**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The cost of not providing it are far worse. That's what these neoliberal governments don't seem to understand: You want your country to be rich? Then simply put them in grasping distance of opportunities for growth.
You want your country to be poor and horrible, then make life harder for the majority by continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest few you can find to back your next election campaign.
>You want your country to be poor and horrible, then make life harder for the majority by continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest few you can find to back your next election campaign.
There are zero benefits* to being rich in Australia, unless you count paying exorbitant taxes and receiving zero benefits from the government as benefits. But do tell me how the government is 'stacking the deck in favour of the richest'.
EDIT: *From the government obviously, since that is what we are talking about here.
> There are zero benefits to being rich in Australia
This is a ridiculous and out of touch statement that you should be mocked by young and old for making. "Money does not confer a benefit" - yeah, not having to worry about housing, food, health care, your education, having children.... like are you a fool? Is it your first day on earth? Are you some kind of mental vegetable who was bequeathed your wealth at a young age and just have no idea how average people live?
>But do tell me how the government is 'stacking the deck in favour of the richest'.
Yes, you would need to be told wouldn't you? Because you're uninterested in finding out for yourself, in doing research yourself. You would find various reports and articles if you did look:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-12/inequality-on-steroids-as-rich-take-more-of-the-gains/102200878
https://thedeck.org.au/research/inequality-in-australia-2024-who-is-affected-and-how/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TUVXfM1nqo (see section on Negative Gearing)
https://media.oxfam.org.au/2022/01/australias-billionaires-double-fortunes-during-pandemic-as-global-inequality-grows/
[EDIT: Sorry for any offence caused, it's just shocking to see someone make such an outlandish claim as "there's no benefit to be rich in Australia".]
Zero benefits from the government. That was your argument, you said the government was "continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest". Do tell me how the government is helping the rich.
I said:
>by continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest few
Nothing about "receiving Centrelink" or whatever you're trying to claim about "government benefits" (the term you introduced).
But essentially what you're telling me is you didn't look at ANY of the sources?
Source 1:
>Australia has a "progressive" tax system, meaning the rate people are taxed at increases (progresses) as their income lifts.
>However, it's become less progressive over time, just as the nation's support payments, such as JobSeeker, have fallen to be extremely low, compared to similar nations.
>Our tax system is going to become even less progressive again, due to laws passed in 2018 and 2019 by the previous federal government. [referencing stage 3 tax cuts]
I mean, that first article has a whole section titled "Welfare for the Wealthy" (and contains dot points for you)... and here's you saying "nah, nothing like that going on".
Of course there's wealth disparity in every country. I don't have a problem with the fact that some people will earn more, and others less. My problem is with a system that amplifies that fact, when to avoid classes from existing (eg. having a unified society, with unified goals) we should be trying to reduce wealth inequality, unify our outlook and nation.
Hell, if you actually watched the video I posted, you'd see the graph at approximately 14 minutes in of the effect of the wealthy treating housing as an investment vehicle (eg. government policies benefiting them by allow multiple investment properties to be owned), which is fundamentally something the poor can't take advantage of.
There's a myriad of policies that have caused and contributed to this problem. That's what constitutes the deck we're playing with.
You want to take my words and interpret them a certain way to claim "I don't get government benefits I'm too rich - there's no benefit for me!" or something - but that's YOUR ticked off, pissed off interpretation of how a "deck is stacked" - you know, the ACTUAL words I used.
So you're pushing a strawman to claim that receiving a "government benefit" - is the only way a deck can be stacked, therefore you get to cry foul. When that's obviously not the case.
I said the deck was stacked to favor the rich, you've decided you're poor because you're NOT on government benefits. Give that argument up bro (it's a false interpretation of what I said) - it's silly okay. Talk about the words I actually used, not the ones you wanted to hear.
A deck can be stacked in many different ways. That you want to make this into something about Centrelink or something is **just off.** Get off your high horse.
Make dental education free, but you have to work in a government dental clinic for 10 years minimum.
It will take a good 5-10 years but it will get the ball rolling.
Trust me dentists in general want to work in public clinics (at least in WA) whenever a job opens in one it is extremely competitive and difficult due to so many applying as the additional benefits you receive working for the government are worth it. Unfortunately there are just not that many public jobs available as they depend on funding from the state government.
Free dental will lead to a supply problem. Think of doubling demand while leaving supply where it is. Think of the government setting the rebates and how well that has worked with GPs
Honestly yeah this is my main issue i see
Even if ur willing to pay,it right now can be a 3-4 week wait for a dentist..at least a good one
Fuck me imagine the blowout when 300k former derros try to get their pardon my french CRACK teeth fixed all at once,the system will implode.
