Freudian Slip posted:

OK - firstly could you twitter folk please re-tweet our tweet (the one with a link to the university of Sydney). It's the results that we are talking about on the Medicare co-payments

https://twitter.com/Sydney_BEACH

So to keep it simple I have kept it to 5 common misconceptions about the proposed Medicare co-payments. If someone wants to be a forums superstar and tidy this up so that it can be shared via social media - that would be great

5 Misconceptions about the proposed Medicare co-payments

1) It’s only for when I see a GP right?
No – you would also have to pay an additional co-payment when a pathology test ordered and when an imaging test is ordered. For about a quarter of GP consultations with adults at least one of these tests is ordered meaning that at least two co-payments.

2) The most I am going to pay is $70 a year as they said it caps out at ten payments
The cap of 10 co-payments is only for concessional patients (those with a Commonwealth Health Care Card) and children under 16 years of age. There is no cap for “general” patients.

3) Well it’s only going to be $7 a time for me right?
Well once again, there is only an incentive for providers to charge only $7 for concessional patients and kids under the age of 16. For general patients, there is no incentive for the GP to only charge $7. Many GPs who currently bulk bill general patients are likely to charge them privately to recoup the expense of setting up the administration of the new co-payment system. If these GPs then charge the current average gap to their general patients, it is likely to be over $20 per item.

4) Still, it’s only a little bit of money, it won’t stop people from going to the GP
Ignoring the fact that stopping people from using health services is the point of the proposal, there is actually good evidence that this will happen. Currently, there are already parts of Australia where 13% of the people living there have not seen or delayed seeing a GP due to cost and areas where 15% have not filled or delayed a prescription because of cost.

5) Well, it’s going to save money right?
It’s not going to save money for the consumer, as the co-payments would increase the out-of-pocket expense of health care in Australia (which is already one of the highest in the world). International evidence suggest that it’s not going to save the tax-payer money either, as the people the co-payment deters from seeking care at the GP either

•use an emergency department instead (which is far more expensive) or they
•avoid care, their conditions deteriorate and they end up in hospital which is a far greater cost to the community

So what are the co-payments going to cost me?
•A family with two young children (aged <16 years) and two parents (aged 25-44 years) would on average have to pay an additional $184 per year ($169.92 for GP, pathology and imaging + $13.62 for medications).
•A self-funded retired couple (both aged 65+, no concession cards) would expect to pay an additional $244 per year on average ($188.80 for GP, pathology and imaging + $55.54 for medications).
•An older couple who are pensioners (aged 65 years or more, with concession cards) would expect to pay an average additional $199 per year ($140.00 for GP, pathology and imaging + $59.30 for medications).

If you could place a reference to the report at the bottom - that would be super

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/fmrc/beach/bytes/BEACH-Byte-2014-003.pdf

Cleretic posted:

Alright, giving this a quick one while my internet's busy making GBS threads itself for unknown reasons. It was a bit overly conversational, and given the points being made I thought the question-answer format didn't entirely work, but I've tried to keep it close to the original. Hopefully this works for you.


5 Misconceptions about the proposed Medicare co-payments

1) It’s only for GP visits
No – you would also have to pay an additional co-payment when a pathology or imaging test is ordered. At least one of these is ordered for about a quarter of all adult GP consultations, meaning at least two co-payments in these cases.

2) Since it caps at ten payments, the most I'm going to pay is $70 a year
The cap of 10 co-payments is only for concessional patients (those with a Commonwealth Health Care Card) and children under 16 years of age. There is no cap for “general” patients.

3) It’s only going to be $7 a time for me
Once again, there is only an incentive for providers to charge $7 for concessional patients and kids under the age of 16. For general patients, there is no incentive for the GP to only charge $7. Many GPs who currently bulk bill general patients are likely to charge them privately to recoup the expense of setting up administration of the new co-payment system. If these GPs then charge the current average gap to their general patients, it is likely to be over $20 per item.

4) It's only a little bit of money, and won't stop people going to the GP
Ignoring the fact that stopping people from using health services is the point of the proposal, there is actually good evidence that this will happen. There are already parts of Australia where 13% of people have not seen or delayed seeing a GP due to cost, and areas where 15% have not filled or delayed a prescription because of cost.

