|
Voting progressive no to 2024 to own the libs
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
We are stuck in 2023 forever, nuke this thread
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
freebooter posted:https://twitter.com/JoeHockey/status/1744078492592197754 Bulk billing has been killed by the indexation freeze. It was an easy thing to cut in the budget by not indexing payments. Most taxpayers don’t understand how this works and healthcare isn’t exactly a vote winner when it doesn’t impact you. Why would you bulk bill in the year 2024? No way in hell I’m bulk billing and leaving more than 50% of my potential fee on the table.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Eediot Jedi posted:You mean angry washing machine noises surely? :hockeynomics: e: freebooter posted:Yeah I'm not arguing doctors should be obliged to pick up the slack, I'm arguing that the government shouldn't have done this and it's amazing we just let them get away with it. Outside the context of GP visits becoming just another thing going up in price during a once-in-a-generation cost of living crisis, I don't think they would have dared. Oh absolutely. I do think though that it's not a case of "we let them get away with it" rather the framing is about not indexing rebates etc. which is a stealth cut. It's a real shame that the ALP don't have the spine to do anything about it. I really think they might as well be the LNP at this stage and I do expect Albanese to do his best Shorten impression and small target it for the rest of the government's term. It'll be easy too because only the Greens are making any meaningful noise on issues like housing and the ALP are too focused on a demographic that the LNP already have cornered. Recoome fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 10:16
|
|
|
Captain Theron posted:Where the hell do you live that is simultaneously populous enough to have a waiting list and yet not populous enough to have more chemist's near you? Sounds like western Sydney tbh
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Here's the pitch for the Sydney Cycle Superhighway if anyone's interested. Pitch? It’s a manifesto mate. Give me 3 bullet points and a 100-150 word summary at the front.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Alright, manifesto, fine. Lol I don’t work for free mate
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 08:43
|
|
|
But seriously something about coat saving or a dollar sign of sorts - you’ve got to sell it. You’ve had this feedback before but you should really work the whole “why” angle a bit more - don’t assume that anyone recognizes the brilliance. How would you sell this idea in 30 seconds? Try thinking about that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 08:45
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Isn’t what the first paragraph does? Also consider using subheadings like “Executive Summary” and such throughout as this will flag for the reader what is where. Decision makers will, at best, skim read this so it’s important to structure your writing to be easily skim read. It’s not a creative writing exercise, just make it so I can easily read it and consider the argument. If the concept is complex, the writing MUST be simple. Having to slog through dense writing while considering a dense topic is just so mind numbing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-19/anger-and-fear-as-australians-wait-for-mental-health-supports/103365124 We said it at the time that Labor were pulling a bait and switch around the Better Access Scheme, and the numbers did indeed back that up. The issue was, and still is, is that Labor are conflating two seperate issues: access and dose. Access was the reason Mark Butler killed the extended sessions - that regional and rural Australians have limited access to psychological services. The rise of telehealth can address this somewhat but there has to be a value proposition here to grow the industry in these areas. There's also no financial incentive for MH providers to go to bulk billing or reduce gap fees, so the status quo remains. If you can get access, dosage is the # of sessions you can access at the reduced rate. The theory is that people need a certain "dose" of treatment before they can get better. The suggestion was the money saved here would go towards funding the hypothetical scheme that is for a greater clinical severity than the Better Access Scheme but below that of psychiatric inpatient services. The primary issue here is that the BAS relies on clinical research to identify what disorders are covered under the BAS, and for how many sessions. It's why eating disorders only recently were added to the scheme, but personality disorders are not (no evidence of change in a short time frame). I'd argue that even the maximum of 10 sessions is woefully inadequate for your "standard" anxiety and depression, so people are receiving an insufficient "dosage" of treatment to support recovery. I'm just spitballing here but what I'd like to see is some better level of stepped care or something so you can bring in the more severe/long term disorders under the Medicare umbrella but I'm not holding my breath under Labor. The last thing I'l rant about is the focus on disorders and the DSM-5-TR. There's some obvious benefits to the DSM but the drawback is we focus on disorders of clinical significance where your success rate is markedly lower. We really ought to be thinking about how we address sub-threshold mental health challenges beyond relying on the shadow mental health system that are Employee Assistance Programs. We rely on people having a stable job and stable access to EAPs which obviously miss huge sections of our community who are not in paid work. I acknowledge that the above rant isn't a fully formed thought but whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
Jezza of OZPOS posted:I swear I remember Qld gov collecting a fuel excise that wasn't applied in NSW at some point BC when I was living on the border people would complain they had to drive across the border for cheaper fuel, am I just delusional? I think it was the other way around, fuel was cheaper in QLD until sometime in the early 2000s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 20:35
|
|
|
RIP the treaty process in Victoria - it’ll absolutely die without bipartisan support. Again, thank you to those brave progressive no voters for emboldening the racist right 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
It should be acknowledged that this is absolutely a national phenomenon and not purely Victorian. It’s actually more surprising that it’s taken so long for the Vic Libs to come out and say this. It can, and will, get so much worse before we get back to even where we were before the referendum. What a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