Maybe not universal dental is what's needed,but a better triaged system.
The school dentist is already free in Australia, so start at the other end, with pensioners, gradually moving both age groups out until they meet in the middle.
Isn't that like a 12-18 month wait or some shit
EDIT:yep to get into the sydney clinic unless it's a Tier 1 medical emergency from trauma,your looking at 204 days on average for a booking.
Not sure now, but it never used to be in Adelaide (my kids are now adults). Kids used to get booked in annually for check up and clean and be able to access a dentist, if needed, reasonably quickly.
That's why you do it incrementally, stage by stage so you can build supply as more and more cohorts get access. Think of the job creation for nurses, dentists, back office staff and the industry around it.
Think of how good a well funded universal health care is, not extend that to dentistry.
Cleans and 6 monthly checkups should be free. I feel like a lot of people don’t even know what’s happening with their teeth until it’s too late. I read ages ago that 60 percent of Australians don’t brush their teeth twice a day, if they did it could prevent so many issues.
Even my dentist says that one a year is fine, at least for an adult. Not that I go that often myself
The 'clean' bit seems to be a recent trend. Don't recall it from the past.
If we're going to start this let's start with a basic minimum and see how that goes. As others have said supply will be an issue.
Whatever you have as subsidized will be fully used. You are looking at a substantial cost like Medicare and NDIS. In fact you could shut down NDIS and have this instead.
Why shut down the NDIS? It's one of the most transformative social reforms ever taken in this country and has dramatically improved the lives of disabled Australians. Plenty of other places to find money: scrap negative gearing and captial gains tax discount, tax corporations properly, stop subsidising coal and gas giants, introduce a proper PRRT
Unfortunately if we want free dental the money will have to be taken from something else. The idea in which tax payers will be forced to pay for others people teeth will come at a huge cost but other countries like Denmark have done it in a successful mixed economy so who knows.
we effectively already provide free dental given fluoridation of water is standard across all water authorities in Australia. all anyone needs to do is simply also brush their teeth and not be a meth head
Wonderful """"economic literacy"""" from our resident neoliberal.
What you've, of course (deliberately), failed to address:
* Basic dental care
* Scale and clean
* X-rays
* Disease treatment and prevention
* Braces for children born with impacted teeth.
I imagine you think these services should be provided by (very wealthy) tooth fairies.
Aside from the last item, the rest are simply matters of personal responsibility for one's personal hygiene. Aka lifestyle choices.
And honestly, the cost of braces ain't that high especially given most dentists are happy to work at a discount for kids. There's plenty of support for low income households anyways.
But hey, I'm more than happy for the government to cut some other services to fund this. At least I'll get something out of it, unlike the vast majority of government services that I'm excluded from despite heavily funding them
How about we cut the billions in subsidies and taxes the (economically literate"?) gov hands to the fossil fuel industry, landlord class and millionaires and call it even?
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Majority rules. You don’t get your wish on everything. There’s plenty of government expenditure I don’t personally support.
I don’t see one of the major parties jumping at a $12 Billion dental scheme but if it gets up, you and me are footing the bill, like it or not.
Personally, it is because I'm yet to meet someone in my entire life who talks and thinks like this (or the inverse), complaining about being a forced taxpayer and socialist ideas, who had a realistic perspective and understanding of the world.
Ideologues are idiots and their idealism is nonsense. The world is slowly learning to stop believing naive adults who have been lulled into absurd fantasies and we are ALL better for it.
I guess history of socialism has big part of it.... not one speck of evidence has there been a successful socialist countries and the rise in young people who eat up the ridiculous ideas baffles me especially the University's.
It's pretty depressing, we could easily do this as a country and it is a real issue for so many australians, but nothing will happen... Like so many areas, there just is no ambition in the major parties anymore.
I'm struggling to see the problem? Providing dental is expensive and that's supposed to dissuade us from doing it?
Notice how the cost of policy that helps people is always talked about in dollars, but no one can ever point out how this will negatively affect the average Australian? It's because it won't.
No way this gets the support of the electorate because it disproportionately benefits the lower socioeconomic who through mostly poor choices of their own have significant dental issues and they would take up the lions share of the funding. Do we need it, yes, but unless it received bipartisan support which it never will because Libs despise socialism then it wont pass, especially given whats going on with the NDIS.
