gay picnic defence posted:

A $500,000 donation to the LNP is a pretty small investment considering the amount of money a big corporation might save by successfully lobbying a beholden politician for favourable legislation. Also companies factor in the costs associated with breaking the law when devising business plans, for example a mining company a mate works for compared the costs of disposing of something legally versus just dumping it on Aboriginal land and paying the fine. I don't need to tell you which option was cheaper and eventually chosen

NoNotTheMindProbe posted:

The racist woman at work was convinced that Australia has property based voting rights and that people living in India who own property get a vote in our elections. She tried to assure me that this system was called gerrymandering and that it's all true because she read it on the website about "how voting really works" . Does anyone have any idea what website this might be?

Gorilla Salad posted:

God. drat.

Les Affaires posted:

Drugs posted:

Second place is nothing to be ashamed about

Lid posted:

Also if me and Anidav can't reiterate it: it's a great date place

Sludge Tank posted:

I know this isn't exactly /pol related (but if you guys can talk about cooking eggs)

RE: This police chase/toddler death in Sydney. It made me remember an article I read a few years ago that made for an interesting read. I was linked this article in a motorbike forum in a thread about a police chase on that "The Force" where two cops were chasing down a guy on a motorbike through St Kilda in Melbourne. The TV show edit showed them "putting their lives on the line", but in the post with this article was also a link to a youtube video of the unedited dashcam footage from that same police chase with all the comments/instructions/roadrage/expletives coming from the cops that had been edited out to make them look like the good guys (like at one point where the bike came off the median strip and the cop in the passenger seat can be heard saying "FUCKEN RAM HIM... RAM HIM", this same footage was shown, but the voice had been edited out, and also another point before the pursuit where the cops were saying "come on pop it up or something" (as in "I want this guy to do a wheelie so I have a reason to chase him")

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Police-Pursuits/All-pumped-up/2004/11/12/1100227581212.html

Leo Showers posted:

Wasn't there a thing a little while back about the Queensland Police Service complaining that they couldn't speed or do drugs or something because then they'd be held to the same standards as the community, and this was bad for some reason.

ShoeFly posted:

Hey Tasgoons, the GF and I are heading to your lovely state for a 4 day weekend in March. We're flying into Hobart on the Friday morning and flying out of Launceston on the Monday evening, and I'm just looking for suggestions of where to go and what to see. Pretty open to anything, I'll have a car so getting around won't be a problem either.

Bifauxnen posted:

loving hell this is going to make things even worse for women who need to go see a GP every time they want to top-up on birth control. And since I got pregnant I had to see mine a whole bunch of times to get referrals to things sorted out. Even if it stuck to their $7 idea, the minute you gave a genuine issue those GP visits start to stack up fast.

This is absolute loving madness. Gee, it's a good thing the government is putting these price signals in action! Now I'm going to be responsible and think twice before I pop into my GP for 10 minutes to grab a referral so I can get any antenatal care whatsoever!

Leo Showers posted:

Who goes to the movies?

Serrath posted:

To the best of my knowledge, hitting psychologists with a copayment has never been something discussed.

This doesn't avoid hitting psychologists, however. In order to see a patient on a mental health care plan a referral from a GP is required and these referrals, to date, have been made in the context of a 10 minute session. Additionally, the MHCP covers a patient for the first 6 sessions and an additional meeting with the GP is required for a further renewal of 4 sessions.

Every practice I've run has been a "pure" bulk billed practice (meaning that I do not charge a gap fee). Consequently, I get referred a lot of clients who were unable to afford the gap fees charged by psychologists in the area so the group of people I see tend to be quite impoverished. I flatly do not think that some of them are capable of paying a $20 fee to see a GP to first get a referral and then to renew that referral and I sincerely think that some of my clients will simply stop attending when their existing plans are expended and more will simply avoid getting the referral.

What adds a level of awkwardness is that I work out of a medical practice with my referring GPs. They're good people who operate a bulk billing only clinic (which attracts a large body of patients who cannot afford the gap fees of surrounding practices) and I'm likely going to be appealing to their charity to eat the new costs associated with making a referral for my clients because I flatly do not think that some of my clients will be safe if we fail to provide them help because they're unable to afford the consultation. I'm looking into the option of paying the $20 gap myself for an initial consultation and for a renewal but there is strict rules about offering anything that can be perceived as an "inducement" in exchange for a referral.

So yes, the short answer to your question is that this is a significant loss to bulk billing psychologists and this will have insidious ramifications to the public availability of psychological care. I'd point out, though, that a mental health care plan is just one of many chronic health care plans made available for people with chronic conditions and I expect that the referrals and reviews of these plans are under the same threat as psychology...

