|
Twitter politics is getting seriously bad, tl;dr Twitter's reporting mechanism has been weaponized by trolls and political operators. This one is a pathological ALP supporter with a mission to wipe Greens off Twitter apparently.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Tokamak posted:Afaik, a condition for getting indexed as a news source by google is that you can't restrict access to the article via google news. Twitter works for the same reason, sometimes it's quicker to find there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Periphery posted:The level of thought that went into writing this is astounding considering how mind-numbingly dumb it is. You're assuming there was much thought at all, that smacks of talking-points from a helpful adviser. Oh no not the UBI advocates from the left, they're the bad UBI advocates. This is a "why are you bothering us about this again" kind of thought bubble.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:I don't get how difficult it is to sell a message of "we are going to give you money and we are going to tax corporations and other people to get it" That's not the problem. The problem is to sell to the corporations that it is in their economic interests to have people with money to buy their products and UBI is a way to achieve that. Otherwise, what will happen is that their target market keeps shrinking as the percentage of people who have the money continues to shrink, and that is even more difficult to sell to markets as a sign of growth. Sooner or later either the system collapses or they figure this out. Unfortunately the corporations got to the politicians first and now we have about two generations worth of neoliberals to get through.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Potato Minister Dutton.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
No, the PM is chosen by the party in government, not the people nor Parliament. They can change them at any time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 07:49
|
|
|
The Before Times posted:what's the bet someone's whispering in Dutton's ear and building him up to think he'll be GREAT for LNP leader; meanwhile they know Dutton will lose the next election in a landslide and the leadership will change hands once again to ScoMo or Julie 'I litigated people to death' Bishop (though I am convinced she's too smart to ever go for LNP leader). That's what I'm thinking but some people are certain that once Dutton gets PM he won't lose for 20 years. I think Dutton makes a fine patsy, the only issue being why wouldn't they prefer Malcolm to lose the election if they're certain they'll lose it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
Well that was a complicated way of saying 'tone argument' but whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Schlesische posted:Why the gently caress are there like 5 pages of people stridently arguing against someone who was a bad enough poster to contract forums cancer? Because he's stupid and it's fun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Potato knows whats up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Asked what she thought of Wednesday's spectacular, Senator Hanson said the "20 minutes" devoted to Indigenous culture was "absolutely disgusting". Lady, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, you dumb gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Also if she's upset at people calling her racist then the answer isn't to have a big whinge about it, but instead to stop being such a horrible racist. She wants people to believe she is some sort of an aggrieved victim because people call her out on her bullshit whenever she says something atrocious. No, it is the aboriginal lobby who is wrong. See, that's how easy it is for them to rationalize it. They'll never admit they're wrong, they'll just shut up when absolutely everyone calls them on it. But because it sells media for desperate TV and print execs, they won't call her on it. That's how you get Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Malcolm Turnbeug posted:Auspol may - "Don't call me a racist when people don't know what the hell I'm talking about." Auspol May - pouring billions into the aboriginal industry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Bernard Keane has a big cry about mean Twitter fake news:quote:Twitter users are always ready to attack the press gallery for its political coverage. A lot of that criticism is justified. But much of the time the criticism is because journalists have reported things that don't fit people's preferred narrative. Say something that fits people's political worldview, and it's all retweets, likes and "nailed it!". Say something that doesn't fit what people want, and they're suddenly radical sceptics, refusing to accept any evidence you offer and parsing every syllable to detect your raging bias. The press gallery, people complain, is a herd of sheep mindlessly going in the same direction. Even if it wasn't manifestly untrue, yesterday's silliness illustrates that the herd mentality is as much ingrained in social media users as in any journalist. Oh boo hoo Bernard, we aren't professional like you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 10:42
