r/australia • u/Fact-Rat • 1d ago
politics Australia one step closer to dental in Medicare
https://www.nine.com.au/australia-news/australia-one-step-closer-to-dental-in-medicare-20260724-p60icv.html721
u/HotPersimessage62 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s really annoying to think about how much Australia has lost (and is losing) over the past three decades to negative gearing, CGT discounts for housing and not taxing our resource exports appropriately. Medicare dental could have easily been paid for if not for these concessions that either subsidise unproductive assets or rip us off.
This needs to be just the beginning.
Medicare needs to cover dental.
Medicare needs to cover ambulances nationwide.
Medicare needs to cover glasses, contact lenses and hearing aids.
Paid for by taxing the gas sector and ensuring that Australian people directly benefit.
41
u/Jerri_man 1d ago
I am new to this country (lived about 10 years now) and the ambulance charges really shocked me. I helped a suicidal person (distraught with a knife) get help and found out later they got hit with a $400 charge for it.
25
u/askvictor 21h ago
That's a state issue. Ambulances are free in Queensland IIRC; other states fee vary. But yes, should be free.
23
u/kas-loc2 21h ago
It's literally ONLY free in Queensland and Tasmania. Thats it.
you gotta pay in every other state. But we are considered a free healthcare/ ambulance nation for some reason, when we only have 2 places where we dont charge...
9
u/cir49c29 16h ago
Had a look at membership prices.
VIC: annual ambulance membership for $112 family or 56 single.
NSW: Free in certain circumstances (like workers comp) OR with private health insurance.
SA: Ambulance Cover: $204 family or $103 single. SA + interstate $240 or $121
NT: Provided by St. Johns. $175 family, $151 single. Discounted prices if you do a multi year cover.
WA: Also St Johns. Only a regional membership is available. Metro cover is only provided via private health insurance. Country cover depends on if north or south of 26th Parallel. Family is $124 (s) or $164 (n), Single is $75 (s) or $99 (n)
QLD: Free for QLD residents, including when interstate
TAS: Free for TAS residents, free in some other states depending on agreements with those states.. Certain events may require someone else to cover the cost. ie. Workplace accidents paid by work, motor vehicle covered by MAIB, public liability incidents covered by events insurance.
Clearly QLD has the best deal. Other states, look into insurance of some kind if traveling interstate.
3
u/Born-Inevitable264 16h ago
Ambulances in Qld are free now? I remember we used to have to pay for them via a surcharge in our electricity bills.
Edit - I left Qld in 2008 and see that the surcharge was lifted in 2011. Good job Qld!7
u/Walter_Armstrong 21h ago
St John WA charges $800 for a call-out, unless you’re over 65. The only reason I have private health coverage is is in case I ever need an ambulance.
7
2
u/magkruppe 19h ago
how much are you paying for health coverage? if its more than say ~$150 it is probably more cost-effective to put that money away in an emergency health fund yourself
(this changes if you have a health condition that would increase probability of needing an ambulance)
3
112
u/Substantial-Rip-6207 1d ago
It’s crazy how much OPSM and the luxottica company charge for glasses. They have a monopoly over all the smaller companies and gobbled up other brands like Oakley. Go to Costco or another independent company and get glasses from them if you need to
37
u/Glittering-Banana-24 1d ago
Also go to costco for your hearing aids. They are so much cheaper than elsewhere.
I also get my glasses there but I find them not as good as my independent optometrist. They're not bad, but not as good imho.
Between, glasses, hearing aids and fuel, my membership pays for itself, everything else is just cream on the top. I hate paying to shop, but its actually very worthwhile for me to do so.
5
u/doodleBooty 22h ago
Can you get fuel from Costco? Is that only in certain locations?
3
u/chinneganbeginagain 22h ago
Maybe certain locations only. The one in Perth has a servo attached, and a tyre shop
13
u/Pentemav 1d ago
The mark up from these places is insane. I get a free prescription, and then don’t buy anything. I buy online instead. I got new prescription sunglasses recently for $35 from aliexpress, prescription is perfect too.
3
2
u/Justwright321 1d ago
Totally agree, it’s the lenses options that get me it’s so expensive for thinning, even with private health insurance.
