Turnbull has until Christmas or else...

[Gozu]

Tony Abbott! According to Glenn Milne:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 62,00.html

[Gozu]

Essential Media's numbers were out today. An interesting one,

Best person to lead the Opposition:

Malcolm Turnbull 13%
Joe Hockey 17%
Julie Bishop 8%
Someone Else 20%

What seat is Mr/Mrs Else in?

[Squawk]

Waite?

[dedja]

Need to stop reading the soaps Gozu ... Glenn Milne is the Hutchy of the political media landscape

[Gozu]

I know Milne's a complete joke mate.

[Leaping Lindner]

Any excuse to bring this one out again.
Glen Milne a man you can trust!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9v5OsC6GdU

[dedja]

LOL, that's right Glenn, you r a hic ..., r a ... hic ... dis ... hic ... grath

[Psyber]

Today in conjunction with Senator Nick Xenophon and Andrew Robb, I released a report prepared by independent consultants Frontier Economics on the Rudd Government's proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS). The report includes the modelling of the economic impact of the ETS that the Government has refused to undertake. This is the hard work the Government failed to do in its reckless rush to implement a poorly designed ETS that will destroy jobs and not achieve the levels of greenhouse gas abatement possible with a better designed scheme.

We believed this modelling needed to be done and chose Frontier Economics to do it – an independent economic consultancy with expertise that is respected across industry and governments. Frontier Economics designed the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme – the world’s first mandatory broad based ETS. The flaws in the Rudd ETS which this report identifies underline the recklessness of Mr Rudd rushing to finalise the design of his scheme without consideration of alternatives and before we know the final design of the US scheme let alone the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December. Frontier Economics have instead proposed a scheme that would allow a doubling of Australia's unconditional reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - instead of a 5 per cent cut, it would deliver a 10 per cent cut from 2000 levels.

It’s greener.
It will also be cheaper – it would be 40 per cent less costly than the Government’s scheme, a $49 billion saving to our economy over the next 20 years.
And above all, it will be smarter – it will ensure that there are more jobs, more Australians in work, earning higher wages.
And this impact will be particularly felt in regional Australia.

The time has come for Mr Rudd to sit down with the Coalition and discuss a better scheme, one that is both environmentally effective and protects Australian jobs.

[Gozu]

Make the world pay: Turnbull’s carbon plan

by Bernard Keane

The Coalition this morning released modelling revealing a lower-cost, more effective emissions trading scheme based on full compensation for all major polluters and lower electricity prices, which it claimed could drive an unconditional 10% cut in Australia’s carbon emissions.

The modelling by Frontier Economics, commissioned by the Coalition and independent senator Nick Xenophon, centres on providing all major polluters — both groups currently above the “low” threshold for compensation, and “high” threshold polluters, will receive 100% of the cost of carbon permits, compared to 66% for “low” major polluters and 94.5% for “high” major polluters. Electricity generators will also only be required to purchase permits for emissions above a best-practice “baseline” of emissions intensity, and coal mines will be included in compensation arrangements.

The greater generosity to polluters leads, under the Frontier Economics model, to lower GDP impacts and a slightly smaller employment impact, but with relatively higher regional employment. Smaller electricity price rises also requires lower compensation

The Frontier Economics modelling is not Coalition policy (or the policy of Nick Xenophon) but Malcolm Turnbull this morning used the modelling to attack the Government for failing to consult on improving the design of the scheme. Turnbull and Xenophon committed to opposing the legislation in the Senate this week and urged the Government to meet with them to develop amendments to improve the design of the scheme.

The key feature of the “greener” Frontier Economics model, the higher 10% emissions reduction target, is driven primarily by greater imports of permits from overseas than under the Government’s CPRS, meaning Australia’s actual emissions will continue to rise.

Turnbull and Frontier Economics head Danny Price rejected criticism that the modelled scheme simply relied on greater imports of permits, arguing that the CPRS similarly relied on importation of permits from foreign — most likely less developed — countries. “This is a great opportunity for developing countries to become involved in a carbon market,” Price said.

Key features of the Frontier proposal:

10% emission reduction target
100% compensation for all polluters
Electricity generators only required to buy permits above a “best practice” threshold
Agricultural sector excluded from scheme but allowed to generate and sell permits through offsets.
Modelling shows a $49b higher GDP over 20 years and 10,000 fewer job losses, including more jobs in regional areas.
Low electricity process rises of 5% compared to 40-50% increases under CPRS
Coal mines to be given compensation on the same basis as other industries

Comment:

There’s no magic pudding, to use the Government’s term of abuse, in the Frontier Economics modelling. You really can go for cuts twice as deep while seeing a smaller economic impact.

