|
the canonical answer in my mind is that the alp are staffed by scientologists hell bent on saving australians from the scourge of psychiatry, but they keep nerfing psychology by mistake
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 12:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Austerity is the religion of liberals, and merely a tool for right wingers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of the data showing patients significantly find relief and success after the full 20 sessions. So now we can have more patients, half-arsed, rather than people actually leaving and not having to go back (or go back as often). I think I had 10 sessions under the old system and was actually pretty good by the end of them, but I wouldn't have wanted to just have to wait around for several months for another 10 sessions at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The thing I don't understand with nurses is their pathological dislike for fixed rosters. It just removes so much drama when you have your 5:2:4:3 or 2 N/S, 2 D/S, 4 off or 5/5/5 or whatever and leave it to the crews to swap around shifts amongst themselves for special needs if they have consummed all their leave or were too slow to put in for it (assuming maximum two per crew off for a given day for eg). The crews then get assembled to work as a consistent team and there can't be argument over who got what public holiday. In my (admittedly private, not public) experience there are way more nurses on casual rather than permanent contracts, seemingly so that they can be on the books for 3 or 4 employers, and take or drop shifts for them in order of highest to lowest rate on any given day, and also be able to work every single day of the week for a month at a time while dodging fatigue concerns that would otherwise force a full time permanent nurse to take 2 days off every week. Nursing has basically turned into multiboxing food delivery drivers to make ends meet.  This is the day/night 4 week roster all the guards at Serco run detention centres on 12 hour shifts use, it's a pretty reasonable sort of pattern NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Dec 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:In my (admittedly private, not public) experience there are way more nurses on casual rather than permanent contracts, seemingly so that they can be on the books for 3 or 4 employers, and take or drop shifts for them in order of highest to lowest rate on any given day, and also be able to work every single day of the week for a month at a time while dodging fatigue concerns that would otherwise force a full time permanent nurse to take 2 days off every week. Nursing has basically turned into multiboxing food delivery drivers to make ends meet. I can understand, if not support the pursuit of massive hours (old timers didn't fight for 40 hour week on the premise of two jobs and normalizing two jobs is asking for something we don't really want) but even outside that, I have yet to meet a nurse that was not weirdly opposed to fixed rosters. My mum has enjoyed her seven shift fortnights for like 20 years and refuses to do an additional shift unless it's to help another nurse, she complains about weirdo one day, two evening, one day off, two nights, four days off, one night, two days off style of roster when it gets foisted upon her for doing some nefarious thing like get implied permeance converted to permanent contracts for other nurses that want it as the union rep and yet it will be over her dead body will she admit to any value to fixed rosters. Maybe it is to give the option as you suggest. My favourite roster I worked was 12 hours, two days, two nights, four days off. I like just doing two night shifts as you don't fully change over before back on days. The 3n,2o,2n,3o,2n,4d,7o,3n looks pretty cool though (I assume the green is night shifts) - take 3 days off and get a 12 day break is pretty good - with the 20 shifts of a year, I could take six - 12 day breaks a year and use the last two days for emergencies. Or if going overseas (really want three weeks), you can trade two 12 day breaks for one 21 day break. Yeah, I really like that roster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Serrath posted:I hate the Liberal party as much as anyone but I'm forced to acknowledge that the creation of the bulk-billing system for psychology was a Howard policy, sessions were reduced under Rudd, medicare rebate was frozen under Gillard, and then sessions were expanded again under Morrison... now ALP is back in charge and sessions are being reduced again. I don't know why the ALP hates psychology as much as it does but it's not a subtle thing nor a bipartisan thing. This was an excellent post by the way, I wasn't as aware of the pre-2010 poo poo but it definitely contextualises a lot of the poo poo we see today. Before the 2019 election I remember the Australian Psychological Society had appointed a new CEO (Frances Mirrabelli??) and was doing the rounds to both signal change (which never eventuated and she got the rear end) as well as outlining the advocacy being done on both sides of politics. She flagged with the members at the time that she thought we would have a change of government in 2019 (lmao) and that psychology was not in a strong position with the ALP because of the long-standing dislike of psychology in addition to a lot of the splits we seem to have within the profession. I remember at the time the CEO stated that we really need to consider how to we unfuck the internal dynamics so we can better advocate for ourselves but as stated earlier that CEO left under some pretty tight-lipped circumstances but there's been very little change since. That's really where my understanding of "the federal ALP seems to hate psychology" comes from. Despite the ALP losing that election and seemingly would need to rethink the