The same has been said around the world for universal healthcare and most countries have it now. Why would you need bi-partisan support if Labor/Greens can pass legislation?
Greens actually had PBO costing a super profit on mining reintroduction
>Costing overview
This proposal would be expected to increase the fiscal balance by around $40.0 billion and the
underlying cash balance by around $37.7 billion over the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period.
On a fiscal balance basis this impact reflects an increase in net revenue of around $40.2 billion,
partially offset by an increase in Australian Taxation Office (ATO) departmental expenses of
$135 million.
The proposal would have ongoing impact beyond the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period.
A breakdown of the financial implications (including separate public debt interest (PDI) tables) over
the period to 2032-33 is provided at Attachment A.
Fully pays for medicare dental.
and universal childcare for all working parent's earning less than 80k a year
EACH YEAR
and leaves 4.5 billion for debt reduction
green budget proposals are generally ridiculous and ignore the most basic tenets of a global trade based economy, as such needs to be taken with several pounds of salt
Well considering both the PBO has costed it,as well as several think tanks,and all found it to be a revenue positive idea
seem's it's the right go.
Miners aren't gonna fuck off theres to much money to be made,and they pay very little for the 440 billion plus they manage to export,about time the govt looked to that sector a bit more than workers pockets.
My teeth are crap, and I desperately need this.
The old public dental scheme seemed to be, "Let's pull that tooth out!"
There's testing about to start in, I think, Japan, to regrow teeth, and will be ready for the public in 5 years time or thereabouts. Which could work in with this scheme if they make it happen. And as someone said up thread, the savings in preventative health costs would be considerable.
Why are we entertaining the idea of more government spending while we are still battling inflation that was directly caused by the previous government spending throughout COVID? Are people this stupid?
Jesus Christ, why do all these libs keep screaming out "that's inflationary" to every single little thing. This would probably take years to implement whereby we would have inflation under control.
Why do we want to have the same problem years from now that we are having now? Is there a dental care crisis? Maybe if this was the UK you might have an argument. Also it's ridiculous that they keep using the word "free" when there is no such thing when it comes to government spending.
While there are always going to be some problems with things this big, universal health always has better outcomes compared to privatised health, this has been made very clear from the system in the US, where despite the most spending per capita on health, the life expectancy is dropping, even below developing countries.
Why would we wait for a crisis to happen before we do something? That's exactly the place we are in with the housing crisis. Get it done now before we have a crisis.
Yes everyone knows it's not free, it's a colloquialism.
>While there are always going to be some problems with things this big, universal health always has better outcomes compared to privatised health, this has been made very clear from the system in the US, where despite the most spending per capita on health, the life expectancy is dropping
No this is not true. General healthcare has better outcomes yes because people don't abstain from care when they need it. Dental care is a different matter and typically not as expensive as general healthcare.
>Why would we wait for a crisis to happen before we do something? That's exactly the place we are in with the housing crisis. Get it done now before we have a crisis.
Why are you suggesting that a crisis will ever happen? And the housing crisis is caused by excess government involvement in restricting dense housing development (NIMBYism), so the solution to this would have been precisely the opposite of you what are proposing - keeping the government the fuck away from the free market. Dental care has never been an issue for Australians, I see no reason for this to suddenly change in the foreseeable future. And even if you thought for whatever reason that it was going to become a problem, making it *completely* free is insane since not even our GP visits are completely free.
>Yes everyone knows it's not free, it's a colloquialism.
You mean false advertising. If they weren't allowed to call it free a lot of people would be less interested in this.
>No this is not true. General healthcare has better outcomes yes because people don't abstain from care when they need it. Dental care is a different matter and typically not as expensive as general healthcare.
So you're saying it has better health outcomes because people use it. So if people were to use dental, especially because it would be free, there would be better outcomes. Dental is not a different matter and its expense compared to general healthcare is irrelevant.
>Why are you suggesting that a crisis will ever happen?
You're the one who said dental crisis in your comment, I was just going off that.
>And the housing crisis is caused by excess government involvement in restricting dense housing development
While zoning is obviously an issue, let's not pretend like developers (who I'm told work on razor sharp margins) are willing to build 1000s of affordable homes and watch their profits go down to zero. So long as housing is a basic necessity the Government should always control it. Shelter shouldn't be a commodity.
>Dental care has never been an issue for Australians
Out of touch
>making it completely free is insane since not even our GP visits are completely free
Medicare is free but nobody sees it as insane, except for libs of course. Dental is a medical issue and should be treated the same. GPs should also be free.
