John Smith wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:26am:



Oh now tell me that isnt dripping with bitterness there, but thats ok, you can level with me.

John Smith wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:36am:



You do that better than any righties on here. 

Big Donger wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 12:04am:


I think you will find that the public hospitals actually get paid by the Private Health Funds when they accommodate a private patient.

These fees enable the public hospitals to purchase additional equipment etc. In other words it saves the tax-payer money just as private schools save the tax-payer money.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 12:04am:


If I was rich I'd have better things to do than swap banter with you rusted on Truebelievers day in day out...... What does it matter anyway? 

stryder wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:


why would he? He has no need to do anything other than sit back and let Abbott self destruct.

Maybe the day before the election, if he's feeling generous, he may release something, afterall it worked for Abbott 

Swagman wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:


Public hospitals don’t charge anyone for using Accident & Emergency. Private hospitals don’t provide this service. You’ll find very few private hospitals outside the major cities.

And even if public hospitals did receive funding from private insurance (like the US), how would this take the burden off the public system?

Private schools don’t save taxpayers money when they’re funded by taxpayers. The elite private schools receive as much funding for students as state schools.

How are any of these private systems saving taxpayers anything? It’s just the government putting the same funds into the private sector.

This is why the Liberal argument is about "choice", not cost-cutting. It’s the lobby groups who peddle the cost-cutting idea, but studies show private health services cost more, not less.

They have to. They’re profit-based. Someone has to pay for all those commissions, marketing, advertising, lobbying, and yes, shareholder profits. Health is one of the biggest profit areas after financial services.

Private education is a little different. Schools are not generally profit-based. Teachers are paid about the same under the independent awards.

But of course they cost more. They charge things called fees.

How could a system that charges both government and consumers be more cost-effective?

stryder wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 9:09am:


Actually it is the opinion of international economists supported by an x Liberal leader.

The most stupid people on earth - economists and x Liberal leaders ?

Big Donger wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:


And this is relevant because....?

Big Donger wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:


Arbitrarily if the cost of a public hospital bed if $500 per day.  If it's filled by a private patient the hospital gets $500 off the private health fund and not from the Govt.  The Govt (aka the Taxpayer) saves $500.  This $500 dollars can then be used for something else such as better equipment etc.

That's how it takes the burden off the public system.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:


Not from all sources of Govt they don't.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:


A naïve argument.  Private school kids get about 0.40c in the dollar Govt funding.  Therefore the Govt is saving 60% on the public cost of educating every private school child.  The Govt would have to find this extra 0.60c in the dollar if there were no private schools.