strategy, I'd love to hear the justification from the terminal ALP-brains on why this is a cool and good thing and why it seems to continue to happen under Labor governments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The 3n,2o,2n,3o,2n,4d,7o,3n looks pretty cool though (I assume the green is night shifts) - take 3 days off and get a 12 day break is pretty good - with the 20 shifts of a year, I could take six - 12 day breaks a year and use the last two days for emergencies. Or if going overseas (really want three weeks), you can trade two 12 day breaks for one 21 day break. Yeah, I really like that roster. Green is day, yellow is night, but they could still take 3 days off and get 12. In practise about half of them would use the smaller gaps to pick up OT, and then keep their 7 day break for recovery. The 1% would try and work every day, including a guy at Villawood who a site manager called in on days off to work 27 days in one month, that was only detected after it was done and the time sheets were processed. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Dec 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Recoome posted:This was an excellent post by the way, I wasn't as aware of the pre-2010 poo poo but it definitely contextualises a lot of the poo poo we see today. I appreciate that, I don't post often because most of what I have to say is on very narrow topics that don't come up that much quote:...in addition to a lot of the splits we seem to have within the profession. I remember at the time the CEO stated that we really need to consider how to we unfuck the internal dynamics so we can better advocate for ourselves but as stated earlier that CEO left under some pretty tight-lipped circumstances but there's been very little change since. I'm going to grossly over-simplify the problem but the profession of "psychology" comprises, as you pointed out, 4+2/5+1 psychologists and masters/clinical psychologists. When the better access scheme was introduced, there was an inherent inequality introduced into the system that seems so perfectly targeted to make the profession cannibalize it's own that it must have been intentional. From day 1, clinical psychologists could charge more for the same 1-hour of private practice work than non-clinical psychologists and clinical psychology as a title is available only to people who have completed a clinical psychology masters or PhD degree. You've already summarised the pros and cons from this approach however, ever since then, there has been an active and ongoing debate within the field of psychology as to whether we should be tightening up the rigor and academic discipline and do away with the apprenticeship scheme altogether (as North America and the UK have done) or broaden the apprenticeship scheme and attempt to seek parity within the field, either improving access to the clinical psychologist title for non-masters/PhD graduates or doing away with the two tiers of rebates. I am not exaggerating when I say that resolving this debate has represented the highest priority for the accreditation bodies which has lead to splits (the Australian Association of Psychologists spun off from the Australian Psychology Society specifically to advocate for 4+2/5+1 graduates) and a revolving door of APS leadership as one faction of this debate finds enough votes to become leader and then gets white-anted by the other faction until they resign. With each new president of the APS, we seem to get a new direction/policy as to whether we should be focusing on making the profession more academically rigorous vs focusing on expanding services and doing away with the different tiers of practice. One year we're adding a mandatory academic exam that all 4+2's must pass to graduate with their letters, then we have a change in leadership, and next year we're talking about introducing a bridging qualification to allow 4+2 trained psychologists to enter the clinical college. There's no "right" answer to the question of how much academic rigor we should require before someone can be a psychologist but resolving this debate only works when the leadership takes a position and then sticks with that position over years. So when the leadership talks about unfucking the internal dynamics, they might be referring to a number of issues but this is the issue that brings out the strongest emotions and sucks up a lot of oxygen within the political advocacy arms of both the APS and the AAPi. The following is my own personal opinion but I strongly feel that this 10-year civil war is reducing the capacity of psychology governing bodies to advocate for themselves. I've been to conferences where panel discussions are hosted for public debate, debates about the number of sessions allowed under the better access scheme might take 5 minutes and be quite civil and then you get to the agenda item of talking about doing away with clinical-psychology specific medicare billing numbers and suddenly people are shouting at each other, walking out, throwing tables, and nothing else gets discussed. And while the profession of psychology tries to reconcile this debate, policy changes like the medicare freeze and reduction in better-access sessions gets reduced without any real challenge. Sorry to put so many words to a narrow aspect of the profession but this has been going on for years and there appears to be no sign it might be resolving
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
Serrath posted:
