Federal Budget tonight....

[briggsy's girl]

With FTB do they automatically both cut off once youngest is 6???

Fom what I've read, just part b

[~clover~]

I used to live on the Mid North Coast of NSW. They now have a few specific bulk billing doctors, opened in recent years, but before that You had to ask if the doctor would bulk bill you during the consultation. They could say yes or no. I had no happen a few times :/

Since moving back to more country area's though, as long as I have my pension card I've not ever been asked to pay.



RE the budget. I'd best find a place to pitch my tent before DD3 turns 6. Losing around $150 in FTB when she's 6. Loosing my carers to get a full time job, so around $100 down again. Then cut back to newstart when she's 8. Another approx. $250. I live in government housing & even if I manage to get a full time job in that time, I'll still be looking at tent city :/

[Trillian]

On bulk billing again - I've been astounded at the amount of people I've seen saying similar to ausgirl, that they have to pay when they see a doctor anyway. Every doctor I've been to in my entire life, aside from some private specialists, has bulk billed. Maybe it's a location thing? I've only lived in the suburbs... To me, paying anything is strange.

Swaying back to the topic - perhaps for non-bulk-billed places, the $7 is on top of the usual fee?

It is common out where I live (regional/rural NSW) that only patients under 16 are bulk billed. Most Dr's make you pay. I think it's only those with concession cards that get bulk billed. And again, long term patients may get bulk billed, but the majority don't.

We're largely unaffected by many of the changes. We earn too much to get any FTB at all and we've only ever viewed the school kids bonus as just that - a bonus. We also don't have kids in care either. I'm not sure how other things will affect us. We rarely use Dr's either. The only thing that will really bite is the fuel excise. I haven't had much of a chance to actually see exactly how we will be affected though.

[toomanyshoes]

The GP rebate that you can claim from Medicare has been slashed by $5 and they will also slap the $7 co payment onto existing rates so pretty much those who already pay to see a dr are now $12 worse off.

[Astrid]

Fuel is the main thing for us. We don't have access to PT due to our location. We already need to spend over $120pw as it is, so any jump is going hurt and there is little we can do to drop usage.

Occasionally we were bulk billed, repeat visits, if two of us went in, then only one paid etc. We can bear it, but I just think back to when we would not have been able to. Upping scripts will hurt, DH has some pretty $$$ meds.

I am just so feeling for others who will be heavily impacted. This was a budget without a soul.

[megs]

I live in Country Victoria and have always paid for drs. The hospital is also private so if you attend emergency you will get billed also (except if you are admitted to hospital) 2 years ago the clinic finally started bulk billing children under 16.

My other concern with the budget is the requirements placed on the youth to be in study if they don't have a job, whilst imthinkmitnis has merit for the learning country kids will struggle, already many Tafes have been closed, so where are they to do this said courses. They won't be able to afford to move as they won't have any money. One thing to say they have to study, another is to make sure study is available

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

Around here (SOTR Perth) the only clinics that bulk bill everyone are new clinics - they do it for 2-3 years to build up a patient base and then switch over to full payments. Concession and kids are always bulk billed. And they've tightened right up on appointment use - if you have more than one problem, you need to book and pay for a double appointment, even if they're two small problems. Having to pay $70 has definitely stopped me from going to the doctor on a number of occasions. I don't go to the ER instead, but generally the times I go to the ER, it could've been fixed a week ago by a visit to the GP that I couldn't afford.

The budget's not really going to affect Professor and I, not past the general changes. Although I don't understand the medication cost change, I already pay $60 a month for my meds, I'm hoping it's not going up but it probably is. That doesn't worry the government though, because I'm not eligible for any kind of welfare anyway if I'm not working, so they don't care if I live in the corner of my bedroom like a mushroom

[nothing2lose]

Nothing in the budget impacts us at all except we have to live in a country that's meaner and treats its most vulnerable with disdain.

[luna moth]

Interesting to note that a few vocal liberal-supporting contributors to past electoral threads are very quiet?

The $7 won't just be $7. Many clinics, if they have to handle money anyway, will just flick to fee paying.

Dropping Newstart for under30s is just stupid. I envisage crime rates rising, especially where I live, where youth and drug/alcohol services have been slashed by the states.

I'm okay with the fuel excise, but I'm not sure why it is different/better than a carbon tax? And of course I'm angry that mining is exempt.

[Cass72]

On bulk billing again - I've been astounded at the amount of people I've seen saying similar to ausgirl, that they have to pay when they see a doctor anyway. Every doctor I've been to in my entire life, aside from some private specialists, has bulk billed. Maybe it's a location thing? I've only lived in the suburbs... To me, paying anything is strange.