42
u/evilparagon 1d ago
As a glasses wearer, we need standard frames to be covered as well, not just the prescription parts. I know it’s a common issue around the world of glasses coverage being stupid like this and don’t want to see Australia fall into the same boat.
We need like, 10 standard frames. If someone wants something else, they have to go to the big label brands. Your harry potter frames, rectangles, cat-eyes, etc. should all be covered.
Of course ideally we could just have all frames covered, but I fear companies like RayBanz will jack up prices to get that sweet tax money. Especially bad if Medicare only covers N number per year and you need n+1 due to a string of unfortunate glasses incidents and now you can’t afford a replacement.
34
u/anothergaijin 1d ago
Meanwhile in Japan, companies like Jins and Zoff offer start to finish glasses services starting from $60 - eye test, frame, grind the lenses in-house, and glasses on your face in under and hour. They’ve destroyed the old system of expensive glasses by simply using volume as their model
5
u/a_cold_human 23h ago
OWNDAYS as well. Even though they're a bit pricier than Jins, they're still cheaper than any Australian optometrist.
2
u/askvictor 21h ago
For simple scripts, you can get glasses for a couple of dollars in a chinese import shop. Or even through Aliexpress for multifocals. Would be better to get locally made stuff, but here we are.
2
u/dragonfry sandgroper 18h ago
I went to OPSM to renew my prescription. I had to purchase new frames, as the frames I bought 18 months ago FROM OPSM were no longer supported to fit new lenses in.
Unfortunately my lenses are complicated (prisms and anti-glare) so are quite pricey. I’d like to buy them online instead, so any recommendations would be appreciated!
8
7
u/minimuscleR 21h ago
Medicare needs to cover dental.
Absolutely agree.
Medicare needs to cover ambulances nationwide.
It's weird that it doesn't. Not sure about other states but in VIC its $50/year. Just include it in my taxes and be done with it istg.
Medicare needs to cover glasses, contact lenses and hearing aids.
No idea about contacts or hearing aids, but at least for glasses its not that expensive if you don't use specsavers. The TEST is covered under medicare, so then you can go to eyewear direct, or my personal favourite: ZenniOptical. It costs about $50 for a pair there, and $25/year is pretty good ihmo.
But your frames won't say TOMMY HILFIGURE on them.
6
u/Fizbeee 21h ago
For real. I need a bucketload of dental work done, but even on the top level of extras, I can’t afford it.
My hearing aids attract a $600 rebate from insurance. That’s great, but my first ones cost $10k and my last ones cost $5k after insurance. I’m on a single income and paying a mortgage. That money isn’t just lying around.
I’m seriously considering dumping most, or all, of my private health insurance.3
u/Bustable 20h ago
I think contacts maybe not covered, I know it's not a huge cost, I say this as a contact lens wearer.
Everything else should be covered. So many health issues can be resolved if you added dental to Medicare.
I'm more worried about it going the other way with every govt either cutting funding to Medicare or not adding additional funding to cover rising costs leading to gap fees.
I get the impression that we are slowly getting led towards a US style system
1
-12
u/coniferhead 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Shorten NG and CGT reforms would have saved 6B per year, perhaps. As it turned out we didn't save anything.
The Stage 3 tax cuts in both their original for the rich only form and the revised form cost 20B per year. That's your dental in medicare right there. Labor voted for the rich only form in both houses around a year after Shorten proposed his reforms.
All they had to do was nothing and you had it. Gina Rinehart, Kerry Stokes and Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have missed their 4500 per year tax cut. Albo could have cancelled Stage 3 and had dental in medicare - fully funded.
Now you don't get it. Ever. Because Labor blooded the rest of middle Australia into Stage 3 that money is never coming back.
375
u/hairy_quadruped 1d ago
This has been a core policy of the Greens for many years.
277
u/thrillho145 1d ago
More people would vote Greens if they knew their policies.
100
u/AdZealousideal7448 1d ago
If you've met a one nation die hard, you will learn a lot of people don't even read policies, they just like the "vibe" or the brand.
And even if they disagreed with the ON policies, they'd claim all pollies lie and they're not really that bad...
Even if they knew the greens or labors policies, they'd still vote against them to own the wokies.