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:to be fair there are a lot of dipshits out who get mad at any reporting of conflict within the labor party because why aren't you reporting on splits in the LNP?! when, uh, there's a tonne of reporting on splits in the LNP Yeah but his article has the whole tone of being mad that he can't coopt Twitter and hates having to beg for status on a platform that will never respect him just because he reports from Canberra. Twitter will ignore his narrative and make up its own bullshit which he can't ignore but has no say over it, mob mentality or not. And slowly but surely the clever politicians are utilizing Twitter and cutting out the middleman, which makes him even more mad since all he can then do is report on twitter. @murpharoo has promised there will be more podcast, indirectly confirming my hunch that she's been avoiding the whole thing for the last few months. edit: and Keane finishes his dummy spit with: quote:We're capable of protecting ourselves better. And if you want something to be true, that's all the more reason to be sceptical of it. But we're not. Wanting to believe something is true is apparently too hard for people to overcome on social media. And nothing of value was lost. ewe2 fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
Konomex posted:I don't get this world view. People like Pauline feels persecuted by Aboriginals somehow. I have literally never seen an Aboriginal persecuting a white person except, and this is a stupid exception, for calling them a white dawg whilst drunk, and they also called the other Aboriginals black dawgs so it's hardly persecution as it is being very drunk and disorderly. Punching down. It's a classic of the authoritarian playbook: oppress white trash and dogwhistle minority groups. Authoritarians perceive and project their obsessions about hierarchies, where they fit in them, how to succeed in climbing them. Poor white people are a perfect target for dogwhistling about minority groups because they're constantly being conditioned to feel inferior by their entire culture. Hanson is being reminded that she is inferior (despite 1. being stupid and 2. obviously not in the same social demographic she started in), therefore it must be the digeridoos fault. As others have posted, there's a variety of excuses for it but the essential selfishness of the authoritarian message is there. Against this, the left have rather a mixed performance. They often see that the solution may be removing the concept of that social hierarchy but are ineffective in countering it often due to their own unexamined prejudices. One of the biggest lies Australians kid themselves about the national character is egalitarianism, it's anything but. In attempting to help minorities, they end up patronising them, and thus play into the messaging to the Hansonites that their enemy are the people below them not above. Sometimes, like the marriage plebiscite, there is a win. But usually it's not a game you can win if you play by their rules or by the usual artificial contests like elections. Social change is just hard, and Hansonites are a symptom of how hard it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
No, this must be what going mad feels like.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:The PM has to be a sitting member of the lower house as far as I understand it. Only by convention. The PM and Cabinet aren't even mentioned in the constitution. So much of the Government is convention by rote as handed down from Westminster and there's really nothing stopping them from putting a Senator in except (also by tradition) that's a conflict of interest between the house that governs by and introduces legislation (lower) and the house that verifies legislation/is a check on that power (upper). A Senator only represents one of the states, and a PM supposedly governs for all and even that's a furphy because technically it's a party who governs. The PM's department is a sheer fiction invented by John Howard to make him look taller and less ratty (it failed). That's why it's so laughable when the Government whines about the Senate putting its legislation down, it's doing its job protecting the rights of the states against the federation. Partisanship has gotten so toxic that everyone forgets this or has never been taught the conventions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
There's a reason they call it Relevance Deprivation Syndrome, PMs have never understood why people turn on them. Rudd and Abbott are more alike than is comfortable for anyone watching politics. Howard still meddles, think about how long that shadow is on the LNP. Actually, I'm wondering how strong that generational divide is getting in the federal party, just how far will the Patersons et. al. go to differentiate themselves from a party on autopilot for 11 years?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:
I'm talking relative to their little world, not the real one. I didn't they weren't lovely, I said they're a different generation, and from what I hear none of them were terribly pleased with the Monash Group debacle and I wondered just how far that disenchantment may go. Paterson is an idealistic neoliberal, of course he's useless. But he's still going to look at the Cabinet and say "they have to go, this is all their fault". Christian Porter is quietly rubbing his hands saying "at last at last it begins", god knows what he wants to do. Actually I do, far worse austerity for the 99%. They're going to do the rebuilding and the deadwood-clearing and I want to know what they think is wrong with the party and how they're going to "fix" it. Because I think a few MP's are going to quietly retire by the next election. There's going to be a lot of sulking and attempts to preserve what power they have, and it's the reaction to that I'm interested in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 10:13
|
|
missing the point completely.