Swaying back to the topic - perhaps for non-bulk-billed places, the $7 is on top of the usual fee?

I pay $75 for the pleasure of seeing my local gp - as do my kids. No bulk-billing - not even for the kids. From my 4yo last appointment I paid $75 and got back $36.30 from Medicare. I'm assuming that now I'll only get $29.30.

Here's hoping that the gp doesn't put up his fees!

[wysiwyg]

My employer allows us five days of "undocumented" personal or carers leave all year. After that it is deemed unauthorised leave and becomes leave without pay. And can impact job security. I have no choice but to go to the doctor if myself or dd are sick as I need medical/carers certificates. I hate wasting everyone's time when I have flu or gastro, for which I know there is no treatment but rest and fluids (not to mention the risk of infecting others!) but I have no choice! It's not a case of two or more consecutive days require certificates. It's pretty much every absence. Five absences without evidence sounds like a bit of leeway, but when i have a small child and they are ill with gastro, and i KNOW I sit very near someone who is quite immunocompromised, I adhere to doctors quarantine suggestions, so it takes very little for is to have a need to see a doctor for a certificate.

I am reluctant to believe that pharmacists issuing evidence certificates won't be abided. I know doctors certificates are already abused, but I think pharmacists will be further abused....

No comment on the rest of the budget stuff given I have a migraine and haven't read. Just wanted to comments in the certificate situation

There will be people who abuse certificates, but I think the percentage is quite small and you have to wonder, whether the costs involved in making people visit the doctors are worth it just to stop the small number of people who may abuse certificates.

In UK only required a certificate for more than 5 days consecutive absence. I always thought it worked quite well. People did give them for less but only if were visiting the doctor anyway.

[toomanyshoes]

I pay $75 for the pleasure of seeing my local gp - as do my kids. No bulk-billing - not even for the kids. From my 4yo last appointment I paid $75 and got back $36.30 from Medicare. I'm assuming that now I'll only get $29.30.

Here's hoping that the gp doesn't put up his fees!

Your rebate will drop by $5 and the co payment of $7 will be charged on top of what you already pay, as I said above "those who already pay to see a dr are now $12 worse off"

[briggsy's girl]

There will be people who abuse certificates, but I think the percentage is quite small and you have to wonder, whether the costs involved in making people visit the doctors are worth it just to stop the small number of people who may abuse certificates.

In UK only required a certificate for more than 5 days consecutive absence. I always thought it worked quite well. People did give them for less but only if were visiting the doctor anyway.

I think your perception will be colored by where you live and what you've been exposed to. I have lived in an area of high unemployment, high welfare dependence and high alcohol and drug use, and have had conversations with more than one gp about the large number of people refused medical certificates because they turn up asking because they are hung over etc. I wonder how the pharmacists are going to weed out the truth from the abusers? I know I the local chemist warehouse offer the service already. No idea how it works though

I went to medico for treatment today, and was told med certificates are slated to change soon anyway. None will be offered unless you have been sick a week - and then you will likely need two visits - one when first ill, one after a week to prove you are still ill. Any other illness, even if you attend the doctor, won't receive a certificate. You'll have to self declare or something. Will be interesting to see how that is accepted by employers!

[Miss.September]

Interesting to note that a few vocal liberal-supporting contributors to past electoral threads are very quiet .

I've voted differently over the past two elections. Voted for both labour and liberal. I've felt attacked both ways. I know that's my issue but when I voted labour, I felt screwed and when I voted liberal, I felt the same. Quite frankly, they all suck. I'm yet to find anything about this government that I'm comfortable with and there was nothing about the predecessor that made me feel like they were in control. A bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. I mostly just shut up about it all now because I feel that there is pretty much squat either party can do to help this country, they are both determined to stuff us one way or another. I don 't want to vote at all because if I vote for a smaller party, they decide who to give my preference to and the big parties are full of fools.

I hate that this budget is so rough on so many people for the purpose of giving Australia a savings account. They are taking away the opportunity from many families to save by making things harder, and then slapping them further down the track by saying that there is no help along the line. What's the point of additional funding for paid parental leave when jobs are being cut all over the place? People won't be paid for the leave because they won't have a job! How are people supposed to work until 70 when jobs are minimal? Employers are financially encouraged to employ over 50's but how can you when the work isn't there because the population has to tighten their belt buckles and can't afford to hit the shops, hire a trade or invest. So how do jobs get created for these people, and for that matter, anyone else? I don't understand the priorities.

