Actually not any more.. .

Julia Gillard attacked with a sandwich... again - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10088320/Julia-Gillard-attacked-with-a-sandwich...-again.html)

An important Current Event!

It was when shoes were being thrown at Bush

People were making fun of the assailant, not the victim, as you are.

Uh yeah right..

Even the children are displaying their disgust at the behaviour of this government

Our children protest the Michelle Obama menu selection by throwing their food in the garbage can

This is just one legacy of the gillard government just one stuff up after another

How the National Broadband Network became an asbestos minefield | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/how-the-national-broadband-network-became-an-asbestos-minefield/story-fnda1bsz-1226654095265)

Terrorist was mistakenly cleared by ASIO as asylum seeker (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/terrorist-was-mistakenly-cleared-by-asio-as-asylum-seeker-20130530-2neu2.html)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-31/opposition-trying-to-recruit-independents-for-no-confidence-mot/4724796
Opposition moves for impeachment vote

our children protest the Michelle Obama menu selection by throwing their food in the garbage can

Our kids have political savvy they know where the garbage can is

our kids have political savvy they know where the garbage can is

One good thing (probably the only good thing) to come out of the Gillard government was the bipartisan agreement for a National Disability Scheme.

DisabilityCare Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisabilityCare_Australia)

One good thing (probably the only good thing) to come out of the Gillard government was the bipartisan agreement for a National Disability Scheme.

DisabilityCare Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisabilityCare_Australia)

Yes Tutt a plus but the funding is by no means settled, that levy raises far more than needed, what a rip off, just one more indication the government giveth and the government taketh away''

One plus cannot undo all the waste,the broken promises, the momumental stuffups and crap we have had to put up with listening to that egotistical woodpecker for three years

Yes Tutt a plus but the funding is by no means settled, that levy raises far more than needed, what a rip off, just one more indication the government giveth and the government taketh away''

one plus cannot undo all the waste,the broken promises, the momumental stuffups and crap we have had to put up with listening to that egotistical woodpecker for three years

Don't worry ;the government will find a way to turn the funding into the red . On the surface disability care is low hanging fruit . We all agree that the disabled should be included in the safety net. But there are costs and unexpected costs that almost always inflates the budgets of these permanent entitlements. As always the burden will fall on the young workers trying to start families ,buy 1st homes ,establish a career .

We don't mind the care package Tom what we mind is the opportunism to line the coffers long before they costs are incurred.

Don't worry ;the government will find a way to turn the funding into the red . On the surface disability care is low hanging fruit . We all agree that the disabled should be included in the safety net. But there are costs and unexpected costs that almost always inflates the budgets of these permanent entitlements. As always the burden will fall on the young workers trying to start families ,buy 1st homes ,establish a carreer .

There would be a large majority of Australians who support such a concept. As Clete says, the funding is yet to be settled. We have a tendency to think in terms of, "a fair go for all". After that we can worry about the economics. We tend to look at things the other way round.

There would be a large majority of Australians who support such a concept. As Clete says, the funding is yet to be settled. We have a tendency to think in terms of, "a fair go for all". After that we can worry about the economics. We tend to look at things the other way round.

Tom hasn't read the fine print, the scheme is touted as an insurance scheme not a safety net

National Disability Insurance Scheme (http://www.ndis.gov.au/)

I thought yanks loved insurance schemes

Didn't Red Julia promise to spend money in schools in districts where the elections are in doubt ? Seems kind of ungrateful for students to be tossing their lunch at her.

didn't Red Julia promise to spend money in schools in districts where the elections are in doubt ? Seems kinda ungrateful for students to be tossing their lunch at her.

There is a grand new scheme called Gonski that not everyone is on board for. It promises to spend billions on secondary education some of the losers are higher education, going back to the NDIS, this scheme is a sham being rolled out selectively in Labor heartland and over a long time, the initial figures suggest 26,000 will benefit if they can pass the criteria and it cuts off once you get the pension and enter long term care like a nursing home

School funding review compromised - SSTUWA - State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia (http://www.sstuwa.org.au/news/sstuwa-articles/education-finding-resourcing/7957-school-funding-compromised)

https://theconversation.com/topics/gonski-review

There would be a large majority of Australians who support such a concept. As Clete says, the funding is yet to be settled. We have a tendency to think in terms of, "a fair go for all". After that we can worry about the economics. We tend to look at things the other way round.

Yeah that's called kick the can down the road. When they get around to it ,they pass temporary fixes that kicks the can further down the road . Fact is that as the population ages more people become eligible for things like disability benefits . And as always ,the ratio of those eligible, to those who can or will be required to pay for shrinks . Australia like most of the West has decided to become a sub-replacement fertility nation. So I ask again... who pays for it ?


Tom hasn't read the fine print, the scheme is touted as an insurance scheme not a safety net

National Disability Insurance Scheme

I thought yanks loved insurance schemes
I am unfortunately all too familiar with entitlements that mascaraed as insurance schemes .
They all resemble either Ponzi or pyramid schemes to me .

yeah that's called kick the can down the road. When they get around to it ,they pass temporary fixes that kicks the can further down the road . Fact is that as the population ages more people become eligible for things like disability benefits . And as always ,the ratio of those eligible, to those who can or will be required to pay for shrinks . Australia like most of the West has decided to become a sub-replacement fertility nation. So I ask again... who pays for it ?