|
A particularly lazy "yeah nah" on UBI Seems he couldn't even be arsed to summarize one of his key sources properly. If the tax system is so bloody amazing, how come government revenue is way down and large corporations pay nothing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/newspoll-siege-mentality-eats-at-team-malcolm/news-story/b7409e062c56f36496859e08095f3c88 None of that is particularly surprising, except perhaps the depth of the self-delusion that they've been sucking up to the renewables sector, yeah right lol. Once the siege mentality takes, it's all the way down for Mal boo the gently caress hoo. Of more interest is Piping Shrike's latest blog which points out a couple of things: 1. 2PP means nothing because minor parties preferences are what is increasingly deciding elections. 2. Most of the votes lost by the majors in this way effectively go nowhere. They are staggering over the line in the final result but the primary vote may as well be 0%. The preference system has hiding the true positions of the parties because those positions aren't actually translated into political power. But increasingly they will because there's nowhere else for that pressure to go. This is why, despite their confusion, the Greens keep going. All of this means that minor parties should be much, much tougher about their preference deals. The Greens should in particular be selling their preferences to the ALP for a much higher price because as it stands the ALP are just getting a free ride off them. And if they don't commandeer that power, other minor parties will start leeching those preferences as well. There is no reason for any gloating about this, it's going to give us more instability not less, and making it more difficult to get anything done. I've theorized before that we're heading towards multi-party coalitions in the European style, and under the current conditions this backs that up. Except we don't have any experience with that style of politics, we've been dancing down the US style because it frankly suits the delusions of the major parties to think that way. That we might end up like Austria or Italy or Spain hasn't yet entered the darkest dreams of party headquarters, but it's inevitable in the next decade or so. As Shrike pointed out, SA Best almost got a governing coalition position, and we've already seen a federal minority government. The Nationals will continue to fade away and be replaced probably by a couple of minors who nonetheless will have to be accommodated. You've seen how the tensions are rising just from the pairing arguments at federal and now state level. We could see some important conventions thrown out the window as they get more desperate, conventions we've been taking for granted for a century.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Problem with that is the Greens can't exactly threaten their preferences to go elsewhere. The day that the Greens preference Libs above Lab is the day they lose a fuckton of supporters. This is how the majors think, that the system can't possibly go on without them. You're thinking too bi-camerally (an adverb i just made up). Far more likely is a coalition of minor parties sharing preferences or enough primary vote to weld them into a new party. Now multiply that and we could have as many as five parties with enough primary that can't be ignored but not enough to govern outright. That's where I think we're headed. Cartoon posted:It would seem that we have come back to the place we were in during the fifties and sixties. Fundamental dissatisfaction with the ruling elite is forcing a counter culture to rise up. Let's hope this lot do better at it tank Boomers Co. Think earlier. BTW, if anyone cares to make a historical timeline of australian parties infographic (because I can find none, but there are heaps of really good American ones), you'll be Twitter famous. We really need something like that. Anyway, I'm loathe to depend on Wikipedia but you can start with their list and you can see that outside the main federal sphere there's a whole bunch of whackjobs out in the sticks, and some of them have been around for quite a while. But where you should start is here. Just read the unadorned facts about the first few elections. It should ring a bell. That's right, coalitions and minority governments started us off. Then we got some bicameral action up to the outbreak of WW1, which an ill-judged double dissolution by the Libs which gave ALP power (it backfired that time). Then coalitions welded into new parties and Billy Hughes happened and things went downhill for Labor, especially in 1923 when the Bruce-Page Nationalist-Country Coalition (there's a mouthful) came in. Anyway, you get the idea. The primary vote has shifted this way and that even after preferential voting was introduced in 1918. All it's really done is hold back the tide for the majors for a few decades. We've been living in a dreamworld since the 50's and it's time to wake up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:But this ignores material conditions and improvements in tech. At the start of the last century the only mass communication medium was the newspaper and the telegraph, then radio, TV, and now the internet. With each leap has come consolidation and a shuffling of power amongst politics. The main thing the majors are adjusting to now is social media because it's a low-effort "Letters to the Editor" without a filter writ large. It might be high time for a schism in politics to adjust to this but it'd be foolish to assume the majors can't co-opt it in their own interests right now. The genie is out of the bottle and the one-to-many model of media management is dying, dying hard but