hooman posted:Oh "come together" this is a day for "everyone to celebrate" gently caress you. I forget that this joker isn’t Dom Perignon or whatever that forgettable white guy was who took over from Gladys.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Labor is so incredibly poo poo, they will lose the next Fed election as they are just diet brand Libs who want to be in opposition permanently.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 05:51
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Stage 3 dead Labors backflip on an election promise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 06:45
|
|
|
GrandTheftAutism posted:The referendum was poo poo and vague, the terms under which it was set were poo poo and vague, and the people responsible for it were poo poo and vague. Lol imagine self identifying as a progressive and farting out whatever this is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 07:35
|
|
|
Bye Scotty
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2024 04:04
|
|
|
Watch as Labor announces something which will expose them to the “lying labor” trope, energise a conservative base against them while delivering something wholly inadequate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 02:10
|
|
|
Labor should never have supported it in the first place, and absolutely never should have promised to leave it alone. This entire saga is a completely unforced error on their part and if they'd showed a spine earlier they wouldn't be in the mess. The libs are right here, the ALP did say they wouldn't gently caress with it and now they probably are. The ALP deserve every bit of poo poo they are about to eat for this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
People won’t understand that, the fact that Labor broke a promise is going to get all the airtime.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 02:38
|
|
|
lih posted:people will notice that they get more take home pay starting in july and labor can make plenty noise about how 90% of workers are getting more than they would have under the liberals' plan. it's a winnable argument for labor, though they definitely should have done this sooner if they were going to Again, the reality of something doesn't mean poo poo. We live in a political landscape where optics are 100% of the game, and the fact is that Labor drew a line in the sand and are likely crossing it. What we will get is smug conservatives who will never shut up about the Perfidious Albo and Lying Labor who Won't Keep Promises and are Fuelling Inflation. All they had to do was not support the Stage 3 cuts in the first place OR not promise to keep them during the election. To further drive home the point - the ALP ran a reasonably aspirational platform back in 2019 which was shouted down with "Death Tax" and "Bad Economic Managers". It didn't matter how positive the platform was, or how little the average punter would have been impacted. Labor is in the position that they'll be taking a hit no matter what they do, so I really hope they make the most of it rather than doing a half-hearted thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
Jezza of OZPOS posted:The electorate collectively have a memory of about six months there's no way anybody gives a poo poo about this by election time We still live with the fallout of the deal Labor did with the greens over 10 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
Jezza of OZPOS posted:No idea what you mean sorry, I'm normal Maybe I just read into the way the ALP in QLD talk about working with the Greens.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 05:49
|
|
|
JBP posted:Just cancel negative gearing and get $10b a year ez JBP posted:So basically everyone with a home. You don't need this kind of finicky tax that's hard to enforce, just tax estates. DEATH TAX 2.0 Really Labor should've had the stones to do these suggestions, instead we will probably get something absolute dogshit and not worth them blowing the political capital.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 11:36
|
|
|
Woke Tropical Cyclone Cancels Australia Day for Patriotic QLD Battlers, Says Dutton
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
SecretOfSteel posted:...Also Melbourne is now the best capital city. As if this makes up for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
JBP posted:Bendigo is a really nice regional city. I don't understand why this list exists at all tbh. Seems like bogan baiting. Classic Smellbournian response to Kweenslan picking up back to back shittest town gongs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
Poowoomba
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 02:06
|
|
|
Bucky, you still need an executive summary labeled as such.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
Great and add expected benefits and a recommended rollout timeline and you are good. Get rid of the fancy language in the exec summary, like contiguous wtf does that mean
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:
Your recommended timeline should give an idea on what sections are the most critical - break it into phases. Think about what the easy runs on the board are, as well as maximum impact. You need to demonstrate that this conceptually works and you can identify what is important.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:The whole thing is easy runs that have maximum impact. That's pretty much the point. Bucky, you gotta write in explicitly and in small words.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 07:25
|
|
|
Bucky, there are so many lines that it’s hard for me to get it. I really just want some bullet points at the start so decision makers can “get it”. Be honest and critical too, sounds like Cat Interceptor knows what they are talking about here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 03:07
|
|
|
Lmao love that the Victorian govt has zero spine about duck hunting. Why commission a report in the first place
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 08:05
|
|
|