Ultimately the tax payer is the answer to your question.

We, "kick the can down the road" as well as any nation and better than most. In fact over the years we have made it an art form.

"A fair go for all" obviously doesn't seems to get a response, so I will rephrase it:

A fairer go for those individuals who are best able or suited to clamber to the top of the pile.

yeah that's called kick the can down the road. When they get around to it ,they pass temporary fixes that kicks the can further down the road . Fact is that as the population ages more people become eligible for things like disability benefits . And as always ,the ratio of those eligible, to those who can or will be required to pay for shrinks . Australia like most of the West has decided to become a sub-replacement fertility nation. So I ask again... who pays for it ?

Sounds like picque to me, you didn't think of it first and Tom, the taxpayer always pays I though that was a no brainer. No this scheme has bipartisian support, something both parties can tout as success in an election year, but I expect the scheme will be highly modified after the initial rollout, when as they say, you have to pass it to find out what's in it. I did already tell you that it cuts out for older people. For disability read, developmental disorder, congenital birth defect, cerebral palsey, brain damage, mongolism



I am unfortunately all too familiar with entitlements that mascaraed as insurance schemes .
They all resemble either Ponzi or pyramid schemes to me .

No Tom in this case the ones who get the benefits aren't the contributors, but what is put into it will be locked away, no doubt to meet future liabilities

Ah yes ;that infamous lock box . Have heard that one before .

Tut ,I already agreed that the disabled should be included in some sort of safety net provision. As always ;my first preference is laws that help them be self sufficient so they don't depend on the largess of the voters who can giveth and taketh away .

ah yes ;that infamous lock box . have heard that one before .

Tut ,I already agreed that the disabled should be included in some sort of safety net provision. As always ;my first preference is laws that help them be self sufficient so they don't depend on the largess of the voters who can giveth and taketh away .

Commendable Tom but not very realistic, there is partial disability and there is severely handicapped. These people shouldn't be looked after by a safety net, which is really saying let them exhaust their resources and then we will help them. Reality is, in a tight economy, there are few opportunities for the disabled to earn money and so their families bear the brunt which drags them below the poverty line also. What this scheme seeks to do is avoid that outcome.

Tom what we about is not maintaining people in poverty with safety nets but lifting them out of poverty so they share in the wealth of the nation and we are a very wealthy nation because our wealth isn't just in the hands of the 1% skinflints. Different ethos, this nation was founded on the backs of the poor, the displaced, the maligned not the backs of exploited slaves

You talk about what's unrealistic ? If your goal is to lift all people out of poverty then you will impoverish the rest .if you confiscated all the wealth of those "1% skinflints " you would be still well short of that goal. I of course was not referring to ALL disabled . I was talking of ones that can and should be able to work with the proper assistance. You talk about a 'tight economy'. Well at least here ,in a tight economy ,we learn that there are suddenly a whole lot of 'disabled ' people who had been previously productive workers when the economy was good. What happened ? Well the Obots decided in their compassion that everyone with a hang nail qualifies for disability benefits.

You keep contrasting our approach, mouthing platitudes and telling us how hard it is, but no one needs to take wealth away persee, no crippling taxation, but the provision of certain essential services. Our attitude towards everyone is; if you can work, you should work, up to that point where society thinks you should move over, but we also recognise that opportunity must exist. It is no good telling a disabled person get a job when able bodied people are unemployed or they have no skills. In our society no one needs to lack medical care because they lack the means to pay, no one loses their health cover when they are unemployed, all can afford essential medications, and all qualify for benefits unless they have too much money and don't need them. Does this mean they live in luxury? No, but few are poor and the only ones who live on the streets are those who want to. I keep hearing that in your society this is not so, and yet your nation on a per capita basis is as wealthy as ours

You keep on shifting your expectations.. it now went from lifting them out of poverty to the provision of certain essential services. First ,not all disabled are in poverty needing such assistance as being lifted out of poverty . I fully agree that they should have access to ESSENTIAL services.

Tom our definitions are not the same as yours those without access to essential services are in poverty, real poverty, not those generalised definitions that are used to cover the obvious. Where do you think those with a disability get their wealth? Few are wealthy here but maybe in your land there are many wealthy with disabilities, intellectual perhaps

In our land of freedom there are many wealthy people.. Maybe their disability came later in life after they've achieved success. Who knows ? Who cares ? Why do they need anything beyond essential services when theirs is not an issue of being lifted out of poverty ? Maybe all they need to survive is handicap friendly sidewalks and building access. I don't understand... is this something new to your country ? We've had a law called the Americans with Disabilities Act on the books since 1990... and their health care have been nationalized since the passage of Medicare /Medicaid in 1965 .

Well then why do you keep talking about safety nets, no one is talking about giving care to those who have the means to pay for it because they are wealthy, but there are people with a disabilty who aren't, in fact most with a disability aren't. You think in terms of universal entitlement without contribution but that isn't how it works. What we are doing is redressing the gap between welfare payments, medicare which looks after health care, and all the other costs a disabled person might incur. You keep telling me about all the things you have already done, however it appears these things haven't addressed some of the issues.