still dying. This is disruption of a different level to the kind of media consolidation which is by no means a write-off, just that it can't compete with free. One-to-many controls the flow of ideas, the only serious political use of the internet has been fake news, and it's yet to be seen if that can be a winner because it's so dependent on secrecy and it's already failed that test, obviously. Whoever turns up after Trump if not Pence, is going to have to work very hard to change the perception of the electorate to his party much like the Right's determination to belabour everyone about Obama and Hilary for the next decade. But that's American politics, it doesn't translate so well here even though Liberal Party darlings think it does. Like political ads: you only have to demonstrate how staged and contradictory they are to be an effective counter. Politicians are already trying to go around the media to coopt the internet but this only works on people who are always going to support those particular politicians, it doesn't translate into a political movement. This is particularly why they hate GetUp! because it IS an internet political movement that isn't co-optable. And I think, at least for this country, the drive to make the internet "safe" for politicians is stronger from the "establishment" than a genuine control of the internet media cycle if there ever can be one. So if there's a threat, that's where to look. I'm not saying some Dvorak-bs about the internet is freedom etc. But heres a thing: the people who sell ads lie a lot about success-rates to their customers to keep the money coming. You can micro-target people up the wazoo and if you get 30-50% that's enormous. Spammers only need 5% to tick over, that's never going to work with politics. And it never translates to 80-100% like the sales pitch. Up to now getting the voter via media at those levels of 30% were enough to shift the primary vote up. Now, it's not enough and it will never get enough, particularly with a generation who've grown up with the tricks on the internet, it's a much harder sell. You can facebook fake news them once, and you're done. The smart politicians will realize this eventually. With that kind of frustration, policing the internet is much easier. Look how mad the government's got while it still doesn't understand the internet. quote:Bernardi's move of setting up "Australian Conservatives" was quite clever because he took the name that a chunk of the LNP actually call themselves, so he's sitting over on the sidelines cheerfully waving at them to cross the line. Don't be surprised if many of the existing LNP incumbents make the move after they lose the next election because by then they will have nothing to lose, especially if they all do it in unison. We can't see how "clever" it is until the election. But I doubt he has that kind of pull, many of them dislike him personally and they sure as hell won't take orders from him. Everything I see about Bernardi says "idealistic egotist" which is by no means unusual in a politician, just not so much a successful one, it's the pragmatic egotists you have to watch out for. He's a great salesman, but a leader, not so much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:True, I guess I was mostly saying it's clever because he has co-opted the name of the ideology as the name for his party. Having the leadership of the LNP running around saying "we like markets and business but also conservative family values" will only gel with the hard right conservatives for so long until they all decide to hold their nose and jump ship, hoping to co-opt the party out of Bernardi's hands and into their own. Well, depending on the level of opportunism, I could be wrong but to me it sounds like the older guys can't stand Cory. There's been a lot of heavy backgrounding on him in the last two years, so I don't think he was ever long for getting out before he got dumped for preselection, it was heading that way. Whoever rebuilds the Libs whenever that finally happens if at all, would never have had a place for Bernardi, they wouldn't get the numbers. And Bernardi could never allow himself to be shamed into starting a new party, so he jumped before he was pushed. It's a convincing narrative, whatever the truth, and I'm just as certain they're telling themselves that. I'd be more inclined to think newer members might gravitate his way if they finally despair of the federal party's direction which is plainly downward, and that would be more significant than a couple of disaffected ex-Ministers throwing in with him. You have a serious problem when the new blood say no thanks, I'm with Cory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
G-Spot Run posted:Is "virtue signalling" some sort of red pill poo poo for describing people with a conscience? It's what they call a SJW "tactic", because they don't want to promote the narrative of being shamed, they turn it on its head and claim it's a way of showing other SJW's how Social Justicey they are. So its a red pill poo poo way of pretending that any messaging doesn't apply to THEM, it's 'oooh look how moral you're pretending to be" while simultaneously la-la-la i can't hear you. Like a smart 14 year old.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
