|
Gorbash posted:I don't have it, but in a similar vein back in the Abbott/Hockey years there was of course the Medicare co-payment, and I remember that the numbers around the average number of visits per year were based on some very dodgy assumptions. I think maybe Freudian Slip had done them? Does anyone remember that story, and maybe have a link to the post? I didn't do the dodgy numbers. That was the head of the commission of audit, Tony Shepherd. He said that Australians visit the GP 11 times on average, when the real and easily found published number was 5.5 times per year. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-13/tony-shepherd-incorrect-doctor-visits/5436706 The thing is, they didn't stop repeating that line. I remember Hockey being on Q&A weeks later, still spouting the 11 times bullshit. If people are curious about where we are at on the whole co-payment thing, I have written a paper on the effect of the current freeze on Medicare rebates. Long story short, they have stopped increasing how much GPs get from Medicare. Over time this is a paycut, especially as costs associated with providing care increase. This will force some GPs to introduce a co-payment to make up cost. Its a co-payment by stealth. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/202/6/cost-freezing-general-practice Fun fact though: The two places you could find the real 5.5 visit rate published were the BEACH project (my project) and the NHPA. Both these research groups have had their federal funding pulled. It would be nice to think it was retribution, but the sad part is that its just part of the full defunding of general practice research by the Government. BEACH, FMRC, APHCRI, PHCRIS and 5 other general practice centres of research excellence are closing their doors due to funding cuts.
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:17 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Has anyone got masseffect.txt? i have a few but not the one you're looking for
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
meteor9 posted:People are literally killing themselves rather than go back to whatever they escaped from, and you keep trotting this out like they're just on loving vacation or something. They didn't step across the border from some wartorn shithole and into Australia. They crossed through a heap of other countries first. If we're such bastards why not pick somewhere closer.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Pru Goward's sister Pen was a lecturer of mine who was awesome. One time she walked in, talked for five minutes, then said gently caress it see you next week. She also helped me get my honours thesis back under control. That's the only thing Pru has going for her IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:They didn't step across the border from some wartorn shithole and into Australia. They crossed through a heap of other countries first. If we're such bastards why not pick somewhere closer. This has been answered time and again. I even explicitly answered it at the end of the last thread - these other countries are not signatories to the UN Migration act and therefore lack any rights. Between there and Australia, we're the first stop.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
and as I keep saying, we're being taken for fools and should just back out of the Refugee convention. This isn't WW2. edit: As a hypothetical, suppose we did just this. Realistically are asylum seekers lives any worse off? According to this thread we're already torturing people until they kill themselves, and I doubt even Australia will create Holocaust 2.0, so I doubt it. Without the convention in place we have much more freedom to come up with a cheaper, arguably more humane solution on the mainland. We are also free to take the worst of the troublemakers (rapists who use the "cultural differences" defense, murderers etc) and just put them on a cannon and shoot them into the sea without worrying about refoulement bs. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 13:24 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:and as I keep saying, we're being taken for fools and should just back out of the Refugee convention. This isn't WW2. So these other countries should be made to take them while not being party to the convention, and we should pull out of the convention...so that we don't have to take them?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I like that Bill Shorten had someone ghostwrite a book for him and talk about his dad in an attempt to make him seem like a human person and not a soulless party hack who ruthlessly reduces everything to numbers until they are on his side
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Was it you, did you ghostwrite the Bill Shorten
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:So these other countries should be made to take them while not being party to the convention, and we should pull out of the convention...so that we don't have to take them? Other countries should not be able to put their fingers in their ears and go "you signed that bit of paper, you take em, we're just gonna let them travel through our borders and there's nothing you can do nyah nyah nyah"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:and as I keep saying, then why the gently caress are you asking questions you already know the answer to oh, it's so you can trot out this piece of poo poo "common sense" wisdom that has been addressed, repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Other countries should not be able to put their fingers in their ears and go "you signed that bit of paper, you take em, we're just gonna let them travel through our borders and there's nothing you can do nyah nyah nyah" Why? We signed the bit of paper because we thought that refugees should be protected.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Why? We signed the bit of paper because we thought that refugees should be protected. Circumstances change. I'd like to see it an election issue. UN conventions I'd like Australia to scrap: Refugee Convention Nuclear Non-Proliferation Ottawa Treaty Rights of the Child Anything involving Agenda 21 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