Fruity Gordo posted:

I wouldn't do this fwiw, doing favours for clients from the outset might foster more of a sense of dependence than already can exist in a therapeutic relationship, plus issues of transference, etc. Best not to risk it imo. I don't give gifts to or do favours like that for my clients and psychs have much more responsibility to and more complex relationships with clients than youth workers do. I don't think you'd be able to do it on the down low bc all their other GP consultations will be charged the gap so sharper clients would pick up that something's going on, and it would be worse to keep it a secret and turn clients into the secret charity cases of their psych only for it to twig four sessions in. I totally get the impulse and there's a bunch of times where I've really wanted to help a client out financially but I'm really concerned and anal about effecting the therapeutic relationship and blurring personal/professional lines.

One thing to look into instead could be developing separate funding channels for referral services through local mental health orgs so it's not just YOU subsidising your client, but an actual NFP. Creates plausible deniability of you personally intervening to financially aid your clients, and removes the potential for GPs pitching a fit because it's only psych patients getting free service while other patients still have to eat crow, bc the subsidy comes from a dedicated mental health org. Establishing that could be a big job though. Idk it's a really terrible situation.

Tommofork posted:

Here's the rest of that Wikipedia article you didn't quote. It continues mid-paragraph from the above.

SadisTech posted:

If only people didn't feel that they had to turn to synthetic drugs as the legally safer alternative.

Freudian Slip posted:

Private health insurance is not allowed to be involved with general practice payments. I expect this to change though if they are successful at dismantling Medicare

Also getting phone calls about my opinion on the backdown lol

starkebn posted:

So if we let anyone travel to Australia without a visa, but when they arrive without one they are detained here for authorities to be able to process them as asylum seekers etc, what would be the big deal? More people could arrive here via legit transport like airlines or sealiners (probably cheaper than rickety boats?) and the whole "we're trying to stop the boats to stop the poor people dying at sea" would be moot.

hooman posted:

Australia has a policy of denying anyone from a warzone any kind of Visa to arrive the country. In order to get onto a plane that goes to Australia you need to prove you have a visa. As an island, what is the only way to reach the country if you are legally prevented from getting on a plane and coming here to seek asylum......

hint: It might be a thingy that goes on water.

HookShot posted:

Tori Johnson did try to stop the gunman and got shot dead for his troubles.

But yeah, honestly, I don't think any of them deserve bravery medals. Getting shot by a ricochet bullet from the cops is in no way brave, neither is anything else to do with just being in a hostage situation.

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

Joining up with and helping out the gunman, otoh, is quite brave, since you know he's going to die in a hail of police bullets.

Honestly, bravery is such a misused concept. "Our brave soldiers". What's so brave about walking around with a gun in a hostile environment when your military is leagues ahead of your enemy's, you have air support (while they don't), and you have infinitesimally small chances of dying compared to your opponents? "Cowardly suicide bombers" - is there literally anything less cowardly than giving your life for something you strongly believe in? We are a nation of illiterate retards with no resource for critical thinking. That's why we're fukt, world is fukt, there is no tomorrow.

Tommofork posted:

Man you and/or your partner must make decent bank if you're worried about hitting the income threshold after a period of unemployment.

Also, if you've cancelled your private health cover while between jobs, and you/your partners combined income is over the income threshold for the year, you'd still only be paying the surcharge for the period you're not covered by private health. It's a lot less dire than those join before june 30 ads would have you believe.

Tell you what mate it's loving nice not to be employed by the ato so now I can freely give advice without worrying about getting pinged for it.

Freudian Slip posted:

TBH - unless you are making serious bank, most salary sacrificing packages aren't worth it.

Unless you are working for a charity - some of those packages are pretty sweet. Again it mainly benefit those whose tax bracket is 37-47% though

Tommofork posted:

To be clear, there are two Medicare levies. There's the ordinary medicare levy of up to 2%, which everyone starts to pays once their income is over a threshold (roughly 24K) unless they're in a special exemption category (private health doesn't count, usually people in this category are employed by defence, their family members, or someone who is not covered by Medicare i.e. travellers) and the medicare levy surcharge which you have to pay if you're also above a higher threshold (about 88K), aren't an exemption and don't have private health hospital cover.

The surcharge isn't related to your age, it's based on your income/combined income if you have a spouse vs thresholds for singles and families. It varies from 1% to 1.5% (remember it's different to and on top of the ordinary levy which you'd also have to pay).

I dunno I just like talking tax.
:coolcat: :shootme:

Freudian Slip posted:

I think what you are thinking of is the premium you pay for private health insurance. If you get private health insurance late in life, the premium you pay is mean to go up 2% a year for every year over 30. The idea being it encourages young people to get health insurance early (when they won't use it much) and stop people waiting till they get old and fragile before jumping in.

Gentleman Baller posted:

How the hell is this legal. Holy poo poo.

Kegslayer posted:

I have some questions about TOFA and Transfer Pricing


It's pretty standard at least in some places in finance, accounting or consulting. You're still a full time employee with all the perks (annual leave, Long service leave etc) but your contract only goes for one to two years. The contracts generally get rolled over without a problem but they always have an extra option to screw you over if they don't like you.

dordreff posted:

The job situation wasn't that bad last year; most people I know who graduated in 2012 had full-time work for 2013, just in rural areas (some as close as an hour's drive from hobart) or at true bogan schools