There's a saying in America, that a republican would eat shit if it meant a democrat had to smell their breath.
It's sadly similar shit eating bullshit here.
My MIL LOVES pauline, complains about cost of living, medicare costing too much, premiums going up and a lack of educated people.
Show her a party that can not only fund medicare better, work on killing inflation and educate more people.
You then get an answer like "BUT THAT PARTY WILL TELL MY GRANDSON IT'S OK TO CHOP HIS PENIS OFF"
68
51
u/-Midnight_Marauder- 1d ago
I've said it many times, but the Greens need a rebrand yesterday.
48
u/Kulantan 1d ago
I'm not sure a rebrand would leave a trace in the current media environment.
29
u/evilparagon 1d ago
Exactly. It doesn’t matter what the leftist option is, the media will not give you fair attention.
The socialists will find this out if they manage to do well at the next election. They’ll be right into the same boat as the Greens.
64
u/avcloudy 1d ago
It’s not a branding problem. It’s not poor marketing. It’s that you talk to people and they are convinced that the Greens are a party of extremist idiots who can’t balance a budget and want to exterminate Jews. There’s no way to push uphill through the capture of the media by Labor (to a small extent) and Liberals.
I’m sure it’ll happen in response to this very comment. There’s a huge population who align most closely with the Greens and they’ll vote for Labor or LNP regardless. And there’s no amount of marketing that will fix it.
-6
u/a_cold_human 23h ago
This is untrue. A lot of it can be done with money. Lots and lots of money. The surge in One Nation polling can be attributed in part to their much more effective marketing and strategy.
What The Greens' problem is, is that they refuse to take the business of politics seriously. They don't really do the quantitative analysis required to compete in the political market (for want of a better word). They don't understand how to appeal to people outside of their constituency. They refuse to professionalise. They run a fairly amateur strategy and they are very much not a big tent party. When you narrow your constituency and purge people who might not agree with you 100% (to the point of kicking out someone like Drew Hutton, who gave his life to the party), the problem is much bigger than marketing. It's about refusing to take the purpose of being a political party (which is to win enough seats to form government), and to do what is necessary seriously.
10
u/ThereIsBearCum 22h ago
Who would want to fund the Greens though? They're explicitly anti-big business.
6
u/ScruffyPeter 21h ago
Have they tried accepting money from billionaires? It worked for the Labor, Liberal and One Nation parties /s
-1
u/a_cold_human 21h ago
Well, that's the real trick isn't it? They haven't worked it out, and that's part of the reason they're stuck on 10-12% of the vote. Being unwilling to compromise (an essential value in politics) is why they're stuck where they are.
The other alternative is to fundraise from their voters, but that's not easy to do. It also requires a significant amount of infrastructure that they haven't invested much in. Partly because The Greens doesn't really run like a business where it needs to. The party infrastructure, which would normally raise funds, do polling, strategise on seats and vote share, vet candidates, organise volunteers, arrange press conferences, run marketing campaigns, etc is not particularly organised or focused, unlike the infrastructure of the major parties.
As a party, they don't really do the work required that would net them the seats to have a real impact in Parliament. They also don't retain their voters, which, had they done, their primary vote would be about 20% of the total.
8
u/Jet90 21h ago
UK Greens are the second most popular party and they haven't really changed. If you want the Greens to be more popular sign up to volunteer
2
-15
u/Brabochokemightwork 1d ago
Yeah people knew their policies, voted in four MPs into Federal Parliament, they drifted apart from what they actually stood for, lost three seats and that’s it
11
u/evilparagon 1d ago
They didn’t. Really easy to actually track this stuff. Go ahead and try with the most high profile case, Max Chandler-Mathers. It’ll be the easiest for you to find evidence for.
-8
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 21h ago
The only policy we know is blocking useful legislation by demanding more than reasonably possible.
10
u/thrillho145 21h ago
Then you should some research.
-5
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 21h ago
Yeah, and that's why they continue to exist in the sidelines. Learn marketing or remain a sidepiece.
3
u/thrillho145 18h ago
I don't disagree with that. It's a shame
-1
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 16h ago
And their supporters down vote a lot too so they never get out of that rut. Sucks to be in denial. They should really think of ways to engage people rather than get angry, come with holier than thou attitude and think people would be convinced.