You just assume you can buy lots more permits from overseas to do so.

The Government’s CPRS assumes the purchase of overseas-produced carbon permits. This will enable Australia to continue increasing its greenhouse emissions while still meeting its stated emissions reductions targets. You can complain about developed countries relying on developing countries to do the hard work of emission abatement but given climate change is a global problem, a global solution makes sense.

But the Frontier Economics model significantly increases Australia’s reliance on overseas permits, assuming a big increase in the number of permits bought overseas.

That would in effect be funded by the savings to businesses and households of electricity prices that are lower than they would be under the CPRS, which will significantly increase them. This reduces the need for compensation to low and middle-income households, whose electricity bills will go up by only around 5% initially, rather than 40%.

In essence, households and businesses won’t be paying as much for electricity, but the money saved will be needed to fund the purchase by businesses of permits overseas, the cost of which will be passed through to consumers through higher prices.

Because we’ll be doing less of the work of reducing greenhouse emissions ourselves, the costs to the economy will be lower.

It’s not quite, as one journalist suggested in today’s press conference, an accounting sleight of hand. But it does rely on diffusing the costs borne by electricity producers/retailers and their customers through the rest of the economy, which will have to rely more heavily on buying foreign permits.

There’s no free lunch in reducing carbon emissions. Someone has to pay. The question is whether Australia will do anything to reduce its own emissions, or simply pay poorer countries to do our work for us.

[Psyber]

Since there are always opposing views and there will be no agreement under our system of totally oppsitional politics, I'd favour putting the money to work towards a hydrogen economy, whether it is fuelled by Derek Abbott's "simple" solar system or by Thorium fission. Either is better than paying out money to justify going on pouring out pollution instead of reducing it.
[And I'm still more worried about the carcinogens put out by diesel and biodiesel fumes than carbon dioxide.]

[Psyber]

I just received this by email.

While we are all preoccupied with the economic issues there is a lot going on in the background.
You may need to ask to see the qualifications of the "Doctor" treating your family soon.
I'm glad I can walk away now..

It worries me as a patient though - I have doubts some GPs are really up to scratch let alone those with less training....

Dismembering GPs Martin B Van Der Weyden MJA 2009; 191 (4): 193

A quiet revolution has been taking place, driven by both ideology and pragmatism. Its aim is to dismantle general practice and eviscerate the ranks of its medical practitioners. The signals are loud and clear.

In 2008, Nicola Roxon delivered the annual Ben Chifley Memorial “Light on the Hill” address to the Labor Party faithful, in which she outlined her vision for the public health sector, proposing that health care services be delivered by new players in ubiquitous teams. Unfortunately, there was little clear delineation of the respective roles of the members of these teams, which appeared to be amorphous and overlapping. Such a proposal inevitably begs two questions: will the services offered be safe, and will they be cost-effective?

However, Roxon’s address has given the green light to setting in motion a series of actions that will effectively dismember general practice as we now know it.

Understandably, this proposal has received strong support from nursing associations, and, almost 1 year on, nurse practitioners are to be granted access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and a restricted Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as well as the capacity to order investigations and refer patients. Also of significance is the Australian Capital Territory “trial” of nurse-only clinics.

Following on the heels of this quiet revolution are calls for the term “general practice” to be buried and replaced with “primary care”. And, interestingly, there is a push for another change — namely, that all practitioners working in primary care, irrespective of their qualifications and expertise, be now called “doctor”. Such a collaborative model readily brings to mind the sovietisation of health care.

Whatever the motivations for this change, its perpetrators can claim “mission accomplished!” Powerful political forces will take care of the general practitioner. Sadly, concerted political manoeuvring by those with the ear of the Minister has exposed the disorganisation and naivety of some in organised medicine. Their response conjures up images of lemmings rushing towards oblivion.

[dedja]

Already happens now my friend ... why is a Chiro allowed to be a doctor and a Physio not?

I'll declare a conflict of interest because my wife is a Physio, but I know which one of the two I'd rather be treated by.

[mick]

Already happens now my friend ... why is a Chiro allowed to be a doctor and a Physio not?

I'll declare a conflict of interest because my wife is a Physio, but I know which one of the two I'd rather be treated by.

