I’m just as concerned about what happens if or when we get under 30%. Then what 25 then 20, privatisation of everything. There doesn’t seem to be any other substantive plan
I’m just as concerned about what happens if or when we get under 30%. Then what 25 then 20, privatisation of everything. There doesn’t seem to be any other substantive plan
You already know the answer to that question....Privatisation is the end goal and the easiest way to do that is portraying the SOE or government department as not functioning properly (due to underfunding) so the unsuspecting public is duped into them selling it off.
The expectation is something like we can pay American level taxes but enjoy Scandinavian level services. I still think when it comes to the health system, the voting public won’t go for privatisation. But maybe with enough spin, they might!
It is privatisation by stealth. By underfunding the public health system, you destroy confidence in it. People then go and buy private health insurance and once you have enough people with it, the demand to publicly fund health goes away. Look at the increase in Southern Cross membership in last three years, and the $$ being spent building new private health facilities.
Of course, as soon as you have a pre-existing condition you're no longer covered, and once you hit 60, premiums go through the roof.
What the government and the neoclassical economists don't understand is that "paying back" the "debt" by reducing deficits or running a surplus takes money out of the economy. That's unemployment and stalling productivity. If people do not have jobs to pay for the private goods and services, those businesses fold too resulting in more unemployment etc etc.
That lack of new spend into the system from government must result in increasing private debt, and that's exactly what we see.
It's the private debt we need to be concerned about, not the "public debt"
I’m just as concerned about what happens if or when we get under 30%. Then what 25 then 20, privatisation of everything. There doesn’t seem to be any other substantive plan
You already know the answer to that question....Privatisation is the end goal and the easiest way to do that is portraying the SOE or government department as not functioning properly (due to underfunding) so the unsuspecting public is duped into them selling it off.
The expectation is something like we can pay American level taxes but enjoy Scandinavian level services. I still think when it comes to the health system, the voting public won’t go for privatisation. But maybe with enough spin, they might!
It is privatisation by stealth. By underfunding the public health system, you destroy confidence in it. People then go and buy private health insurance and once you have enough people with it, the demand to publicly fund health goes away. Look at the increase in Southern Cross membership in last three years, and the $$ being spent building new private health facilities.
Of course, as soon as you have a pre-existing condition you're no longer covered, and once you hit 60, premiums go through the roof.
It gets done by stealth. Bit by bit.
What the government and the neoclassical economists don't understand is that "paying back" the "debt" by reducing deficits or running a surplus takes money out of the economy. That's unemployment and stalling productivity. If people do not have jobs to pay for the private goods and services, those businesses fold too resulting in more unemployment etc etc.
That lack of new spend into the system from government must result in increasing private debt, and that's exactly what we see.
It's the private debt we need to be concerned about, not the "public debt"
I am a fan of modern monetary theory. Having recently read the deficit myth. I agree with your assessment of the situation