I think it's actually really good to chuck it all on the table. I came across an opinion by a ALP-er to the effect of "the only people caring about this change is the people in the industry" and that really resonated with me, basically because there's really little visibility on how loving insane the whole situation within psychology is outside of the profession. What was a seismic shift in the way psychs were trained (the axing of the 4+2) didn't register at all outside the profession because it's just a huge mess. quote:The following is my own personal opinion but I strongly feel that this 10-year civil war is reducing the capacity of psychology governing bodies to advocate for themselves. I've been to conferences where panel discussions are hosted for public debate, debates about the number of sessions allowed under the better access scheme might take 5 minutes and be quite civil and then you get to the agenda item of talking about doing away with clinical-psychology specific medicare billing numbers and suddenly people are shouting at each other, walking out, throwing tables, and nothing else gets discussed. And while the profession of psychology tries to reconcile this debate, policy changes like the medicare freeze and reduction in better-access sessions gets reduced without any real challenge. I can't bold this enough. You really hit all the points I could make more eloquently but I completely agree with this. Resolving this schism will also allow us to focus on non-counselling and clinical psychology (like Organisational, Sport, Health, Ed/Dev, Forensic) which basically get chucked to the wayside and don't get any advocacy/playtme. In some cases we lost one of the few organisational psych programs because I really feel we gently caress around and do ourselves, and society, a disservice. Any goons who have read this far and actually feel something please write to your local MP about what the gently caress happened to those extra sessions because I do believe it's just widening the gulf between people who can afford mental healthcare and people who roll the dice in either taking the 10 sessions a year or potentially have to wait until they are extremely, extremely acute and go inpatient. The cost of treating people in a MH inpatient service far outweighs the cost of the BAS so the whole situation is just loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
I've already cracked the shits but my local MP is an sda parachute man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Mine pleasantly seems to already have converted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
Morrison getting grilled in the royal comission is on now, just as slimy and evasive as you'd expect, but it's nice to see him actually being pressed on his bs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Mine pleasantly seems to already have converted. Josh Burns is a good guy. I'm glad he's doing this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 07:21
|
|
|
 He's revolting 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
JBP posted:Josh Burns is a good guy. I'm glad he's doing this. So glad loving Danby is gone and also replaced with one of the party's more decent younger members I would blow Dane Cook posted:
I love it when the subbies get sassy and make an objective-but-subjective headline. I think my favourite one ever was something about a utility company facing bad profits, resulting in a headline along the lines of: CEO: WORKERS MAY BE "ASKED" TO TAKE A "TEMPORARY" PAY CUT
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Mine pleasantly seems to already have converted. That's good but hoooooly poo poo why the hell is the government doubling down on not reversing it, seems like an own goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 10:18
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I think it's actually really good to chuck it all on the table. I came across an opinion by a ALP-er to the effect of "the only people caring about this change is the people in the industry" and that really resonated with me, basically because there's really little visibility on how loving insane the whole situation within psychology is outside of the profession. What was a seismic shift in the way psychs were trained (the axing of the 4+2) didn't register at all outside the profession because it's just a huge mess. I really enjoyed the discussion and I thought about why the ALP seems to have a pathological dislike for psychology. I can only come up with the old school Union resistance to the post grad professions like the AMA who overwhelmingly support Liberal despite being a glorified union themselves. That and it's plainly obvious that the civil war is at least partially about the clinically registered psychs working to pull up the ladder or gatekeep the numbers of Psychs, most of which demographic health need to be technically competent professionals applying the latest knowledge/best practice as opposed to research or academic study specialists. I see a similar thing in my old alma matter, the old Mr X or Ms Y no longer lecturing their specialty subject matter expertise because PhD being a minimum requirement to be a Uni lecturer so now the same subjects are instead presented by PhD havers with no specialist or deep understanding of the subject matter other than what is required in general in the industry. Not to say that lesser education is better, just that it is not strictly better to add additional years of pure education. I really think the crossover from pure education to practical exposure + updating training is late then it needs to be as a means to gate keep (also, I did it this way, so shall the young). Here is my idea, 20 sessions of non-clinically registered psych made available, or 10 sessions of clinically registered. Once the associations sort themselves out and get a sensible proposal to unify the registration without adding years of retraining, then we can talk about methodical systems to ensure the number of sessions is unlimited where required but inherently targets discontinuing sessions where a reasonable expectation of efficacy is not there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 11:31
|
|
|
the psych vs. clin. psych distinction seems like some real crab bucket mentality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
