When they happen, policy changes can be ugly things, not least because they can make a government’s previous rhetoric look altogether silly. Like on the GP co-payment.
Here’s Tony Abbott in May: “It is a policy that we are taking forward. We are absolutely committed, absolutely committed to all of the measures that we announced on budget night.”
Peter Dutton in August: “When we talk about blanket exemptions, you’re talking about people, for argument’s sake, who might be on a pension or under the age of 16, you’re talking about almost 9 million Australians out of a population of 23 million. So it’s very hard to provide blanket exemptions.”
And Joe Hockey last week: “We are committed, I mean, that’s our policy. The $7 co-payment is our policy. With so many other things, it was actually the Labor Party’s policy, you know.”
Still, the government would be pleased with many of yesterday’s headlines, which are likely to leave voters with the impression it has now caved in on the GP co-payment.
Here’s The Sydney Morning Herald: “Abbott government dumps proposed $7 GP co-payment”. SBS: “Abbott axes GP co-payment proposal”. Sky News: “GP co-payment scrapped”. The West Australian: “GP co-payment scrapped”. And Nine: “Abbott scraps controversial $7 GP co-payment”.
Other outlets had headlines that were considerably more accurate.
Here’s News.com.au: “Tony Abbott announces changes to $7 Medicare co-payment”. News.com.au/AAP: “GP co-payment reprieve, but only for some”. The Guardian: “Tony Abbott moves to plan B on Medicare co-payment for GP visits”. And Fairfax’s Peter Martin: “Abbott’s GP co-payments aren’t dead: it’s a tweak not a termination”.
A tweak, not a termination, is correct. Question is, which headlines will voters believe?
12 thoughts on “Crikey says: don’t believe what you read about co-payments”
Bill Hilliger
December 10, 2014 at 2:09 pmJacquie Lambie or staff advisers if you read this don’t believe what the rAbbott and his barnacles say. Vote against the new look medical consultation tax.
CML
December 10, 2014 at 2:27 pmBill H – I second that, and then some!
klewso
December 10, 2014 at 3:24 pmAnother signature Abbott back-flip, this announcement could have been done to The Angels – “Shadow Boxer”?
20/20
December 10, 2014 at 4:40 pm@klewso, Ah, but that’s the point of the article,
This new version of co-payment, well, isn’t a backflip.
It’s sort of like a broken promised, (no changes to medicare) which has then been changed by the Abbott govt to this $5 optional paymnent from the $7 everyone pays.
It’s like a somersault backward reverse pike – degree of difficulty 9.5. So high scores if people believe it but if the voters don’t – its a belly flop
Norman Hanscombe
December 10, 2014 at 5:35 pmNot surprisingly the usual suspects maintain their Manyana Mode, and are disinterested in Australia’s continuing Medical Funding Catastrophe. Hawke understood the sound basis for introducing co-payments, and so does Shorten. It’s so clear even the Greens Leadership would be hard-pressed to not understand.
But the Political success of “Progressive” Party Powerbrokers requires they concentrate on maintain their power, so what’s best for the Nation can become a distant second at best.
drsmithy
December 10, 2014 at 6:59 pmNot surprisingly the usual suspects maintain their Manyana Mode, and are disinterested in Australia’s continuing Medical Funding Catastrophe.
False.
Hawke understood the sound basis for introducing co-payments, and so does Shorten. It’s so clear even the Greens Leadership would be hard-pressed to not understand.
Maybe one of them could be so nice as to explain it, then, because I have yet to hear a single coherent argument in support of a co-payment, let alone one with some actual evidence to support it.
It’s nothing more than a transparent attempt to begin disassembling Medicare, something the political right has been trying to do since it was conceived. For reasons I’ve never been able to fathom, they hold a special antipathy in their heart for publicly-funded healthcare, even more so than education or the dole.
klewso
December 11, 2014 at 12:37 amWith Toady’s practice and experience? “Degree of difficulty” 0.1?
AR
December 11, 2014 at 6:51 amAs always, I wonder how stupid the people are who think that the electorate are so stupid as to believe their patent studity.
20/20
December 11, 2014 at 10:51 am@drsmithy Agree,
if the govt makes the case for the co-payment, people might not agree, but at least, the govt’s reasons are out there.
But they didn’t do that, except that country is spending beyond our means and so, we, the govt, have to do this.
Yet, in a recent ABC interview the Health Minister said the $7 co-payment changed to $5 change, was all part of the govt negotiating tactics as they “knew it would be unpopular”
But that isn’t explaining this co-payment to me and from what I now read, it is a more involved transaction/arrangement, then first reported
drsmithy
December 11, 2014 at 11:54 amif the govt makes the case for the co-payment, people might not agree, but at least, the govt’s reasons are out there.
The only justification (other than the completely confected “budget emergency) thus far that I’ve heard mentioned is to send a “price signal” (so basically it’s just another manifestation of neoliberal free market zealotry). That logic is problematic (to say the least) from pretty much every angle.
* Price signals only make sense when the customer has the ability to make an educated decision and consumption is discretionary.
* It is built on the implicit assumption that healthcare services are significantly overused (because they are “free”), yet:
a) There’s no evidence to support this premise (or, at least, none has been produced)
b) There’s not even a reasonable argument to support it (who goes to a doctor unless they have to ?)
* The largest proportion of healthcare costs (and almost certainly unnecessary visits) lie with the older demographics. Yet they are largely exempted (and also pay proportionally little tax in our system – so a double whammy).
* The only people for whom this price signal will meaningfully change behaviour are those in the lower socio-economic groups, yet they will be largely exempted.
* Particularly for those in lower socio-economic groups, it discourages early diagnosis and pre-emptive treatment, which is by far the most cost-effective way of dealing with health problems (but then again when your endgame is eliminating publicly funded healthcare completely, how much it would cost in the future is probably not much of a concern)
* If the objective is to make the well-off pay more, then the appropriate (and, of course, easiest) way to do that is through the tax system. However, that would mean the well-off were paying more *to fund public healthcare*, thus defeating the purpose.