G-Spot Run posted:I guess it's good that that they maintain their own little language then as it is apparently very effective fuckwit signalling. LOL. I was going to say, it also goes a little bit further than immature lack of empathy, for the very smart 14 year olds have been reading their Ayn Rand bibles and swotting up on their Corporatism For Neoliberals (a fake textbook), and have the same fervour about zero sum game rational acting the way a couple of generations earlier would have discussed the finer points of Engels Principles of Communism (an actual book). Since, therefore only Rational Actors exist it follows that SJW's aren't demonstrating some form of altruism but appealing to reinforcements to come and destroy the noble and clever MRAs. But 'fuckwit signalling' is much shorter.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Starshark posted:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/why-liddell-is-likely-to-close-in-2022-and-why-you-shouldnt-care?CMP=share_btn_tw Well well well a Holmes à Court is working in academia about energy. Probably can take that to the bank then.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
bell jar posted:who was that other one that came before abbott. i can't even remember his name now. brendan nelson. leland palmer looking motherfucker I'll post this again because it's still funny and still relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yvC8-Y4hk0 I know I'm old and still remember this stuff, but I can't remember anything Brendan Nelson loving said outside trying to look more beige than Simon Crean. Abbott was a sign that things had really changed in the party. Up to then whenever a governing leader was felled they'd put a moderate in: Hewson, Downer, Nelson, all moderates. I can't fault anyone for not picking up on Abbott, he just happened to be very loud and promised the world and they couldn't believe their luck that it worked. But now they have to eat their own, and there's nothing in the barrel. I think Les Affaires is right but mainly because the party itself has no idea how to follow Turnbull or he'd have been toppled by now. It depends on the next lying loudmouth and they'll put anyone up just to stop that narrative like the last time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:They know how to follow Turnbull, they just don't want to. It requires a policy pragmatism that accepts that certain things they held to be true may have applied once upon a time but don't anymore. That part hurts to admit, it's hard to move away from, and is politically damaging. Absolutely true which is why I didn't even canvass it because it's an argument they still have to have, if they ever have the balls to have it. And the problem with opposition is that they've never had a plan for it. The ALP on the other hand still have institutional memory of opposition (I'm talking pre-1950's) and what happens with real splits (like the Evatt period that Menzies capitalized on). We've touched on this subject before about the Liberals: how for them ideology is always a culture war even if they lie to themselves about it; we've always known that climbing the ladder and getting with the corporate in-crowd post-politics is their core concern and literally everything else is window-dressing. It's what Prester Jane would call their Inner Narrative. No one can seriously argue that government is too intrusive in the market and at the same time legislate ways for corporations to avoid tax, people pick up on that eventually. One might say well, they used to believe it at one time, perhaps some of them did, but I can't see how that could be the case when you take a closer look. The primacy of the market is an Outer Narrative, it sells what the big end of town wants, but it's really been more about divide and rule and they've largely succeeded in their mission to make most unions toothless, blunders like WorkChoices taught them they had to be more subtle. The failure was the left thinking it had won a war, not a battle but it's always war in politics. As a nation we follow political trends mostly, not lead them and the overturning of the conditions that created the middle class has been a century in the making across the "first nations", they were that patient and undeterred. quote:FWIW part of the core tenet of Liberal party ideology (not nationals though lol) is the primacy of the market and there's merit to that principle, but the shift in thinking that has happened recently is that the primacy is only beneficial in certain cases and is actually damaging some sectors and has been for a while now. Markets exist because government permits them, in reality. Business wants regulation to protect it and then wants to tear regulation down that prevents it from whatever the latest stupid business fad is. Housing is a topic business doesn't want to deal with, its zoning that engages them, who gets what where and for how much. The government is also in the housing business and protects its investment with the same care as any landlord, perhaps with slightly relaxed rules. The obvious damage is the public sectors of communication and energy. The mismanagement of which has been long-term and immensely damaging to everyone but the lotto-winners of coal stations and internet networks, and will continue to be for generations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:I don't really agree with all of this. A large part of the liberal party genuinely believes in the just world. They believe that welfare is enabling and getting rid of it will help people. They believe that government is inherently bad at everything. Get up close to them when they feel safe with a few drinks and it is a frightening look into the abyss. I think we're both right, There are those who cynically use this to better their careers, and at the same time they can also believe in their just world. It's part ideology and disconnection. People who genuinely believe they're a better kind of person and want to protect their privilege do not doubt that what they're doing is best, after all, the only people who disagree must be lefties. None of this is a contradiction to them, why else would they be able to grab power if they weren't meant to?