It strikes me that investing money in mental health care at this stage in human history would be fairly budget-friendly, given that treatable mental health issues tend to keep people either out of employment, or act as barriers to career development and promotion. I personally leant very hard on the Medicare system last year due to some trauma that was severely impacting my ability to function day-to-day, and while time plays a part trauma recovery, the counseling was critical to me getting my life back under control and making genuine and lasting improvements. I'm far better at recognising problematic behaviour in others and avoiding situations that got me there in the first place. Still cost a lot out of pocket and I'm lucky I could afford it, just. Further restricting access to mental health resources is only going to add additional burden on crisis care, volunteer orgs, emergency departments and the NDIS as people who might have been helped the way I was end up unemployed, homeless and circling the drain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
it's just a cut labor think they can get away with because access to psychology is already so hosed that the cuts will probably just kinda shift around the problem a bit rather than being definitively worse overall (although it's definitely worse in principle and does nothing to address the underlying issues) & labor already have some weird issue with psychology to begin with evidently it sucks though personally i'm not affected for it right now as i have enough ndis funding, but they'll probably reduce my funding next year
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Ridiculously obtuse professional pissing contests seem depressingly believable, though I can really believe it's just a bunch of well-off assholes thinking poor people should stop asking for someone to whine to and just get over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Labor's cutting it because they're confident they're going to fix the root cause of the spiralling mental health crisis. Bonus, it's also going to stop further climate change and imperialism. It was difficult, took a lot of work and time, but I'm really glad I voted labor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:the psych vs. clin. psych distinction seems like some real crab bucket mentality. Yeah well everyone at the end of their training gets generally registered, so it's actually a single tier. The "special sauce" is the area of practice endorsement or endorsement for short, which is where you get titles like organisational/clinical psychologist. At present, the only people who are eligible to undertake the further training for endorsement are people who have gone through the specific masters although there was a reasonably recent VCAT ruling which suggests that the system as-is isn't consistent with the spirit of the legislation where endorsement is supposed to recognise a particular depth of knowledge and experience. As everyone gets streamed in psychology presently the masters are absolutely brutal to get into. The stats I've seen out of the APS suggest something like 25-50% of honours graduates get into some form of psych postgrad eventually, but that doesn't account for the fact that honours degrees accounts for something like the absolute top 5-10% of psychology students. Everyone applies everywhere basically, but it's not uncommon for clinical programs to have like 500-700 applicants for like less than 20 places. This experience, paired with a healthy dose of institutional elitism, forms a lot of what I see as the splits as it's like an identity. If I had to point fingers towards who's responsible, I'd say that a stack of (but not every) pre-2010 psychologists didn't really give a poo poo and weren't looking to the future of the profession meaning some very suboptimal choices were made. It squares away with the same issues of self-advocacy that we see today but due to that super academic background in psychology I just don't think we thought it mattered back then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
lih posted:it's just a cut labor think they can get away with because access to psychology is already so hosed that the cuts will probably just kinda shift around the problem a bit rather than being definitively worse overall (although it's definitely worse in principle and does nothing to address the underlying issues) & labor already have some weird issue with psychology to begin with evidently I'll shut up about the psych poo poo after this but the risk arising from this decision is that we pull the ladder of mental healthcare up slightly again, meaning a stack of people who may have been able to afford those gap payments will not get treatment and are left to the winds of fate. Will they get better by themselves? Will they experience a decline enough to require acute services (a huge and extremely negative outcome)? Somewhere in the middle? It's a bit ghoulish by Mark Butler to cite "... the need to do more to support people in rural and low socio-economic areas" but also reduce the ability for those people to access psychological services without announcing additional support. This decision literally only impacts the consumers of mental health services. Everyone I know has a stack of work, and they had a stack of work prior to COVID too so really Ranter posted:Labor's cutting it because they're confident they're going to fix the root cause of the spiralling mental health crisis. Bonus, it's also going to stop further climate change and imperialism. It was difficult, took a lot of work and time, but I'm really glad I voted labor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