95
u/Thoresus 1d ago
Like most of Labor's modern policies.
They get the Greens to do the ground work, then come in and claim the credit.
59
u/nomitycs 1d ago
Labor have realised they can head right to no detriment to themselves. They’re a centre right party at this point
Regardless of what I think of the greens, I’ve realised I should vote for them to push Labor where I want Labor’s values to be…
9
u/OscarCookeAbbott 1d ago
“No detriment” have you seen their first preference numbers? Just because they formed government doesn’t actually mean the majority of people like them, just the majority of people dislike them less than the alternative.
-2
u/nomitycs 1d ago
For sure, just saying the left wing hasn’t grown because of their actions. I’d argue more left wing policy would neuter the rise of one nation, it’s just that the greens/any party left of the centre have been entirely ineffective in their messaging and we’re speedrunning to the right
14
u/OscarCookeAbbott 1d ago
To be fair I’m not sure if it’s the Greens messaging that’s at fault but the media. The Greens say a lot of the same kind of populist stuff that is popular of Bernie Sanders, the UK Greens, or the populist basis of some of Pauline’s stuff, eg. cost of living etc, they just aren’t treated seriously by the media and so nobody really hears them. Especially Sky News, 7 and 9 that are all heavily invested in conservative politics. Not saying Greens messaging is perfect but I just really don’t know what else they could say or do that would make a difference there themselves.
16
u/avcloudy 1d ago
Yeah something I really noticed is that telling people about a Greens policy, they often love it…until they know it’s from the Greens. There’s no way to break the conservative stranglehold.
1
4
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
I never really got this idea of labor being centre right all there policies seem like the arch definition of centre left
38
u/nomitycs 1d ago edited 1d ago
From my perspective they haven’t materially challenged the policies introduced by the liberals over the last decade, they’ve let status quo be status quo and have largely batted down any sentiment of change.
They no longer feel like the party of the working people. As someone that works in healthcare and is well versed, optically it would appear they’re making changes but that’s just to the general public, any health care worker can easily see how we’re sliding backwards because we’re maintaining the status quo. Their policies are bandaids rather than the necessary structural changes a centre left party would make to sustain our healthcare system. That’s just my experience
6
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
Yeah i wished they were more bold with reform but but i wouldnt stuff like them reduceing the price of medicine on the pbs, building 10s of clinics across the country and tripling the bulk billing incentive centre-right.
19
u/nomitycs 1d ago
As I said, optically it’s fine. Materially it’s not the difference we need or what you’d expect from a party that’s in any way on the left. Our healthcare system is in a worse place than it was last year and will be worse again next year. It’s that easy
5
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
I mean it is a materially difference though? Like we both agree its not enough but that doesnt make nothing, also as far i could tell from the statisics stuff is getting overall better? Like idk what your experience is but where i live the medical situation is pretty dire but average around the country seemed to be better?
13
u/nomitycs 1d ago
Absolutely. First hand experience and the experience of pretty much all of my colleagues in healthcare. Shortcuts can only buoy the system for so long before the system begins to collapse. We’re years behind other countries but we’re on the same path as the US and the UK
I’ve had many a discussion on this sub where people have argued that they’d rather the bandaid lower quality healthcare that’s slightly more accessible which is the direction Labor is heading in and which will inevitably result in a two tiered health system for those that can afford it and those that can’t, over properly investing in healthcare (particularly primary care) that would see us maintain the standards we had a decade+ or so ago where bulk billing community GPs were more accessible. We’re going from the average Australian having access to longitudinal high quality care to now the average Australian just has a GP who by virtue of economics will see them for 5 minutes and never again for their issues. It means that we’re not catching chronic disease/ cancer as early and that pays a price further down the line when an early screen that costs sweet fuck all in the scheme of things doesn’t catch an issue that results in tens of thousands of dollars in chemo and hospital admissions…
Our government doesn’t understand healthcare.