5) It's going to save money
It’s not going to save money for the consumer, as the co-payments would increase the out-of-pocket expense of health care in Australia (which is already one of the highest in the world). International evidence suggests that it’s not going to save the tax-payer money either, as the people deterred from seeing the GP by the co-payment either

•use an emergency department instead (which is far more expensive), or
•avoid care, let their conditions deteriorate, and end up in hospital which is a far greater cost to the community

So what are the co-payments going to cost me?
•A family with two young children (aged <16 years) and two parents (aged 25-44 years) would on average have to pay an additional $184 per year ($169.92 for GP, pathology and imaging + $13.62 for medications).
•A self-funded retired couple (aged 65+, no concession cards) would expect to pay an additional $244 per year on average ($188.80 for GP, pathology and imaging + $55.54 for medications).
•An older couple who are pensioners (aged 65+, with concession cards) would expect to pay an average additional $199 per year ($140.00 for GP, pathology and imaging + $59.30 for medications).

For more information on the effects of the co-payment, see this report from the University of Sydney:

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/fmrc/beach/bytes/BEACH-Byte-2014-003.pdf

Gough Suppressant posted:

Negligent is Lawful Evil.

Or was it Legal Evil?

Freudian Slip posted:

Hey all,

My girlfriend made an infographic of the Medicare co-payment work I released last week. Please feel free to share this.

Cheers



You can find it here

http://www.beyondthehedgecreative.com/bthc_uploads/gpcp_final.jpg

Chicken Parmigiana posted:

This is a little embarrassing. We have two infographics now. Good morning everyone.

It's on again with Den and Ken!



That's the single-image version; it's also available separated into 500x500 or 700x700 squares, which might be a better format for Twitter, definitely Tumblr, and even Facebook. Up to you! Anyway here's the link to those:

http://www.chickennation.com/2014/07/15/medicare-co-payments-infographitoon/

Chicken Parmigiana posted:

Somehow I found the time to make another handy and informative cartoon.

Milky Moor posted:

Australia is beyond parody at this point.

That's all I've got, really.

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

Ricky Muir was on 7:30 tonight, I think. Wonder how that went.

MiniSune posted:

May need an update to the OP if the Cory Bernardi to Family First rumours / speculation are true. Which is frightening as the man may have actual power.

Mr Chips posted:

If anyone has an OCAU forums reg and wants to contribute to some libertarian nitwit having a meltdown, here's your chance: http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1129064

quote:

quote:

oh and another gem? there's such a shortage of maths & physics teachers (physics in particular) that in NSW at least they're seriously considering shitcanning it from the curriculum. the powers that be simply cannot attract the teachers they need. why? because they're not able to offer them what they need to to attract them. the unions are stopping them from doing so. paying a physics teacher that teaches a discipline that he could be earning $3x as much using elsewhere (i.e it's 3x as important than other teaching roles) more compared to a bloody painting teacher or something is "unfair"

Physics is being canned because it is irrelevant in the 21st century Australian economy. We to give our children the skills they need to become lawyers and real estate agents.

Competition for teaching jobs is intense; the problem is lack of demand/need for physics, not a lack of supply.

hooman posted:

Wait, are there seriously scholarships for physicists to take up teaching?

Because holy gently caress that would be amazing.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Has this been published anywhere?

hooman posted:

Wait, are there seriously scholarships for physicists to take up teaching?

Because holy gently caress that would be amazing.

quote:

Haha. No. Wrong. ~10,000 students did physics last year in NSW alone.
Less than 5% of teachers are 3rd year qualified. More than half the teachers teaching Physics are not comfortable teaching the subject. The shortage is becoming hyper critical.

My offer still stands. Are you a physics major with a teaching qualification with HSC experience? I can get you $100-$225 an hr or six figures with benefits. I have ~10 but I am doubling in size in 6 months. I'm raiding high schools in Sydney right now.Physicists in Banking, Finance, geophysics, big data, material physics are still commanding what ever you want conditions.

Tokamak posted:

Physics is being canned because it is irrelevant in the 21st century Australian economy. We to give our children the skills they need to become lawyers and real estate agents.

Competition for teaching jobs is intense; the problem is lack of demand/need for physics, not a lack of supply.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/30/extreme-weather-official-advice-rewritten-to-remove-climate-change-link posted:

The government has been accused of significantly watering down its official advice on extreme weather after removing mention of links between climate change and events such as bushfires and heatwaves.

