Labour health cap to hit insurers hard

This is crazy stuff, as price control always is. If health insurance funds cannot raise enough money to cover their claims, what are they going to do? Go broke and leave millions uninsured?  There's just got to be an epidemic or two and that could happen

Health costs always run above inflation.  The constant flow of new drugs, new procedures and new devices ensures that.  They all have to be paid for.  So a 2% cap will put a spike in that.

What insurers will do is simply add nothing new to their schedules and quietly remove some of the costlier ones. So there might be a procedure that would restore your health but it will be unavailable to you. It will be available only to the very rich.  Is that an ALP policy?  It is, apparently. 

Leftist health policy is always disastrous.  They should just leave health alone.  They have no idea about how to improve the situation.  They just rely on brute force and that is as dumb as you get


Bill Shorten’s plan to cap health insurance premium increases is set to fuel a $1 billion profit hit to insurers and slow earnings growth for private hospitals.

A wide ranging report by investment bank Morgan Stanley concluded there would be an immediate impact on health insurers if Labor wins the federal election, with the industry needing to address a $1bn earnings hole.

Mr Shorten has promised that should he win the May 18 election that he would cap health insurance premium increases at two per cent for two years, plus order a productivity commission review of the sector.

The 60-page report, led by equity analyst Sean Laaman, said the issue for insurers was that the earnings crunch was coming fast.

SOURCE  






Scott Morrison heaps pressure on Bill Shorten’s emissions plan

Scott Morrison has moved to pile pressure on Bill Shorten over Labor’s 45 per cent emission reduction plan, dismissing the Opposition Leader’s claims that it can’t be costed and declaring that taxpayers ultimately will pay.

Campaigning in Perth this afternoon, the Prime Minister said it was very important Australians knew the cost of a change of government. “You can’t tell other people to do the math,’’ Mr Morrison said. “As I said, the Prime Minister should be able to do the math.’’

Mr Morrison said that as Prime Minister, if Labor was elected, Mr Shorten would have to chair the budget expenditure review committee.

“You can’t contract out the maths, Bill. You’ve got to do it yourself and know the cost of things. But the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know the cost of things because it’s not him who will have to pay for it.

“It’s the Australian people and $387bn worth of higher taxes. I’ve done the math, Bill, and it’s $387bn.’’

SOURCE  






Academic censorship at Griffith university

When a student is deemed to have a better grasp of the truth than a teacher  -- even when the teacher is a distinguished expert in her field.  Her replacement will deprive the students of much real knowledge
                                                                                         
Griffith University has acknow­ledged that a professor, Regina Ganter, has stood down from teaching a foundation course named “first peoples” at its Gold Coast and Brisbane campuses.

This follows many Facebook posts supporting a complaint from a student that Ganter, who is non-indigenous, presented a lecture that was “racist” and “twisted”.

The lecture delivered by Ganter explored the complex history of the establishment of government reserves and church-run missions, which in many cases incarcerated indigenous people against their will.

It is a serious issue for a university professor to be accused of racism, and formal processes to investigate could be expected to follow.

But in this case the accusation has amounted to “trial by Facebook”, and after consultation with Ganter and indigenous advisers, Griffith University has decided in favour of the student’s demand that the course should be taught by indigenous lecturers.

In support of Ganter, the university has denied the accusations of racism.

The case raises wider issues that have emerged in universities during the past 30 years. What is the subject matter concerning indigenous culture that should be taught only by indigenous lecturers, and is it fundamentally different from many existing hum­anities and social science courses that focus on the broader subject of settler-indigenous relations?

Certainly, racism and its horrors must be addressed, and we need to ensure the strong presence of rich and creative indigenous voices in our universities — but not in a way that presents only a particular political message of the kind that appears to have been demanded in the complaint about the Griffith University course.

There is a risk that, in the social sciences and humanities, in the future there may be calls to teach only politically acceptable versions of indigenous history and culture. The view that, in principle, only indigenous people should be involved in teaching and research may well prove to be inappropriate and unproductive.

Where do we draw boundaries around who can teach and study particular topics? Is it only on the matter of race? Is it religion, ethnicity and gender as well?

At the least, if a course solely promotes only one perspective, this needs to be made clear to enrollees and distinguished from a more comprehensive approach to understanding the legacies of col­onialism.

The initial student complaint about the Griffith University course included the assertion that it was “cooked”, implying that the subject matter was fabricated. In the face of such criticism that is now so easy to distribute globally through social media, academics deserve support from all who are committed to independent teaching and research inquiry.

SOURCE  







Indigenous man told to go back to where he came from by Leftist politician

Chaos has erupted in the ultra-marginal government-held electorate of Gilmore after a Liberal candidate with indigenous ties to the area was told to “go back to where he came from” by his Labor opponent, amid accusations he was parachuted into the seat.

Warren Mundine, the Liberal candidate in Gilmore on the NSW South Coast, has accused Labor’s Fiona Phillips of being “extremely insulting” over comments she made in an interview calling him a “phony” and saying “he needs to go back to where he came from”.

“I’m a member of the Yuin Nation, the traditional owners of the land and sea within the Gilmore electorate ... my people have lived on Yuin country for thousands of years.” Mr Mundine said

Acknowledging that he lived outside of the electorate before being announced as the Liberal candidate, Mr Mundine said: “Like many Aboriginal people, my grandparents and parents often had to move away from their country for work and other reasons. I’ve had to do the same. I’ve lived in many places in my life, half of it in regional Australia.