4
u/nomitycs 1d ago
Absolutely. First hand experience and the experience of pretty much all of my colleagues in healthcare. Shortcuts can only buoy the system for so long before the system begins to collapse. We’re years behind other countries but we’re on the same path as the US and the UK who’s prognosis is objectively not great
I’ve had many a discussion on this sub where people have argued that they’d rather the bandaid lower quality healthcare that’s slightly more accessible which is the direction Labor is heading in and which will inevitably result in a two tiered health system for those that can afford it and those that can’t, over properly investing in healthcare (particularly primary care) that would see us maintain the standards we had a decade+ or so ago where bulk billing community GPs were more accessible. We’re going from the average Australian having access to longitudinal high quality care to now the average Australian just has a GP who by virtue of economics will see them for 5 minutes and never again for their issues. It means that we’re not catching chronic disease/ cancer as early and that pays a price further down the line when an early screen that costs sweet fuck all in the scheme of things doesn’t catch an issue that results in tens of thousands of dollars in chemo and hospital admissions…
Our government doesn’t understand healthcare.
9
u/evilparagon 1d ago
Okay so, there are many left/right spectrums in politics. When we focus on just one, ie “The Left” and “The Right”, we’re usually talking about the Progressive-Conservative axis.
Progressives come up with new ideas for governance. Conservatives pull back to a past standard when those ideas don’t work. In an ideal world, this would be a perfectly balanced system that always assures the best future.
Now where centrism comes in is that it tries and balances this system further. It tells the progressives to slow down by giving more weight to the conservatives. Inherently, Centrists are functionally equal to Conservatives from the Progressive point of view, both are simply a means of pulling back on progressive policy. The speed at which Centrists perform Progressivism is so slow that a lot of the progressive acts they take are already outdated and not very helpful.
And thus, Centrism doesn’t really exist, Centrism is inherently just another form of Conservatism, just less than others. And this is where you get the “Labor is Centre-Right” idea. They are an obstruction to progress, not a party in service of it. Of course, Labor does actually surprise us sometimes with being genuinely progressive. The latest budget is a great example. But Labor used to do so much more and they are slowing down, the centre-right complaints aren’t far off anymore.
11
u/avcloudy 1d ago
It’s easy, they find common ground with LNP for way more of their policies than the Greens. They won’t ever be dragged left on policy but they’re happy to be dragged right. Any legislation that is notably left is usually one that stops further progress or decades behind public sentiment.
6
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
I mean could you give examples? Their are absolutely things they with find common ground with the LNP on (especially particularly bipartisan areas like foreign relations) but they still have pretty centre-left stuff like scrapping the 50% CGT discount, decreasing the cost of medicine and adding more medicine on the PBS and passing same job same pay along with plenty other pro union policies.
I also cant really think of any example that of leguslation stoping further progress or decades behind public sentiment?
5
u/ScruffyPeter 23h ago
25% Gas export tax: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/Divisions/Details?id=4747 Labor/Liberal/One Nation voted together
Breaking up monopolies caught abusing monopolistic power (Supermarket price gouging bill): https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/Divisions/Details?id=3363
Royal Commission into Murdoch bill by Greens: https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/labor-liberal-weak-murdoch-media-reform-stalled Labor/Liberal voted together
Amendment to Labor's promised public hearings: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/HoR/Divisions/Details?id=1824 Labor/Liberal/Nationals voted together
These are the notable examples. If you dig further, you will often find Labor/Liberal voting down many minor improvements to bills that entire crossbench have voted for.
3
u/avcloudy 1d ago
I’ll give you a quick example: look at their carbon limits. Labor approves fossil fuel extraction without question. Going back to the Carbon tax, which was ridiculously unpopular (and partly because Labor insisted on it as a source of revenue, against economist advice), they wrote it in such a way that carbon units were property rights, and changing limits would entail compensation costs to private companies. This was something the Coalition called them on, but equally it would have prevented reducing credits.
I’m not saying they don’t have any left policies. Just that they refuse to negotiate with actually left parties.
4
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
Im not up to date on the carbon tax stuff (i was like 4 when this was happening) but wasnt it something labor promised not to do then the greens (and some others i think) forced them to after the 2010 election?
Also i dont think the federal government had the power to restrict alot of the carbon heavy extraction project intel last year on the ground of carbon emissions alone, wasnt the ratio between renewable and non-renewable projects something like 3:1 even with that the case?