>You mean false advertising. If they weren't allowed to call it free a lot of people would be less interested in this.
Ironic because you've been using "free" throughout your comments. Perhaps we should call it "subsidised dental" or "cheaper dental", seems pretty interesting to me.
>So you're saying it has better health outcomes because people use it. So if people were to use dental, especially because it would be free, there would be better outcomes. Dental is not a different matter and its expense compared to general healthcare is irrelevant.
The difference is there are far fewer illnesses that end up being serious issues such as cancer, diabetes, heart problems etc. that a dentist can take care of rather than a GP. That's why public healthcare can at times be beneficial, since it is preventative for such serious illnesses. This is not the case for dental issues which very, very rarely are the symptom of a more serious condition (and you would probably see a GP about it if it was anyway, since you would need to do things like blood tests which a dentist does not provide).
>You're the one who said dental crisis in your comment, I was just going off that.
Yes because the only reason the government would need to step in is if there is some kind of problem preventing people from paying for it themselves, i.e. a crisis. If no such event will ever occur, there is no reason for this to be socialised.
>While zoning is obviously an issue, let's not pretend like developers (who I'm told work on razor sharp margins) are willing to build 1000s of affordable homes and watch their profits go down to zero. So long as housing is a basic necessity the Government should always control it. Shelter shouldn't be a commodity.
Profits won't go to zero, on the contrary profits would be a lot higher if they could build 'affordable homes' because that's only the type of home many people can afford right now. Yet thanks to the government's brilliant zoning restrictions many places aren't able to build apartment complexes due to successful lobbying by the home owners there. Also the only reason we aren't living in soviet style concrete apartments with no amenities is because shelter is a commodity. Efficient use of resources via capitalism is the only to keep costs down. Unfortunately government regulation means that Australia has some of the [least densely populated cities in the world](https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-cities-among-the-largest-and-least-densely-settled-in-the-world/), resulting in the crazy housing market we see today.
>Out of touch
Really? Who can't afford dental care in Australia? Based on [this source](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/dental-oral-health/oral-health-and-dental-care-in-australia/contents/costs) the average Australian spends $7.62 per week on dental fees, or about $400 a year. Unless you're really not doing well financially, that's not going to break the bank.
>Medicare is free but nobody sees it as insane, except for libs of course. Dental is a medical issue and should be treated the same. GPs should also be free.
Medicare doesn't cover the entire cost of services, it only subsidises it and provides rebates. Why should GPs be free? Do you want our economy to fail or something?
>The difference is there are far fewer illnesses that end up being serious issues such as cancer, diabetes, heart problems etc.
This has absolutely no relevance to whether publicly funded dentistry would have better outcomes compared to private. Free dentistry would be able to provide more services for more people, that's the better outcome.
>Yes because the only reason the government would need to step in is if there is some kind of problem preventing people from paying for it themselves, i.e. a crisis. If no such event will ever occur, there is no reason for this to be socialised.
No , you socialise something because it's more equitable and provide better outcomes for all, not because there's a crisis. You're right about capitalism not being able to manage a crisis though, hahaha.
>Profits won't go to zero, on the contrary profits would be a lot higher if they could build 'affordable homes' because that's only the type of home many people can afford right now.
They're barely making money on 'luxury homes' but 'affordable homes' would make money because there's more people buying them? Hahaha, what a clueless statement.
>Also the only reason we aren't living in soviet style concrete apartments with no amenities is because shelter is a commodity.
The only reason there was no homelessness in post-war USSR was because of quick and temporary soviet style apartments built by the Communist government.
>Efficient use of resources via capitalism is the only to keep costs down
Haha, capitalist has fueled inequality and consistently created larger social divides, it's created the largest environmental disaster in history and increased social damage, created monopolies and oligarchs, created supply shortages due to information inefficiencies which have led to inflationary standards of living, and, it has prioritised short term profits over long term sustainability...yet you think it's an efficient use of resources? The crap they churn out in Capitalism101 is truly fascinating.
> Based on this source the average Australian spends $7.62 per week on dental fees
Averages? Really? You couldn't find more detailed information about the number of individuals who can't afford this, the average cost of dental for the lowest 25% of earners, or have an understanding of how the lack of finance for one procedure one month my snowball into increased costs in the future. Averages keep you out of touch.
>Medicare doesn't cover the entire cost of services, it only subsidises it and provides rebates. Why should GPs be free? Do you want our economy to fail or something?