[Trillian]

I've voted differently over the past two elections. Voted for both labour and liberal. I've felt attacked both ways. I know that my issue but when I voted labour, I felt screwed and when I voted liberal, I felt the same. Quite frankly, they all suck. I'm yet to find anything about this government that I'm comfortable with and there was nothing about the predecessor that made me feel like they were in control. A bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. I mostly just shut up about it all now because I feel that there is pretty much squat either party can do to help this country, they are both determined to stuff us one way or another. I don 't want to vote at all because if I vote for a smaller party, they decide who to give my preference to and the big parties are full of fools.

This. What's being a Lib or Labor voter got to do with anything Luna Moth? Do you think that a Labor Govt would have given us a better budget? Or just one with more 'free money'? Seems everyone's happy if we get some money but as soon as we don't we cry foul. Either way this country is ****ed and going to hell in a handbasket quicker than you can say 'slashing welfare'. This is the 'chickens are coming home to roost' budget and we're having to pay for the indulgences of a previous Govt. It wouldn't matter a fat rat's arse who was in Govt, at some point we were going to have a budget that came down hard on middle class welfare and all the other areas they can cut spending because at some point our country's debt does have to be repaid. We can't keep trotting out the 'but we're in a better position than all the other countries' because it's still debt and debt has to be paid and one day that debt could come back to bite us on the arse. I don't agree with many of the changes at all and I cannot possibly see what good can come of it except making it even harder for those who are already struggling. I think anyone who voted for the Liberal party at the last election did so in good faith, just like ALP voters did and that all went to **** too. Anyone who thinks that one party could do better than the other is naive because Govts are only there to suit themselves, not us.

[onthefly]

I think a Labor government might have come up with something broadly similar, excepting the money would have been moved around in different directions. AND, I think they would have stretched out the timescale to getting back to surplus - which was what many economists have recommended. Austerity will slow the economy, we must go gently gently, not cut hard and fast. People are worried, and worried people stop spending money and stop hiring.

I'm really concerned about the ideological bent here, and feel the emergency language with regards to the budget was about creating an environment in which Abbott's government could go to work: cutting funding to public broadcasters, basically assuming anyone unemployed and under 30 is a bludger, dismantling universal health care, deregulating university fees in conjuncture with cuts to funding, undermining the alternate energy sector, cutting public bodies to save a measly 500m (I don't believe it will be worth the disruption, or job losses - let's hope they're all over 30!)... and the list goes on and on.

[wysiwyg]

I really like the idea below of having something we can assess the budget against - below is a quote from an article called "Defining what is meant by fair in Hockey's budget" - if you want the whole article

Where did all these piecemeal budget policies come from? What was the guiding principle in terms of fairness? I suggest there wasn’t one. It was driven by motives like “it’s time for all of us to contribute”, as Hockey said in his budget speech.

The actual budget numbers were apparently pulled out of the air since no analytical justification was provided – why $180,000 as the income threshold for the 2% tax? Why a $7 co-payment? Why indexation of parental leave at $100,000? And so on. We have no idea whether these changes, in total, will make household income and wealth more unequal, or less?

Government budgets are a hotchpotch of ad hoc tweaks here and there with no rhyme or reason. We need to fix this. First, governments should set a target for the distribution of household income and wealth using a standard measure such as the Gini coefficient. It is a number between zero and one. The higher the number the more unequal is the distribution – and it can be applied to both income and wealth, at the household or individual level, before and after tax, and so on.

According to the ABS, Australia’s GINI coefficient for household after-tax income is 0.32 which is roughly the OECD average, significantly below the United States but significantly above the Scandinavian countries.

Once we’ve set the fairness target, we need an independent organisation like the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) to do a pre-budget assessment for the government, against our fairness target, of proposed budgetary changes.

Then at least we will be able to make an overall assessment of the fairness of the budget, in the same way as we assess the budget against a range of fiscal targets such as the budget deficit, growth of government spending and government debt.

[Floweryfields]

On bulk billing again - I've been astounded at the amount of people I've seen saying similar to ausgirl, that they have to pay when they see a doctor anyway. Every doctor I've been to in my entire life, aside from some private specialists, has bulk billed. Maybe it's a location thing? I've only lived in the suburbs... To me, paying anything is strange.

Swaying back to the topic - perhaps for non-bulk-billed places, the $7 is on top of the usual fee?

When you live rurally you have to pay if you want to be seen. For me that means I will sometimes not go unless it's really necessary - try to save everything up for one appointment! But then they charge a long consult for that! There was a brief period of time when they did bulk bill, but people abused it so he went back to charging. Occasionally depending on his mood, you might get a bulk bill - if it's a follow up consult they usually do.
I can't imagine never having to pay for health care!