If you wife did a PhD in Physio she would be entitled to call herself doctor. In fact for most medical doctors (MB BS) it is an honorary title in recognition of the 6+ years of training, but academically they don't hold a doctorate. Relatiely very few medical people in Australia hold an MD or PhD which here is an extra two - three years of study and research thesis on top of the basic MBBS. As for Chiropractors calling themselves doctors it is probably because the qualification they have is a DC (doctor of Chiropractic), but I personally see chiros on the borderline of quackery like naturopathy and homeopathy for example. I am very concerned what Roxon is doing, its a bit like the "barefoot" doctors that were common in China some years ago.

[dedja]

LOL, not advocating that Physios should be called doctors but am highlighting the absurdity that Chiros do ... and fully aware of the difference between a doctor of philosophy and a medical doctor.

I wouldn't get too precious about the Doctor title, as long as people get appropriate and timely care from any health professional, regardless of whether or not they hold an MBBS.

[Psyber]

I tend to agree that the only real "Doctors" are those with a Doctorate from a real University - the "real" I think mostly excludes the DC.
In some parts of the world almost any group seem to be able to create themselves a "University" and give out "Doctorates".
However, more once real Universities seem to be introducing tinpot degrees for the money these days, which is sad to see.
The German system of having a separate word "Artz" for medical "Doctors" perhaps makes sense.

My actual concern is whether people will be aware whether they are being treated by an MBBS, or a Division 1 or even Division 2 Nurse, or even by a government approved "Health Worker" who has done a 3 month course and works cheap...

A vocationally registered GP these days does the 6 year MBBS, a year or two as an Intern/RMO, then trains for the Fellowship of the College of General Practitioners.
I'm not sure how long that College course takes. My own Fellowship was a 4 to 5 year course on top of the MBBS and the RMO year.

[Jimmy_041]

Already happens now my friend ... why is a Chiro allowed to be a doctor and a Physio not?

I'll declare a conflict of interest because my wife is a Physio, but I know which one of the two I'd rather be treated by.

I will never understand the Physio v Chiro rivalry. I agree that the Doctorate in Chiropracacy(?) is a croc to try to lift the image - a bit like the real estate awards, but that is something, maybe, the physio hierachy should be addressing

I have ongoing problems that require both physio and chiro attention and attend different physicians for different problems. No physio could help me with 3 slipped discs in the neck for 8 years and eventually herniated dics - not even Sydney rugby specialists, and when I mentioned that someone had suggested a chiro, they spat with contempt.

Lo and behold, I finally found a chiro to relieve the chronic condition and help me manage the problem.

[dedja]

It's always a personal decision. In my case I've always seen Physios before Chiros, and this was even before I met my wife. If you've had good results with a Chiro, then that's all that matters.

She actually doesn't have a problem with them and accepts that they have a place.

It could just be a Physio thing though ... the ones I know (and there's a few) tend to call Occupational Therapists basket weavers, so who knows?

[Jimmy_041]

Professional rivalry

Most doctors have only just begun to understand the benefit of vitamins, balance within the body, and the power of the body's own defence system.

But we digress...............

[Gozu]

Costello still haunting Turnbull:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

The Liberal Party are still a complete rabble.

[Psyber]

The problem with Chiropractic is its basic premise that all disease is caused by misalignment of the vertebrae.
So, the devout will treat lumps in a woman's breast by manipulating the neck - I've seen women who died because of this.
Similarly, Osteopaths are taught that all disease is mediated via problems with the long bones.
Naturopaths tend to accept that an infinite dilution of an agent with some efficacy makes it more potent.
Some will recommend massive doses or vitamins or minerals, which at the mild end just give you expensive urine, but at the worst can give you nervous system damage or other vitamin toxicity.

I was in Challenge Hifi yesterday when a woman came in looking for headphones that could reproduce 5Hz.
The guy at the counter was curious and asked why, since it would be inaudible.
She explained it was for a "brain synchronising" programme she was attending and her "guide" used a Sony set that reproduced 5Hz to 20KHz.
He explained that even if it did it would be about 100db down on reference and would have no effect.
She looked at him like the stupid unbeliever he obviously was in her eyes...

Quackery is out there, and probably will soon be in a government sponsored medical centre near you as these guys will work cheap!

Some people believe all "natural" products are harmless - I have tended to remind them that some plants contain natural cyanide and other poisons..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

Cyanides are produced by certain bacteria, fungi, and algae and are found in a number of foods and plants. Cyanides are found, although in small amounts, in apple seeds, mango stones, peach stones and bitter almonds.[5] In plants, cyanides are usually bound to sugar molecules in the form of cyanogenic glycosides and defend the plant against herbivores. Cassava roots (also called manioc), an important potato-like food grown in tropical countries (and the base from which tapioca is made), also contain cyanogenic glycosides.[6][7]

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_kernels