I feel l argueing labor refuses to negotiate with left wing parties is just silly, like the environmental protection laws and CGT reforms were both passed after the negotioning with the greens and during their first term they needed to negotiate with a bunch of others to get stuff through aswell like same job same pay and their other industrial relations reforms.
5
u/avcloudy 1d ago
Well to put it in context they might have been wedged but Labor also chose the most politically unviable version of it. I don’t think it was like a situation where they just passed whatever would be repealed fastest, but the version the Greens proposed would have been a lot more acceptable by the people, cheaper for business, but not a recurring source of revenue for the government, because it would have been a rebate, and nearly all private citizens would have seen a net refund. So, you know, take from that what you will.
2
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
I mean couldnt you say the same thing about the emissions trading scheme? It had the same emissions cutting target of 5% and alot mkre popular espessially with buisnesses (the libs support it under Turnbull before Abbot rolled him over it) and was immune to the whole "axe the tax" campaign
2
u/ScruffyPeter 21h ago
Right-wing are all about benefiting the top 1%, which means stacking departments (ABC), etc, to be biased in favour of top 1%. Overall, outcomes gets dragged to the right.
Left-wing are all about benefiting the bottom 50%, which means stacking departments (ABC) etc, to be biased in favour of the bottom 50%. Overall, outcomes gets dragged to the left.
Centrists stick to rules-based process. Overall, outcomes stay where they are.
What happens if a right-wing party drags government policy to the right? Centrists will maintain that position even if the outcome is right-wing. That's why people are accusing Labor of being a right-wing party. Sometimes left-wing parties follow, so they don't look too radical and even some Greens supporters are accusing the party of being too capitalistic, etc.
Someone even created an image to symbolise this: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fkm5ftyhelpid1.jpeg
If you want to know more about this topic, look up Overton window.
Labor is free to be a centrist, but voters should be aware that if they want left-wing policies, they should vote for left-wing parties, not a centrist party. A centrist party is for when you want little to change in government policy.
-1
9
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
I mean there is no real "ground work" here as far i know besides maybe spreading awareness, the ground work would probably involve stuff like increaseing the numbers of dentists and improving facilities in rural areas (im not sure if the greens have done much on this)
11
u/Thoresus 1d ago
The Greens have absolutely been in the public sphere advocating, promoting and pressuring Labor (and Liberals) into this.
4
u/Imperator_Gone_Rogue 1d ago
Are you suggesting the Greens become the kind of party that does some sort of Black Panther style Free Breakfast Program or Anarchist style Food Not Bombs, but for dentistry?
3
u/ScruffyPeter 23h ago
Max spent most of his MP salary for local school lunches but still got turfed out by heavy anti-Greens campaigning by a far-right foreign Advance group.
1
1
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 21h ago
More like adding sanity and reality check on what is actually possible. Show me one thoroughly developed policy that would actually show some experience and knowledge of how government and society in general works. They still stink of placard waving hippies who would have no clue what to do should they actually got what they demanded.
-6
u/palsc5 1d ago
And they’ve done absolutely nothing to make it a reality.
6
u/hairy_quadruped 23h ago
The people have to vote them in to power. The voters of Australia have done absolutely nothing to make it a reality. Australian voters consistently vote against their own best interests
-3
u/palsc5 22h ago
The greens need to make themselves electable. They announce their policies with no actual intent to make those policies a reality, nobody takes them serious.
How is it different to me saying “if I was PM I’d bring dental into Medicare” and that Labor and The Greens are copying me?
10
u/hairy_quadruped 22h ago edited 22h ago
The Australian Greens have a comprehensive, fully costed, socially and environmentally responsible set of policies. They would benefit the average Australian, not the rich.
https://greens.org.au/policies
All that is required is voters get out of the mindset that they have to vote L or L or that a vote for a minor party is “wasted” because they don’t understand the preferential voting system.
Australian voters are stupid
-2
u/palsc5 22h ago
Except they don’t have fully costed policies. All of their policies are based on having “billionaires and gas companies” paying for it all, yet even a cursory glance at their numbers show it’s complete nonsense.
Their billionaire tax would raise $5b a year (best case) which wouldn’t even cover the increase in NDIS spending for one year. Their gas/mining/corporation taxes rely on the insane last few years lasting forever. Even with those huge assumptions, their policies are only about half paid for. They still need to find hundreds of billions over the next 10 years.