As someone for whom the extra sessions were nice but not necessarily always helpful that has wound up in acute public inpatient care multiple times over the last few years im pretty pissed about it. Public inpatient psychiatry is pretty clearly geared towards keeping schizoaffective patients manageable and lacks much in the way for effective treatment for any other conditions. My laymans thoughts are that it has been getting harder and harder to get meaningful psychological treatment like cbt/dbt for at least a decade if not longer and the lack of any attempt to keep these sorts of treatments accessible is the root issue here but just cutting available sessions of less effective forms of therapy seems like just giving up entirely on people like me in this no mans land
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I'll shut up about the psych poo poo after this but the risk arising from this decision is that we pull the ladder of mental healthcare up slightly again, meaning a stack of people who may have been able to afford those gap payments will not get treatment and are left to the winds of fate. Will they get better by themselves? Will they experience a decline enough to require acute services (a huge and extremely negative outcome)? Somewhere in the middle? It's a bit ghoulish by Mark Butler to cite "... the need to do more to support people in rural and low socio-economic areas" but also reduce the ability for those people to access psychological services without announcing additional support. as someone who is studying psych part time to change careers, this has been an extremely enlightening and somewhat disheartening conversation to read. is there anywhere online where this stuff is discussed that you recommend?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
Jezza of OZPOS posted:As someone for whom the extra sessions were nice but not necessarily always helpful that has wound up in acute public inpatient care multiple times over the last few years im pretty pissed about it. Public inpatient psychiatry is pretty clearly geared towards keeping schizoaffective patients manageable and lacks much in the way for effective treatment for any other conditions. My laymans thoughts are that it has been getting harder and harder to get meaningful psychological treatment like cbt/dbt for at least a decade if not longer and the lack of any attempt to keep these sorts of treatments accessible is the root issue here but just cutting available sessions of less effective forms of therapy seems like just giving up entirely on people like me in this no mans land That sucks hardcore. As a schizophrenic, please know that the brief intervention team I see for a few months after every admission largely doesn't impact me favourably enough to stave off another inpatient visit. I've just completed DBT through the Alfred and honestly it's helped with some problematic behaviours but having just gotten out a few weeks ago from the In-patient Unit under an unusual Temporary Mental Health Treatment Order (usually I'm voluntary), it hasn't really touched the sides when it comes to my more depressing sets of symptoms. I hate the notion that there's such a difficult number of hurdles and fewer sessions for people from what's largely unaffordable treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
sweetroy posted:as someone who is studying psych part time to change careers, this has been an extremely enlightening and somewhat disheartening conversation to read. is there anywhere online where this stuff is discussed that you recommend? I'm not actually sure if there is a great online resource for this kind of thing, unfortunately. My advice is to be a critical consumer of information and basically enjoy the process of learning about psychology. It's hard work and I hope that in the near future we will make it less disheartening!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 09:21
|
|
|
Word cloud for November:
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
blame staff that's right anime dave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 11:55
|
|
|
Sorry to keep this conversation going, people make posts that I feel I can reply to but if the conversation is too industry-specific and narrow, I'm happy to drop it... because this is my field, it's interesting to me and I have a lot of opinions but I always imagine this stuff would be boring to outsidersElectric Wrigglies posted:I see a similar thing in my old alma matter, the old Mr X or Ms Y no longer lecturing their specialty subject matter expertise because PhD being a minimum requirement to be a Uni lecturer so now the same subjects are instead presented by PhD havers with no specialist or deep understanding of the subject matter other than what is required in general in the industry. Not to say that lesser education is better, just that it is not strictly better to add additional years of pure education. I really think the crossover from pure education to practical exposure + updating training is late then it needs to be as a means to gate keep (also, I did it this way, so shall the young). I don't take a strong position on the central debate about how much "psychology" should be an academic discipline but I would point out that Australia is very unique in the world to allow the practice of psychology with a 4-year degree. I'm Canadian and in Canada and America, being a psychologist means having a PhD (or a PsyD which is also a doctoral qualification). Psychologists are rare and I would argue more highly esteemed than in Australia; people holding that title see only the most severe pathologies and tend to only live in major cities. In Australia, psychologists take on the role that would normally be done by a range of professions in other countries, counsellors, mental health nurses, social workers etc... Like I said in my previous posts, there is a constant debate in Australian psychology professional groups about whether to make psychology more academically rigorous and previous