The psychology profession has just experienced an interesting, if low-key development in how qualifications are recognised in the regulation of psychologists. https://www.psychologyboard.gov.au/News/2024-01-29-update-about-applications-for-endorsement.aspx Many goons will be aware of psychologists, some will have personal experience with a psychologist. You may know that there are many types of psychologists. Some use titles like "clinical psychologist", others will use a registrar title. What is important to know is this. - All psychologists have done a specific 3 year undergraduate degree, followed by a 4th year that is either an honours year or a graduate diploma. - Psychologists MUST do an additional 2 years of training of some form. This has previously been a 2 year apprenticeship (now phased out), 1 year of postgrad uni + 1 year apprenticeship, or 2 years of postgraduate uni. - No matter what you do, you come out the end with general registration as a psychologist. Everyone who holds general registration is legally allowed to use the title "psychologist". -Additional titles, like "registrar" or "clinical psychologist" are locked behind a further approx 2 years of supervised practice (a registrar program). This is referred to as an "Area of Practice Endorsement" (AoPE) or just "endorsement", where the person is at the completion of the registrar program is able to use the title of the endorsement they hold (i.e., clinical psychologist). -If you finish a Master in Clinical Psychology or Organisational Psychology, you do not automatically become a Clinical or Organisational Psychologist. The AoPE is not a specialisation, rather it is a mark of depth of understanding in an area. All psychologists have a shared competency standard which are captured by general registration. Now historically the endorsement pathway is not available to psychologists who do not have relevant postgraduate credentials - for example, you'd need to do a Master of Clinical Psychology in order to go down the path to become a clinical psychologist. This fact is what really fucks with psychologists and creates a 2 tier system where clinical psychologists are perceived to have greater prestige due to attracting a greater Medicare rebate. What has changed is that the Psychology Board (which regulates the profession) now is allowing psychs with postgrad qualifications to apply to the Board to see whether they are able to start a registrar program which their degree does not specifically name. This is because the Psych Board got hosed up a few years ago in a tribunal case and were told that the legislation does not lock people out of becoming a clinical psychologist because they did not do a clinical psych degree. Why this is important is because, at a fundamental level, there is little real difference between what a Masters of Psychology and a Masters of Clinical Psychology teaches. This will have implications for branches of psychology like Community, Ed/Dev, Sport, and Forensic Psychology as these programs that funnel people into an AoPE are very limited or do not exist anymore. This change is not a seismic shift, but an important but subtle change to how psychologists are regulated. When I first read the tribunal decision, I figured that this would have to be a mechanism that the Psych Board would have to implement to comply with the decision. It remains to be seen how "easy" it is for psychologists to meet whatever threshold is required (and the cost to apply is 3x as much) but I hope this might in the future help pave the way for greater access to the clinical AoPE.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 11:12
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:When I was doing my psych masters (research, not clinical) I shared space with some DCP students and they were a lot more switched on than the average psych graduate, and switched on in a different way from the standard PhD candidates. I hope that in the long run there'll still be pathways for exceptional, highly academically oriented practitioners to be recognised for it. There seems to be gently caress all chance of psychiatry supply meeting demand in the near future so psychologists who can manage increasingly specialised and difficult issues will be valuable, and knowing who they are will matter. In my opinion, the pathway to registration as a psychologist has become more arduous/rigorous in both an academic and skills based sense. We generally are only taking people who average better than a distinction and also have to have the characteristics around interpersonal ability. It's means that it's extremely competitive and we really only take the absolute pinnacle of students, even getting to an interview stage for a masters right now is a mark of real achievement. It's also completely shithouse and I'm not entirely sure whether I can recommend psychology to people as a profession in good faith - it's an extraordinarily poo poo ride to get to the "end". I wish there was a better way to integrate the practice of psychology as a profession with the research. I am not convinced that it's extremely feasible for someone to truly unify practicing while undertaking academic work or research - it's different skills and there's a balance between meeting the needs for gaining and maintaining professional registration and being able to produce the quality and volume of research required to have an academic job. Yes, you can teach into the specific programs but it's the exception rather than the norm. There's also a gulf between what works in the research world vs what really can be achieved in real life. In my role, I'm constantly doing research and case studies (which is the science part) but it wouldn't meet the quality standards for published research. Does it make it any less real? I'm not sure I can answer that. A further draft thought I have is that I think that psychs are generally overqualified for the role that we play and psychologists are well placed to oversee and supervise more "frontline" counsellors or something which are more cost effective while being able to treat cases which are more "difficult". Again, draft thoughts but we place an exceptional demand on a workforce where the pipeline is 6 years, and they can only start seeing clients in a limited capacity after 4 years. The lack of supply, I feel, is also by design. Being in demand means that you can charge more. Psychiatry has the advantage of being behind the MD cloak and is therefore completely irreplaceable. Psychologists do not enjoy the same level of prestige.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 12:21
|
|
|
Webmeister makes really good points Bucky please either take that on board or gently caress off
Recoome fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jan 31, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I can't think of anyone who would be opposed to this, all of those people would say yep looks good to me. Bucky, choose the smallest, easiest part of this plan and push for only that. Get a run on the board. Otherwise it's Captain Theron posted:I mean this very sincerely Bucky, no one else will care. If you ever want anyone to look at this seriously, you need to massively trim it down, gut all the unnecessary tangents and break it down into numbers. Bolded the really relevant bits
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
There is just something so amazing and reinforcing as a hypothetical NSW state government department delivering yet another infrastructure project for Sydney while NSW flood victims struggle to get any support. I got a challenge for you Bucky - if you want to know why people might be against your project, go to Lismore and spend a few hours having a look around and talking to the locals.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 20:59
|
|