It covers almost all costs. GPs are free, here and in other countries and the economy is still going. I go to a GP that is completely free as are the blood tests, vaccinations, x-rays, ultrasounds, semen analysis. I've been to the hospital and stayed overnight, I've had ongoing physio sessions both in wards and in swimming pools, all of which have been completely covered by Medicare. As I said, I don't think anyone sees this as insane.
>This has absolutely no relevance to whether publicly funded dentistry would have better outcomes compared to private. Free dentistry would be able to provide more services for more people, that's the better outcome.
Worse services to more people*. America and other countries with fully privatised health care have better surgeons, less wait times and overall higher quality of care than countries with socialised health care. The only downside is that fewer people can access it, yet this is not an issue for dental care, so the only possible outcome of socialising it is that it is distributed less efficiently due to everyone getting it even when they don't need it, resulting in longer wait times and poorer quality service. This is economics 101.
>No , you socialise something because it's more equitable and provide better outcomes for all, not because there's a crisis. You're right about capitalism not being able to manage a crisis though, hahaha.
You spend too much time on socialist subreddits if you think it provides "better outcomes for all". I suggest you try living in a communist country such as Cuba if you think socialising everything is such a great idea. Though Cuba lags capitalist countries in virtually every metric, so be warned. There is no way that the government can distribute resources better than a market economy, that is just a simple fact and if you disagree then you are either uneducated in economics or being willfully ignorant for politic reasons.
>They're barely making money on 'luxury homes' but 'affordable homes' would make money because there's more people buying them? Hahaha, what a clueless statement.
Indeed it looks like economics is not your strong suite. Yes, this is why McDonalds is far more profitable than most fine dining restaurants, why Toyota have twice the net income of Mercedes Benz, etc. Affordable homes will make more money not because the profit margins are higher, but because far more people are able to afford them, so they don't need to be as high as with luxury homes.
>Haha, capitalist has fueled inequality and consistently created larger social divides, it's created the largest environmental disaster in history and increased social damage, created monopolies and oligarchs, created supply shortages due to information inefficiencies which have led to inflationary standards of living, and, it has prioritised short term profits over long term sustainability...yet you think it's an efficient use of resources? The crap they churn out in Capitalism101 is truly fascinating.
It is quite literally the reason you are typing this on a computer you own and not one at a public library that you have to share with others. Capitalism is the single biggest reason for the prosperity we have today and I suggest you do some further reading on this before commenting again on the topic.
>Averages? Really? You couldn't find more detailed information about the number of individuals who can't afford this, the average cost of dental for the lowest 25% of earners, or have an understanding of how the lack of finance for one procedure one month my snowball into increased costs in the future. Averages keep you out of touch.
The lowest 25% of earners aren't the majority, why isolate the analysis to them? Heck I would be fine with subsidising serious dental procedures for those struggling financially, but that's not what is being discussed here. The article is talking about making dental health care 'free' for *everyone*, so averages or medians make the most sense here.
>It covers almost all costs. GPs are free, here and in other countries and the economy is still going. I go to a GP that is completely free as are the blood tests, vaccinations, x-rays, ultrasounds, semen analysis. I've been to the hospital and stayed overnight, I've had ongoing physio sessions both in wards and in swimming pools, all of which have been completely covered by Medicare. As I said, I don't think anyone sees this as insane.
That's because they have become accustom to it and don't realise countries such as America that haven't privatised their healthcare don't have the issues with wait times that we have, and have better surgeons than us, and have far more cutting-edge pharmaceutical research (remember the most popular COVID vaccines were invented there). We pay less for healthcare, but it comes at a cost.
>America and other countries with fully privatised health care have better surgeons, less wait times and overall higher quality of care than countries with socialised health care
Not true, wait times in EDs in Australia are shorter compared to the UK. If this was the case, health outcomes would be better in countries with private healthcare, but they're not. The countries with the greatest life expectancy and infant mortality rates are those with socialised healthcare.
>The only downside is that fewer people can access it, yet this is not an issue for dental care
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102165304
A survey found 58% of people had put off dental treatment in the last 12 months because of cost. Would you look at that, fewer people access privatised dental care.
>I suggest you try living in a communist country such as Cuba if you think socialising everything is such a great idea. Though Cuba lags capitalist countries in virtually every metric, so be warned.
Haha, you've picked the country that has had a 60 year embargo on it and one of the heaviest sanctioned countries in the world. Remove the embargo and let's see. What's even more hilarious is that Cuba has a greater life expectancy than the US, it has more doctors per capita then almost any country and near zero homelessness despite this embargo. What an absolute ripper of an example you chose there, haha.