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:You suck so much poo poo at posting I can't tell whether you want to correct or kill the poor Aww I'm sorry if the big words are hard. edit: welp looks like someone wants an election now https://twitter.com/billshortenmp/status/983496569453404161 ewe2 fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Lid posted:Just had a flashback to when ELECTION NOW was a meme here... was that 8 years ago? starkebn posted:That's why it sounds so hollow. Every opposition party in forever has promised the same list of poo poo. Even the party in power says the exact same list before an election. Well spotted. It does have that smell about it to me. If Bill takes to spouting TLS and running off camera it will be a slam dunk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
JBP posted:It is wrong and bad to be salty about foremost left wing party being a hosed up clown show. Upon whose preferences your darlings political lifeblood depends. But don't let that stop you, I'm enjoying your clown show.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Kevin Andrews whiteanting the LNP for some mystical agenda of his own? Someone's gotta mind the phylactery, good help is hard to find these days what with the gay green agenda.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:i read catherine murphy’s piece on credlin and frydenberg and wow it’s really bad That piece is just a big IM SICK OF POLITICS thing, honestly she needs time out or a new job. But what more can you say about Credlin really, nobody's saying no to her so she continues on doing whatever the gently caress it is she thinks she's doing. Murphy also has a problem being mean about younger politicians, that comes up a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2018 11:22
|
|
at least frydenberg is trying to do something (even if it’s really poo poo)
|
The Before Times posted:nah the rich boomers we all want to kill can actually afford good care This. I'm a bit behind naeka on current stuff but I did my PCA cert in 2010 and it's all a bit scary how the system works. Most health workers in this area love their patients and often go beyond the call of duty whether they get paid for it or not. But the system itself is designed to rake in cash whilst doing the minimum. The idea from the Feds POV is "get them to pay for it themselves" (except the ones on private health insurance, they're special), with the idea of managing the boomer demographic bump. If you're dependent on public health, you're in for a world of confusing forms, long delays, and punitive assessments of your income. The first aim is to get you to stay at home with in-home care because that's the cheapest option for the government. It is not necessarily the cheapest option for you. HIH (help-in-home) nurses can be basically equated with postal contractors: they have too many calls to make in a day or they don't get paid and often have to cough up their own transport and buy their own petrol, that differs across providers of course. After that the aim of the "aged care package" is to assess your needs in terms of what it will cost them, and steer you towards accepting that you or your family will have to sell up the house in order to be in the queue for a home that is satisfied it won't lose money on the deal and have that money locked in before you leave. Homes routinely cheat on the rules, like charging for extra toiletries that they are required by law to provide free of charge, and nothing gets done because governments are terrified of people losing faith in the system with the obvious political consequences. I think there's been a dozen 4corners stories about the sector and every time it's as if it's never happened before and won't again, until the next time. And after all that, aged care homes don't just do the aged. They do anyone who has no other option, so there's a spectrum of people with various incapacity who lost their boardinghouse room or got dumped there by the family (it happens) or have no family left to help. There's more early onset Alzheimers (and other forms of dementia) than you think, a lot of boomers are there already. You can have a stroke that hits you with vascular dementia/brain damage on top and you're done. Check the stats. Big regional centres like Bendigo are major aged care centre providers, scooping everyone around the mid to northern part of the state up. The feds are only spending 200 million on dementia research, and the main research support organization isn't even funded by them. Yet the cost to the economy is already in the tens of billions. I think that explains priorities better than anything. Sorry that got ranty. I'm not even close to describing all the ways this is horrible to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
A politician makes a claim about 800k debts and you're all taking that as fact? Uhh ok. I'd have thought if the solution was BS maybe most of the problem is too. On the back of 30 bad Newspolls, you don't think they'd stretch the truth a bit to satisfy the base like every other time they announce this kind of thing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Not that hot a take when you consider the state of Centrelink's IT system. Just add it to the middleware, what could go wrong? Oh it crashed again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
They figured it out. Throw a soundbite out about a ridiculous debt, harvest the outrage and when it inevitably fucks up, blame the algorithm. It works for Facebook and Google.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 05:32
|
|