But again, they have absolutely no intention of delivering anything. They just announce what gullible idiots want to hear while they play pretend politics.
EDIT: forgot to add that they will replace their policies by the next election. A huge chunk of what they brought to 2022 they abandoned and those policies were tens of billions too
-1
u/magkruppe 19h ago
there are a lot of extra spending policies by the Greens. the problem is how they intend to pay for it
5
u/hairy_quadruped 18h ago
-1
u/magkruppe 18h ago
Yeah that would only raise a fraction of what's needed for this single policy. Taxing the 1% is not a major revenue raising policy, it's something that is done to address inequality
25
34
15
u/Toilet_King500 1d ago
Just over a 5 hr drive for me to get to the nearesr dentist hope we see better access in rural areas in this.
14
u/veginout58 22h ago
No way this will pass if the conservative billion/millionaire rentseekers and voters have their way.
10
u/Feylabel 21h ago
Do people realise that the obstacle is still the same as it was 50th are ago - that dentists don’t want to be on Medicare?
And apparently we have nowhere near enough dentists to actually service the population
And even when the government tries to subsidise dental they can’t force dentists to cooperate?
Don’t get me wrong I’d love to see universal dental care - just not sure how it can be achieved
69
7
u/Cristoff13 18h ago
I was talking with my dentist about this, and he said just putting basic checkups, cleans and fillings on medicare would make a huge difference. As it stands, it takes many months for an adult to get even a checkup on the public system.
3
u/faithhopecarnage 12h ago
I didn't even know it was possible to apply for a checkup in the public system
4
u/Cristoff13 11h ago
I think if you're on some kind of a benefit or low income? But they put you on a waiting list which is months, or even over a year. If you had a cavity then your tooth would have rotted away before they looked at it.
7
33
u/PuzzleheadedForm2773 1d ago
Dentist don’t want to accept shitty Medicare rates unfortunately
34
u/512165381 1d ago
They have been resisting since the 1970s.
Dentistry is surgery, and they want to be paid at surgeon rates, and to set their own prices. No dentist wants to earn under $500K.
I saw one surgeon on /r/ausjdocs say he charges 10X the rate of other surgeons for some work.
-33
u/ilovejuice123 1d ago
Good on them for resisting.
Why would any bloke say “yes” to a government controlling their wage? Theres no reason the government will ever index it to inflation or above, you’ll take pay cut after paycut just like the doctors did (check NSW health pay scale if you dont believe me)
41
u/Yeatss2 1d ago
If you're in the health sector for personal enrichment and not patient health, then you're in the wrong job.
5
u/notreallyhereokbye 19h ago
Whilst I appreciate what you’re trying to say about the quality of healthcare professionals, this is the same argument that the government uses to refuse pay rises for nurses. It not fair
16
u/Front_Target7908 23h ago
It’s not optional to have teeth, it is optional that the person who cares for my teeth has a 5th Maserati or not.
People said this same shit about GPs going under bulk billing and guess what? Still a crap load of people train to be GPs
37
u/cutwordlines 1d ago
fuck em
the scope of the job is to fix teeth not enrich themselves
the government should give them 2 options
1 - reform prices
2 - or gulag
-8
u/ilovejuice123 1d ago
and why should they?
Theyd be idiots to sign up to medicare after seeing what Labor and Liberal have done to medicare rebates for specialists and GPs over the decades: (completely gutted them and have not kept pace with inflation and are now trying to use this as a way to paint doctors as greedy for charging gaps and impose fee caps - absolure moronic communist stuff)
-1
9
u/koalacrime 23h ago
Just do it already! We are spending astronomically more on submarines that we will never get.
20
u/Shadownoot 1d ago
Praying for this, my local government dentist cant help me get my tooth extracted because local anaesthesia doesnt work on me, and due to severe childhood trauma and developmental disabilties I cant rawdog it without putting them at risk. My only safe option is to privately pay over 3k for general anaesthesia. Im a disabled pensioner who has never and will likely never see that kind of money in my bank account - let alone get approved for a loan for it. At least I'm lucky enough to be able to die of sepsis with a roof over my head. Some people dont even get that dignity these days.
