even better if you enjoy the work.

 

[Ald123]

Medicine works best when there's just enough financial reward and status to attract high achievers who enjoy the process of helping, but not so much that it attacts greedy business-minded types.

Remember what builders did when the Gillard government had a free-for-all schools building program? They gouged the system like there was no tomorrow. Don't for a moment think that doctors wouldn't do the same. Privatising medicine would be an horrendous disaster.

There's a massive trend for Chinese (and to some extent Indians) to take up the large majority of available university spots in medicine and dentistry. They get pushed by their parents to study++ so that they can bring glory and satisfaction to the family. The child's suitability, aptitude and personal desires are largely ignored. The sequalae of such an approach is becoming obvious now. If incomes for doctors can be kept at medium-ish levels, that should prevent such status- and income-seeking behaviour.

For those seeking money alone, banking, finance and business ownership/entrepreneurship will always be the most suitable lines of work. Even better if you enjoy the work.

Australia has already privatised health insurance, aged care, schooling, home buying.
The subsidies we get are more of an annoyance than any good. I get a $36000 dollar a year bill to school my kids and after school care. The Goverment might subsidise that so that I only pay $26000 hopefully.
Most expensive child care in the world and low education standards.

No lucky country here move along

 

[qldfrog]

36k ->a big part of it is your own choice as I doubt this is public schooling Aldi

 

[Tisme]

Medicine works best when there's just enough financial reward and status to attract high achievers who enjoy the process of helping, but not so much that it attacts greedy business-minded types.

Remember what builders did when the Gillard government had a free-for-all schools building program? They gouged the system like there was no tomorrow. .

Many builders went broke actually. The money was syphoned off by the BER and State govt layers first, then the project managers (who profiteered like pirates), the consultants and certifiers and the ~40% left went to builders and subbies who by and large didn't do well out of the whole program. Add to that the schools opting for stainless steel roofing to avoid ongoing maintenance costs and it's a wonder anything got to lockup.

 

[Tisme]

36k ->a big part of it is your own choice as I doubt this is public schooling Aldi

School ties generally make up for any shortfall in academic outcomes.

 

[Ald123]

36k ->a big part of it is your own choice as I doubt this is public schooling Aldi

Well mate it's like this

Between the age of 0-5 there is no public schooling for kids. A cheap daycare costs $96 a day. If both parents work five days a week then there is a problem. For kids aged 5 and over there is no free after school care. Again it costs $22 a child. If you have no aunts or grandparents to pick up kids at 3pm then you pay $36000 a year. The Goverment rebate maybe will return some money depending on next Goverment decisions but at present it costs me $26000 a year minimum.

Australia hates children and education. Australia prefers to import students or graduates that have been educated to a better standard from elsewhere. There is no decent state school system here. What you have here is mainly private religious schools deep sucking money from the govt and families to make themselves rich. And state schools that do the bare minimum at education. What you have here are a bunch of really rubbish universities when it comes to teaching university students, it's about charging money for degrees, not charging money to provide education.
The price of an entire university education at Oxford university is a tenth of the cost at an obscure Aussie university.