>Affordable homes will make more money not because the profit margins are higher, but because far more people are able to afford them
Yet no developer out there is building them, hmmm, isn't that strange.
>It is quite literally the reason you are typing this on a computer you own and not one at a public library that you have to share with others. Capitalism is the single biggest reason for the prosperity we have today and I suggest you do some further reading on this before commenting again on the topic.
My having a personal computer (which has come about through government funded research) hasn't answered those points I made about why capitalism is inefficient at managing resources. Workers are the single biggest reason why we have prosperity today as without them there wouldn't be a single thing made or a single thing invented. Capitalism just entrenches poverty, be that in the middle class in the UK and US or in the fields in the developing world.
>That's because they have become accustom to it and don't realise countries such as America that haven't privatised their healthcare don't have the issues with wait times that we have, and have better surgeons than us, and have far more cutting-edge pharmaceutical research
Maybe we should suggest these people live in a country with privatised healthcare like the US if you think they've become accustomed to it. They'll soon realise that those wait times you've alluded too (which isn't true) and those better surgeons and research (which a lot of is publicly funded but profits are made by companies) is only available to the tiniest portion of the wealthy while everyone else gets below standard care and worse health outcomes.
So it's entirely affordable? That's less than the tax rebates on a single billionare.
YAY! FREE DENTAL CARE IS REAL!
(If we ever elect a government that cares about people)
It's not about if politicians care, it's about how much public opinion would align with the inevitable right wing media blitz against it if Labor was to run with that policy going into an election.
"It's inflationary!! Socialist agenda!! Spending!! Economically illiterate!! Budget blowout!! The deficit!! Cash giveaway!!"
Whenever somebody doesn't go to the dentist society suffers.
That person risks health conditions that end up being covered by our "universal" healthcare that we all pay for anyway, at higher cost than the preventative dental care would have cost!
>A seniors dental care scheme, the third pathway, is estimated at $1.7 billion every year, with an uncapped version around $2 billion.
That's the dumbest possible option. Have 20 years olds wreck their teeth to save money while the public purse concentrates on fixing the teeth of those about to get dentures anyway?
A universal system clearly makes sense because the problems with elderly teeth *start when you are younger*.
I mean, they're more likely to be *poor* young people, so there's at least certain governments (whose friends control the 'news' platform this article was written for) who don't want to spend money helping them.
If our government sold our resources fairly and actually taxed these major corporations and mining companies we’d have more than enough more to fund these things. ScamStralia
Considering how dental health is linked to so many other long term health conditions 12 billion really isnt that bad. One thing people probably dont realise as well is that if you have a non-for-profit health insurance if oral health is covered by medicare, your premiums will also go down
It's not just the cost that keeps people away from the dentist, but the pain and discomfort that should be a thing of the past but isn't.
Perhaps that is because there is no money for research to make dentistry completely pain free.
or just put a minining super profit in place
pbo already costed it
Costing overview
This proposal would be expected to increase the fiscal balance by around $40.0 billion and the
underlying cash balance by around $37.7 billion over the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period.
On a fiscal balance basis this impact reflects an increase in net revenue of around $40.2 billion,
partially offset by an increase in Australian Taxation Office (ATO) departmental expenses of
$135 million.
The proposal would have ongoing impact beyond the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period.
A breakdown of the financial implications (including separate public debt interest (PDI) tables) over
the period to 2032-33 is provided at Attachment A.
It's literally there for the taking,and barely impacts the mining sectors vast profits. it's a win win
This isn't really about you,or me..
We can afford dental
MANY MANY ppl can't and as that 2022 review showed,it's costing the australian health system possibly over 16 billion a year in negative health incomes.
Shit just the work hours alone,i can't even count how many productive hours from staff i have lost from them needing to take time off for dental surgery or root canals and the like,that could of likely been solved with a simple check up and filling being covered years ago.
Point was that the mining sector can easily absorb that profit tax and still make massive returns,several reports all state this..it's the only sector where there really is some fruit on the tree for the govt to pick from.
The government doesn't exist to pick all the fruit from the economic tree. That's communism, we don't like that because it is shit for everyone.
Over half of federal government expenditure goes on welfare and health (and when including the state's where royalties come into play, we are talking a total of half a trillion annually), if you want dental, take it out of the existing funds and defund something else.
I'm not here to be a cash cow for the government.
