Subisidising healthcare for the elderly :(

hear hear Ashore, very valid points.

Ashore, wasn't able to give you as greenie :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

And Jack, do you think that any person who earns a high income would be in his/her posittion were it not for the society they live in?
Sure, you can be a highly motivated go-getter, but if you live in a third world country the top of the chain would still be pittance.

---

Well, no it wouldn't. In many third world countries top of the tree is a helluva long way from a pittance. There was an article this week in The Australian by an African journo. His main point was that the leaders of many African nations (and it sure as hell doesn't stop at Africa) spend more each year on their Mercedes limos than most of us - the people of a rich nation - will earn in several lifetimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

If you are successful in a society you have an obligation to that society. If you are a failure, you also have an obligation.
If societies didn't work this way they would never hold together.

---

Spot on. The societies that don't hold together are those where the community as a whole - and as individuals - forget their obligations to each other.

Ashore - you hit the nail fair on the head, Have a greenie!

Col

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

For some of us the Medicare levy and surcharge equals a whole lot more than the cost of a bandsaw. :( :( :(

Yes I do believe in a fair medical system and fair to me means equality, not only in the cover provided but in the cost of the cover :mad:

Jack

---

Jack I too fork out a ridiculous amount for the levy but seeing what I see everyday as part of my job I believe it is justified.

Despite this levy a significant proportion of our society is not receiving adequate health care. I saw a patient today with severe deforming rheumatoid arthritis significantly impairing his quality of life, who was on no treatment because he couldnt afford it. This patient was in his 50s and could not dress himself, unlock a door or drive a car.

This is unacceptable in Australia and scrapping or reducing the levy will make this situation worse. I say keep it going and I would be happy if it was even increased in those subgroups that can afford to pay for it. I'm sure those that are making $200,000 a year would not miss a few extra thousand...

For the rest of us, at least you can sleep well knowing that you are contributing to the welfare of the less fortunate.

regards

Marios

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

And Jack, do you think that any person who earns a high income would be in his/her posittion were it not for the society they live in?
Sure, you can be a highly motivated go-getter, but if you live in a third world country the top of the chain would still be pittance.
If you are successful in a society you have an obligation to that society.

---

If you are successful you do indeed have an obligation to society but a society such as ours gives EVERYONE an opportunity to be successful.
BTW, I am a tradesman, not management, not somebody who had a company land on their doorstep, I worked to get where I am and everyone in this great country has the opportunity to do the same, that's why it is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

If you are a failure, you also have an obligation.

---

What is the obligation of failures, to be a burden on society and cause the successful to subsidise their existence.

I do acknowledge the unfortunate such as the disabled and even those who have succumbed to severe bad luck and misfortune but I think those taking advantage of the good will of our society far out weigh those who genuinely need a hand.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Health costs are only one part of our tax structure and each generations tax add to the overall
To pick health care and say " why should we ( as younger people who don't use the system as much as the older generation do) have to pay a high medcare levy"
Who paid for your schools and in some cases universities you were edcuated in ,who's taxes subsidised you childhood imunisation programs or the hospitals you were born in who payed the taxes that built the roads you used to go to school.
Should we have said we are finished school cut all funding we don't need them anymore as some of the arguements "I should only pay for what I use Now in my prime of life"
Every time you step outside you are using , as I am , infrastructure paid for by previous generations

---

Very good points Ashore, well done :) :) :)

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by routermaniac

I say keep it going and I would be happy if it was even increased in those subgroups that can afford to pay for it. I'm sure those that are making $200,000 a year would not miss a few extra thousand...

---

That sort of statement is where my whole gripe with the tax system as a whole comes from.
It is a poor attitude when people say "the rich will pay for it, they won't notice it".
You will more than likely find that people who have money are not the ones who are flippant with it and "a few extra thousand" matters.
Why should $1000 mean any less to a $100,000 earner than it does to a $50,000 earner. :confused: :confused: :confused:

If you were earning $40,000 and somebody who earns $20,000 said they would be happy for you to pay a whole lot more than them would you be happy?

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Grow up there is no free lunch and you only get out of this world what you put into it.

---

Correct!

And while I agree with those whose social consciences would have the rich paying for the poor (to paraphrase many of the above points), I think there is also a great inequity in the reverse scenario.

What about those who have lived frugal (but none the less enjoyable) lives, forgoing many of the day to day "necessities" and some pleasures for many years, carefully making provision for tomorrow, while their friends who earned as much, or more than they, were content to urinate their futures against the nearest wall or puff them up in smoke.

Why should the careful people now have to subsidise the dialysis or diabetes treatment of those who chose a self indulgent lifestyle, spending all they earnt as they earnt it?

I'm sure they are happy to contribute (or even pay totally) to the well being of those worse off through circumstance of birth or education, but why should they suffer the prejudice of more expensive health care because through careful management they have accumulated sufficient assets to live independantly???

Why are they not entitled to the same benefit as their wasteful, partygoing bretheren? Why are they denied subsidised rates, bus fairs and medication??

Why are they penalised for their careful management?

It would seem in our society, all animals are equal except the squirrels, or is it the others have paid enough in entertainment, tobacco and alcohol taxes that their medical treatment should be covered for life anyway??

Cheers,

P (Tired of hearing how tough and unfair life is today!)

:o :o :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

It would seem in our society, all animals are equal except the squirrels, or is it the others have paid enough in entertainment, tobacco and alcohol taxes that their medical treatment should be covered for life anyway??

---

Peter,

I have probably paid more tax through entertainment, tobacco and alcohol than the average person my age aswell :D :D :D

I think we all know that nothing is going to change, in fact, like somebody has already said, it is only going to get worse.

Jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackE

have probably paid more tax through entertainment, tobacco and alcohol than the average person my age aswell

---

So things aren't all bad then??

:D :D :D

P (Note: the above post was a Football induced rant, and the :o smilie was as close as I could get to a Maroon one!)
:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

So things aren't all bad then??

:D :D :D

P (Note: the above post was a Football induced rant, and the :o smilie was as close as I could get to a Maroon one!)
:D :D :D

---

No, things aren't bad at all, just having a bit of a whinge about tax on a thread that I didn't start this time :D :D :D

My rants tonight are also football (with a few rums) induced.

I know you are a Queenslander Peter so why are you using smilies tonight, you just got flogged :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack E

I know you are a Queenslander Peter so why are you using smilies tonight, you just got flogged :D :D :D

---

Different strokes!!

:D :D :D
P

Are you using puns again :) :)

Jack.

This theme of the haves paying for the have nots is becoming too regular for me to get upset or to comment.

The law is very simple, if you have income you pay taxes and the greater income the greater the taxes. The medicare levy is a tax to fund government expenditure, like all other taxes and has nothing to do with health care costs. It was misnamed by politicians to make the tax more palatable. :(

If you don't like paying, get yourself a good accountant, reorganise your affairs so that you pay less but stop whinging about it. :mad:


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

If you don't like paying, get yourself a good accountant, reorganise your affairs so that you pay less but stop

---

Sturdee,

That is exactly what I and am sure most others in my situation do, doesn't help the situation though. :) :) :)

Jack.