A document on the Department of Environment’s website, aimed at informing the public on how climate change is influencing dangerous weather, has removed an explicit reference linking the two.

A previous version of the document opened with the statement: “There is a growing and robust body of evidence that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

“Australia has experienced an increasing number and intensity of heatwaves, bushfires, flooding and droughts in recent decades.”

An amendment to the page removes these lines in favour of a general explanation of what extreme weather is.

The page goes on to acknowledge that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is “changing” and that “some studies” show a link to climate change, but stresses that it is “difficult to isolate the role of climate change in any given event”.

As Guardian Australia reported in October, the previous version of the departmental advice contradicted Tony Abbott’s view that any link between bushfires and climate change was “complete hogwash”.

The prime minister, speaking in the wake of the widespread New South Wales bushfires last year, also said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief, was “talking out of her hat” for linking rising temperatures to increased bushfires.

Amanda McKenzie, a former government official and now chief executive of the Climate Council, told Guardian Australia the amendment had led to “softer language” on the link between climate change and extreme weather.

“Lives and communities are at risk from bushfires so it’s very important that communities and firefighting services are prepared for changes that we are already seeing,” she said.

“There is a common misconception that Australia has always had extreme weather so we should not be concerned now, but we are already seeing more forceful, extreme weather. Bushfires have increased in south-east Australia in the past 30 years, and we’ve just had our hottest 12 months on record.

“The evidence is absolutely unequivocal on the link. We know bushfire conditions are getting worse. We have to take the government on its word that it takes climate change seriously but there have been inaccurate statements made around extreme weather and it’s critical the public is provided the right information on these matters.”

Asked why the advice was changed, an environment department spokeswoman said: “During the past few months, we have been finalising the transition of content from the former climate change website to environment.gov.au.

“The Department of the Environment’s website is constantly updated. The change you identified was made by the department to ensure the website information remained consistent with the approach taken by the IPCC in its fifth assessment report.”

The IPCC assessment, released in March, stated there was a “medium to high confidence” that extreme weather events are “projected to increase in many locations” in Australia.

Australia is at risk from “increased damage to ecosystems and settlements, economic losses and risks to human life from wildfires in most of southern Australia”, according to the IPCC report.

In addition, “projected increases in heatwaves will increase heat-related deaths and hospitalisations, especially among the elderly”, while coastal areas will be at risk from erosion, landslides and flooding, owing to weather pattern changes and sea level rises.

Kellie Caught, climate change campaigner at WWF, said: "The link between global warming and extreme weather events is clear. In fact, the IPCC fifth assessment report strengthened its assessment on the link between some extreme weather events and global warming.

"It’s important that the Australian public are informed on the science of global warming and climate change from the leading experts such as the IPCC, especially given global warming poses a risk to society, our economy and environment.”

The Greens leader, Christine Milne, said: “Regardless of whether Tony Abbott’s global warming denial is filtering top-down through the public service, the clear link between climate change and the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is undeniable.

“The link is the global scientific consensus. No amount of watering down of language or silencing the public service will change the urgency of strong and sustained action to reduce greenhouse pollution.”

Sir Shion posted:

I never studied physics and turned out ok. but I fundamentally disagree with his point - physics contributes to a great dunderstanding of the universe. Not sure really what appreciable gain conveyancers add to society.

Sir Shion posted:

I never studied physics and turned out ok. but I fundamentally disagree with his point - physics contributes to a greater understanding of the world around us. Not sure really what appreciable gain

Mr Chips posted:

Sorry Tokakmak.

Tokamak posted:

Eh, close enough. You'd make a good Physics high school teacher.

i got banned posted:

Well hurry up and die if you don't pay taxes mate. Welcome to the future.

Captain Pissweak posted:

Amethyst posted:

The liberal party wants to strip the mentally ill of welfare benefits because it's super, duper easy to find employment which is in sync with the ebb and flow of psychic distress. People under the age of 30 will need to fend for themselves and subsist on food stamps if they cannot find employment. The LNP wants to send people back where the came from if they a have a < 50% chance of being tortured to death once they return. The LNP is aggressively implementing a broad policy of climate change denial.

Seriously. The above is not the theoretical ravings of a minor party. It's the policy of our government. I want to loving die