I asked you once how you were raised so I could ensure my children were raised in the complete opposite way. I am now asking for that information with urgency.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Agenda 21? What else are you worried about, HAARP? Chemtrails?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Anything involving Agenda 21 Over-reached. e:I can't imagine why someone would pretend to be dumb in the hopes that someone else thinks they're stupid when they're only pretending, but I'll console myself with the hope that's what's happened and you're not actually this hosed in the head. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Circumstances change. I'd like to see it an election issue. I think I know what's really upsetting LibertyCat. Edit:  double efb
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:46
|
|
Anything involving Agenda 21
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Circumstances change. I'd like to see it an election issue. what the serious gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:, but I'll console myself with the hope that's what's happened and you're not actually this hosed in the head. This is auspol. Your hope is sorely misplaced.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:what the serious gently caress is wrong with you I have a feeling he just google searched "un conventions" and wrote them down.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:what the serious gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
quote:Captain Cook's Endeavour 'found' at bottom of US harbour http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11632387
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:We have a lot of land with a small population and a tiny army. Force multipliers like landmines might be needed one day. It's not like we're gonna leave them everywhere like Angola etc. You're not a good person.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
My brother said when he was in Bosnia you could tell which abandoned houses you'd be safe from landmines to squat in, because there would be graffiti on the inside. What are some suggestions for how we could tell which abandoned houses in Australia would be free from landmines? I think a really nice glass bong that's been dropped and smashed. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 14:02 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:We have a lot of land with a small population and a tiny army. Force multipliers like landmines might be needed one day. It's not like we're gonna leave them everywhere like Angola etc. You know that would basically make them useless right?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
These are magic landmines that don't need to be laid in the ground, obviously.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:These are magic landmines that don't need to be laid in the ground, obviously. We need to develop drones that can travel underground and track their targets via heartbeat, but rather than explode and make them single use (as they would be pretty expensive), put buzz saws on them. If we didn't gut the CSIRO we could have these in a few years I reckon. Would probably bypass the Ottawa Treaty too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
I doubt we'd ever need them but why limit ourselves for no good reason? Australians are probably just a little more disciplined than troops involved in a decades-long civil war. With suitable R&D you could have minefields that could be remotely turned on and off via an encrypted radio link, minimizing the chance of civilian causalities after the conflict is over, but instantly denying enemy use of chokepoints. Minefields are also good because they are defensive-only. Suppose we mined the poo poo out of parts of Australia. It would increase our defense capability without presenting any threat to other countries. If we used the same money to buy fancy new long-range bombers nearby countries would get nervous and upgrade their own bombing fleet. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 14:09 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:We have a lot of land with a small population and a tiny army. Force multipliers like landmines might be needed one day. It's not like we're gonna leave them everywhere like Angola etc. What is your opinion on the Chemical Weapons Convention?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
australia needs landmines to protect critical areas like
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:australia needs landmines to protect critical areas like Queanbeyan
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Do landmines stop boats though? Crucial question
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Queanbeyan I thought that was to stop people from getting out
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:australia needs landmines to protect critical areas like Beaches. From sharks.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:We have a lot of land with a small population and a tiny army. Force multipliers like landmines might be needed one day. It's not like we're gonna leave them everywhere like Angola etc. You realize that, if we did get invaded (un-loving-likely), they would be arriving on the coastlines, right? What with there being literally no other way to hit us? Given that, I'm sure you also realize that almost every single one of our cities is a coastal city? Because there's poo poo loving all to found a city on in landlocked regions? Landmines are one of the least valuable defenses we could ever have, because these hypothetical invaders aren't going to want to take land routes anyway because we're loving huge and have massive stretches of nothing. Which, as luck would have it, would also make landmines loving useless as a defense because of a lack of strategically advantageous places to put them. What, are you going to litter a country road between Melbourne and Sydney with them, when there's honking great stretches of flat land to go around them? Landmines would be useless at doing anything but maiming innocents in locations so remote that they're very unlikely to get any medical attention.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Anything involving Agenda 21 dude, nice LibertyCat posted:With suitable R&D you could have minefields that could be remotely turned on and off via an encrypted radio link, minimizing the chance of civilian causalities after the conflict is over, but instantly denying enemy use of chokepoints. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Tokamak posted:What is your opinion on the Chemical Weapons Convention? If we're at the point where we'd seriously use chemicals weapons, we're already screwed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:16
|
|