presidents of the APS have been pretty transparent that they resent the lessor status of psychology in Australia compared to other countries and want to bring the minimum standard of qualification up to the level of Europe (where a minimum of a masters qualification is required to practice) if not the level of North America. There is an acknowledgement that this will choke off availability of psychology however the answer from people who want to follow this path is to upskill other mental health professionals to see the "less severe" pathologies and reserve the worst cases for clinical psychologists. The philosophy in North America, that psychology should require a PhD, is an outflow from the Boulder Model, also known as the Scientist-Practitioner model of graduate programs. I won't get into the history too much but after WWII there was an understanding developed that the field of psychology, then, was not well-grounded in the sciences and there should be better training in the scientific method and the application of scientific study to the practice of applied psychology. There are arguments for and against the Boulder model but, in other countries, it's generally accepted that the level of scientific instruction required to meaningfully apply empirical principles to practice requires graduate level instruction with a masters+ level thesis. quote:Here is my idea, 20 sessions of non-clinically registered psych made available, or 10 sessions of clinically registered. Once the associations sort themselves out and get a sensible proposal to unify the registration without adding years of retraining, then we can talk about methodical systems to ensure the number of sessions is unlimited where required but inherently targets discontinuing sessions where a reasonable expectation of efficacy is not there. You're sort of stumbling on the solutions being proposed by some advocates in the college; rather than have one basket of sessions of psychology that can be redeemed by either a psychologist or a clinical psychologist, one solution has been to task GPs with assigning a severity to a person's pathology and referring them to one or the other. This is the answer used in North America and Europe. quote:as someone who is studying psych part time to change careers, this has been an extremely enlightening and somewhat disheartening conversation to read. is there anywhere online where this stuff is discussed that you recommend? Most of these conversations happen online or at various conferences and I don't think this stuff gets published in areas easily publicly accessable. The liveliest discussions happen on the state and national psychology and clinical psychology facebook pages but I think you need to already be a psychologist to join them (also things posted on facebook tend to be not vetted and garbage). The AAPi runs a number of online communities and facebook groups; they lean into the debate but they have staked out a very strong position that the two-tiers of psychology should be abolished altogether and that university trained psychologists should be on completely equal footing, in titles, college access, and medicare rebates, with apprentice-trained psychologists so I wouldn't count on them to honor both sides of the debate. Don't be disheartened, though! I would highlight that even paying for 10 sessions through the public medicare system is still 10 more sessions than virtually every other country in the world pays for and in most countries, psychology is a luxury paid for entirely out of pocket. Even with these cuts, even with the rebate freeze, and even with the constant noise in the facebook groups, this is the best country in the world to practice as a psychologist (and I say this as a person who has practiced in Australia, Canada, the United States, and England).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Sorry to keep this conversation going, people make posts that I feel I can reply to but if the conversation is too industry-specific and narrow, I'm happy to drop it... because this is my field, it's interesting to me and I have a lot of opinions but I always imagine this stuff would be boring to outsiders  I don't have much to contribute on the topic, but it is fascinating to hear an insider perspective on an industry I don't know much about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Sorry to keep this conversation going, people make posts that I feel I can reply to but if the conversation is too industry-specific and narrow, I'm happy to drop it... because this is my field, it's interesting to me and I have a lot of opinions but I always imagine this stuff would be boring to outsiders Please keep posting e: vvv  vvv
bell jar fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Dec 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I'm not actually sure if there is a great online resource for this kind of thing, unfortunately. I’ve heard good things about https://www.dianetics.org
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Urcher posted:Word cloud for November: Party! Party! Party! Much Australia So wow https://thebennies.bandcamp.com/album/party-party-party
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
Urcher posted:Word cloud for November: Working worked. who would've thought
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Urcher posted:Word cloud for November: Chinese Andrews to reign for 1000 years
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Urcher posted:
I completely agree. And not just about the current Psychology discussion. It is always good to get an informed opinion on subjects that most of us only have some passing knowledge of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Hardcore greens
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/CaseyBriggs/status/1603564314069082112
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 02:51
|
|