“Fiona did traditional owners great dishonour and disrespect yesterday by ordering one of them to leave their own country.

“Gilmore is home to many people who were not born here or don’t have ancestors here. All are part of this community. “No one deserves to be ordered to ‘go back to where they came from’.” he said.

When approached by The Australian, Ms Phillips stood by her comments. “This has nothing to do with land of the Yuin Nation. Australia is, and always has been First Nations land.”

“Mundine has rolled into town straight from Sydney’s leafy north shore, on his big business funded bus of lies. Deceiving pensioners about fake plans to raise the pension.” Ms Phillips said.

Mr Mundine was once the president of the Australian Labor Party, with Scott Morrison hand picking the prominent indigenous and business leader as the party’s candidate after government Liberal MP Ann Sudmalis announced her retirement in September because of “bullying, intimidation, leaking and undermining” from within her own party.

Ms Phillips made the comments yesterday in response to a story about Mr Mundine’s campaign bus exterior featuring a promise that the Liberal party will increase the Aged Pension if re-elected on May 18 — despite it not being official party policy.

The controversy drew in Scott Morrison, who defended Mr Mundine and the claim as being true because of indexation of the aged pension, which raises the payment twice a year in line with inflation.

Bill Shorten criticised the prime minister for defending the claim, saying rises from indexation would be the same regardless of who was elected. “That’s like giving yourself a medal for getting up in the morning.” Mr Shorten said.

Mr Mundine posted an image of the pledge emblazoned on his campaign bus to his social media, but it has now been deleted.

A bus has since been seen driving around the electorate with the slogan “building our economy” in place of where the pension claim had been.

When asked about the pledge, a Liberal party spokeswoman did not deny that the indexed pension increases advertised by Mr Mundine would be implemented at the same rate under a Labor government.

Policies affecting retirees stand to have a significant impact in Gilmore, with about 35 per cent of the seat’s residents older than 60 — a much higher proportion than the national average of 21 per cent.

Gilmore has been held by the Liberals since 1996, and was retained by Ms Sudmalis 2016 by 0.7 per cent after a 3 per cent swing, making it the Coalition’s most marginal NSW seat.

The coalition have been heavily campaigning against Labor’s proposed policy of ending the refundable franking credits scheme for self funded retirees.

Ms Phillips believes the majority of retirees in Gilmore are on the aged pension, and therefore unaffected by the opposition’s policy.

“Lying to local pensioners is no laughing matter. Mr Mundine should apologise immediately to local pensioners and come clean on the Liberal Party’s position.” Ms Phillips previously said.

SOURCE  






You can count the climate cost and it is terrifying

Labor’s climate change spokesman, Mark Butler, is just wrong when he says it’s impossible to cost Labor’s climate change policies.

Sure, it’s hard and assumptions have to be made, and it’s probably best to present a range of estimates rather than a single point.

However, to bring the Parliamentary Budget Office into the argument is disingenuous. The role of the PBO is to model budgetary implications of particular policies. It doesn’t assess the economy-wide costs of policies.

So what do we know?

Labor is running with a 45 per cent emissions target by 2030 and does not intend to use the Kyoto carry-over. This means Labor’s carbon abatement budget is 1.3 billion tonnes by 2030. This is not disputed by Butler.

The Coalition’s target is much lower — 26 to 28 per cent — and uses the Kyoto carry-over. This means the Coalition’s carbon abatement budget is just over 300 million tonnes. It’s plain that Labor’s ­policy will impose much bigger costs on the economy than the ­Coalition’s. There may be benefits in terms of avoided climate change-induced economic damage, but this works only if every other country in the world meets or exceeds its Paris targets.

Only a handful of countries are on track to meet commitments. And China and India are not required to cut emissions before 2030.

One of the dopier things Bill Shorten said in the early stages of the campaign was that the cost of Labor’s climate change policies, all 1.3 billion tonnes of abatement, were the same as the Coalition’s just over 300 million tonnes because Labor would allow companies to purchase international carbon credits.

But here’s the thing: if every country is seeking to meet its Paris targets — and Labor must assume this is the case — then the price of these international carbon credits will rise and probably steeply.

We have already seen the price soar as the EU rejigs regulations that apply to these credits. They are currently trading above $40.

Former executive director of the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Brian Fisher has undertaken a comprehensive modelling exercise on the costs to the Australian economy of different emission reduction targets.

What his work shows is the ­Coalition’s policies do impose some economic costs but they are manageable. This is hardly surprising given the relatively modest target as well as the use of the Kyoto carry-over. When it comes to Labor’s proposal, the costs blow out. Real wages fall by 8.5 per cent over the period, there are 340,000 fewer jobs and the cumulative loss of GDP is close to $1.2 trillion.

The key is what is called the marginal abatement cost curve, which plots costs associated with emissions reduction targets. Initially there are some low-hanging fruit and the costs are not too high but there comes a point when costs start to escalate. The point of inflexion is around the 30 per cent emissions cut mark.

Labor might want to dispute Fisher’s figures but to do so credibly it has to offer alternative estimates and not prattle on about the use of international carbon credits. Voters deserve to know what they are in for.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here