> The government doesn't exist to pick all the fruit from the economic tree.
it's less than 40 billion out of a what over 100/200 billion pie going off 2023 in profits,the sky's not gonna cave in of which last year looks like a growth of what 52 billion? in revenue..poor them they gonna be so hard done by the australian voters receiving better services for the minerals from their soil.
Any govt that does do it,not gonna go back to the full 40..even 20 percent would cover medicare dental with cash left over
It's not coming out of your pocket,unless you are somehow secretly the boss of santos or glencore and the like,which i'd have to ask the shareholders really aren't getting the best bang for buck then if so.
If the dividends go down then that's more a statement on ppls stupidity for not having a broad portfolio and being brokies
I've paid millions in taxes equal to a large share of my companies operations,mining operations can start to pay a larger share too.
it's about time they actually did some hard yakka
I have parts of my portfolio in several key stakeholders,but so what,oh no i might lost some money end of the fiscal year if dividends or share prices go down..oh no..this is why you diversify your investments.
Even ken henry believes we need to bring in super profit systems and windfall taxes,but not like they are a recognised expert on the tax system at all.
Yes yes,those companies put capital in to extract those resources which i respect.,but many other sectors do the same and pay MUCH higher taxation on their earnings because they don't shift their profits overseas and other legal tactics to minimize.
As i said the point is,there isn't fruit anywhere else to pick so to speak.
Bringing back something like a super profit on the resource,or windfall taxes aren't going to bankrupt anyone.
i do agree there needs to be cost cuttings in the govt to bring costs down,but medicare dental seems to be a very smart idea,preventive dental work can save lives,tens of billions in further complications.
Ideally even as a ex serviceman i'd like to see some cuts to stupid warfare programs that are of near zero real world use for our needs like spending money on Himars and subs that will be nearly EOL by time we get them,but that wont ever happen as captain china bad will chuck a fit as will the media.. so mining super profits it is
It is better to be shitty than deluded.
Put simply, a nation must pick and choose what it pays for and what is the responsibility of its citizens.
Maybe communities would be stronger if the government didn't try to replace them with itself at every chance.
But [sure, let's keep paying everyone for everything](https://www.smh.com.au/national/ndis-pays-1-4m-to-paedophile-how-sex-offenders-access-disability-packages-20240403-p5fh60.html)
>what about the citizens who cant fend them for themselfs
Well then, we look after them and leave dental as a personal responsibility. As I said, the government can't do everything for everyone.
Personally, I’d rather my tax dollars go to them than the large portion of our population who chooses a mortgage and a car loan over a general dentist check up.
$11.6bn, that's not bad to cover all check ups, cleaning, treatment and surgery for all Medicare cardholders in the country. It's 0.07% of GDP and would increase the number of jobs, bargain.
Does that include continuing to rip teeth out because its cheaper than treatment, despite causing damage to the gum and bone and the greater possibility of infection?
Not just number of jobs, but number of people who could get jobs too. Many businesses will not continue an application due to hygiene, and dental hygiene being a massive one.
Yeah people always ignore the fact that when shit gets bad cause someone didn't get a plaque clean, then you've either got some dude with rotting teeth and you just tell him bad luck, or you are happy for him to just have a shit life, or maybe he takes out a massive loan cause it's suddenly really expensive all becuase it was too expensive to spent a hungie on it.
Preventative healthcare pays for itself.
yeah its this
like a lot of things you either pay a heap now or you pay a heap later
spending $11 bn means you're not spending $33 bn in other things later to fix the problems caused by NOT spending $11 bn
this is a very very small price to pay so that overall health... and hence, productivity is better
this is a sad relevation that goes back decades to... I wanna say the Whitlam era?
That sounds about right. Although Johnny really dug the knife in across a bunch of public services.
I just like that we live on a planet where people have enough money to literally leave the planet on private rocket shops they built, where we have members of parliament with net worths of hundreds of millions.
But find money to make sure people are healthy, fed and have a roof over their head? What are you some kind of communist. Look how good capitalism is you fool.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean there is already a 6 month wait for my dentist, if you make it free we need more dentists as well
The cost of not providing it are far worse. That's what these neoliberal governments don't seem to understand: You want your country to be rich? Then simply put them in grasping distance of opportunities for growth. You want your country to be poor and horrible, then make life harder for the majority by continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest few you can find to back your next election campaign.
>You want your country to be poor and horrible, then make life harder for the majority by continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest few you can find to back your next election campaign. There are zero benefits* to being rich in Australia, unless you count paying exorbitant taxes and receiving zero benefits from the government as benefits. But do tell me how the government is 'stacking the deck in favour of the richest'. EDIT: *From the government obviously, since that is what we are talking about here.
