Kevin07's fine print

kevin_rudd.jpgDaily Telegraph - The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the Prime Minister personally wrote to the industry umbrella group only days before the 2007 poll to re-assure them he would maintain existing arrangements with the levy in government. Yesterday, however, Treasurer Wayne Swan revealed major changes to be unveiled in Tuesday's Budget, where the income threshold at which the surcharge applies will double from $50,000 to $100,000. The decision to raise the threshold means up to 2.4 million Australians will no longer need to join private health funds to avoid the penalty.
That's the nice way of saying that Kevin07 is a lying slimeball. In fairness though Kevin08 can say, well that was 2007, it's 2008 now suckers. And technically he is right, a bit like the slimy used car salesman who claims that piece of crap you just bought is covered by a warranty but fails to mention that only certain bits and pieces are covered. See below, he wrote the letter in 2007 and perhaps he was talking about 2007, just decided not to say ONLY, the fine print if you will.
But, on November 20 last year, Mr Rudd wrote to the Australian Health Insurance Association promising: "Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians. [snip] Now the industry is reeling from Mr Swan's announcement, which could strip them of millions of members.
Emphasis is mine, I'm sure Kevin08 when hearing about all this whining over wheaties for brekkie in Brissie is thinking, [*snigger*] amateurs! So what this means is that when the evil, nasty corporations are stripped of their members, they'll cut costs by cutting employees. I mean if your customer base gets slashed then why keep all the staff. I guess those workers weren't part of the ALPs famous 'working families'. The electorate will have to decide whether PM Rudd lied or was just being sneaky or for that matter, had no clue what the hell the treasurer was putting together and vice versa.

On a side note though, I personally don't like this extra levy on those who earn more money. In principle, it's supposed to be free healthcare paid for by our taxes, so why do some have to pay more than others, it's not like those who pay the levy are bumped to the front of the queue at the public hospital or something. To me it's saying that someone like me who works extra hours and makes extra money on the side by working, not stealing, has to pay an extra tax.

Meanwhile the slob down the road or in the next suburb who barely works 9 to 5, when he's not chucking sickies that is, and spends his spare time and cash at the pub assaulting his liver doesn't have to. It says to me that I have to pay an extra tax because I'm somehow less deserving than the slob.

Just on this, I'm not sure that those who have private health insurance will be ditching it for the public system. I certainly won't because I've heard what the public system is like and have been through it myself. Perhaps those thinking about it can learn from the experience of someone who actually believes in socialized medicine.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them