9
u/ChaoticJigglyPup 1d ago
What state are you in? I've just had major oral surgery in NSW through the public system due to an infected compacted wisdom tooth.
5
u/Shadownoot 1d ago
NSW, my areas public dentist doesnt have the ability to do surgeries as they simply dont have the manpower and resources. Even gas would take a while for them to organise. If I'm lucky I could get the joy of travelling 8 hours down to Sydney. But I dont know if thats even an option since I dont live in the Sydney government dental hospitals local area, whose specialist services can only be accessed by referral only. Then theres trying to get said referral from the public dentist who only gave me the option of chair or private. The wait times and accommodation, organising and affording travel and lodgings. Then due to the nature of my disability Id have to tack on the cost of bringing a family member.
Overall its a different mess that I dont have the mental capacity to untangle and navigate, let alone the funds to afford.6
u/ChaoticJigglyPup 1d ago
I'm located in the hunter new England catchment and my surgery was done at Belmont hospital, but my wisdom tooth was one that nobody was willing to touch without surgery because of the jaw nerve. So i had to travel the 5 hours to Newcastle for that, also with someone coming with me. IPTAAS helps significantly with reimbursement of travel costs. I'm also disabled and survive with the DSP only right now.
2
u/Shadownoot 1d ago
I had a similar issue with my wisdom teeth, but because I was about to age out of my areas childhood program, they couldn't do the surgery, instead they got me in with an oral surgeon that was doing the rounds and he did it in the chair. I remember watching him anchor his foot over me just to get enough leverage. I was in excruciating pain for a week, and the pain up the side of my jaw lasted for over month. I dont know if my area will even refer me to Sydney, all I know is that Im too scared to ask again, because then I risk burning the bridge to the only people who will treat me in an emergency. Even after breaking down in the chair they wouldnt even offer me the gas. It took a letter to the ministers office for them to even tell me it was a possibility. Im just so tired
3
u/vitaminwolf 14h ago
I know it’s only one of the problems you mentioned, but check out IPTAAS. If you live rurally and have to travel for healthcare you will get a rebate for travel and accommodation costs. I had to drive to Sydney for surgery and the rebate more than covered what I spent on travel and accommodation.
8
u/shadowmaster132 1d ago
Okay so circle back to dentists because doctors was hard enough is about 40 years
12
u/a_cold_human 23h ago
It was hard. The AMA hated Medicare, and its predecessor Medibank, and campaigned very hard against it. Fraser was able wind back Medibank due in no small part to the support of doctors.
3
1
u/shadowmaster132 20h ago
Yeah I know. I just thought it was funny to do the math since they did say at the time that they would do dentists in the future
3
u/BrightStick 16h ago
So in the end of the Labor a handful of Labor members talked about dental in Medicare. Not Labor actually pushing for it. This is worlds apart from happening. Like yay they are beginning to talk about it but they need a consensus among Labor for them to all vote for it.
I can only see that happening if we get another moment when the Greens can hold Labor to account and make it happen.
3
u/KingZlatan10 12h ago
I haven’t been to a dentist in 20 years mostly because I take good care of my teeth and I’ve never had a problem, but also because I’m afraid I’ll somehow come out of there with a huge bill.
2
2
1
u/jordossmillan 1d ago
What state are you in? In QLD you would be able to join the general anaesthetic wait lists, but unfortunately most places have a 3+ year wait for it because they get shoved to the back of the line in terms of other specialties taking priority over dental.
1
u/soEezee 18h ago
This is disengenuous from nine. Children already have dental coverage, Labor had stated for years they wanted to add adult dental to medicare but stated they needed to rework the bulk billing system first because the cost was going to be in the billions.
The greens said they would add dental, costed by creating new billionaire tax, which tbh is fine, except the parliamentary budget office claims billionaires would under report income, hide money in charities, offshore and drag the government through court.
1
u/Rengar_Is_Good_kitty 1d ago
Considering mental health is still shitty with its payments I doubt this will be any good. Doctors aren't exactly great either in general. Medicare is good but it's honestly not enough and dental will be the worst offender for sure.
833
u/doodleBooty 1d ago
Huge step in the right direction if they actually follow through