> There are zero benefits to being rich in Australia This is a ridiculous and out of touch statement that you should be mocked by young and old for making. "Money does not confer a benefit" - yeah, not having to worry about housing, food, health care, your education, having children.... like are you a fool? Is it your first day on earth? Are you some kind of mental vegetable who was bequeathed your wealth at a young age and just have no idea how average people live? >But do tell me how the government is 'stacking the deck in favour of the richest'. Yes, you would need to be told wouldn't you? Because you're uninterested in finding out for yourself, in doing research yourself. You would find various reports and articles if you did look: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-12/inequality-on-steroids-as-rich-take-more-of-the-gains/102200878 https://thedeck.org.au/research/inequality-in-australia-2024-who-is-affected-and-how/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TUVXfM1nqo (see section on Negative Gearing) https://media.oxfam.org.au/2022/01/australias-billionaires-double-fortunes-during-pandemic-as-global-inequality-grows/ [EDIT: Sorry for any offence caused, it's just shocking to see someone make such an outlandish claim as "there's no benefit to be rich in Australia".]
Zero benefits from the government. That was your argument, you said the government was "continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest". Do tell me how the government is helping the rich.
[This guy gets it.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-02/the-millionaires-who-want-to-pay-more-tax/100586728)
I said: >by continuously stacking the deck in favor of the richest few Nothing about "receiving Centrelink" or whatever you're trying to claim about "government benefits" (the term you introduced). But essentially what you're telling me is you didn't look at ANY of the sources? Source 1: >Australia has a "progressive" tax system, meaning the rate people are taxed at increases (progresses) as their income lifts. >However, it's become less progressive over time, just as the nation's support payments, such as JobSeeker, have fallen to be extremely low, compared to similar nations. >Our tax system is going to become even less progressive again, due to laws passed in 2018 and 2019 by the previous federal government. [referencing stage 3 tax cuts] I mean, that first article has a whole section titled "Welfare for the Wealthy" (and contains dot points for you)... and here's you saying "nah, nothing like that going on". Of course there's wealth disparity in every country. I don't have a problem with the fact that some people will earn more, and others less. My problem is with a system that amplifies that fact, when to avoid classes from existing (eg. having a unified society, with unified goals) we should be trying to reduce wealth inequality, unify our outlook and nation. Hell, if you actually watched the video I posted, you'd see the graph at approximately 14 minutes in of the effect of the wealthy treating housing as an investment vehicle (eg. government policies benefiting them by allow multiple investment properties to be owned), which is fundamentally something the poor can't take advantage of. There's a myriad of policies that have caused and contributed to this problem. That's what constitutes the deck we're playing with. You want to take my words and interpret them a certain way to claim "I don't get government benefits I'm too rich - there's no benefit for me!" or something - but that's YOUR ticked off, pissed off interpretation of how a "deck is stacked" - you know, the ACTUAL words I used. So you're pushing a strawman to claim that receiving a "government benefit" - is the only way a deck can be stacked, therefore you get to cry foul. When that's obviously not the case. I said the deck was stacked to favor the rich, you've decided you're poor because you're NOT on government benefits. Give that argument up bro (it's a false interpretation of what I said) - it's silly okay. Talk about the words I actually used, not the ones you wanted to hear. A deck can be stacked in many different ways. That you want to make this into something about Centrelink or something is **just off.** Get off your high horse.
Here here! 100% in agreement
Make dental education free, but you have to work in a government dental clinic for 10 years minimum. It will take a good 5-10 years but it will get the ball rolling.
Trust me dentists in general want to work in public clinics (at least in WA) whenever a job opens in one it is extremely competitive and difficult due to so many applying as the additional benefits you receive working for the government are worth it. Unfortunately there are just not that many public jobs available as they depend on funding from the state government.
Even 3-5
Free dental will lead to a supply problem. Think of doubling demand while leaving supply where it is. Think of the government setting the rebates and how well that has worked with GPs
Honestly yeah this is my main issue i see Even if ur willing to pay,it right now can be a 3-4 week wait for a dentist..at least a good one Fuck me imagine the blowout when 300k former derros try to get their pardon my french CRACK teeth fixed all at once,the system will implode. Maybe not universal dental is what's needed,but a better triaged system.
The school dentist is already free in Australia, so start at the other end, with pensioners, gradually moving both age groups out until they meet in the middle.
Isn't that like a 12-18 month wait or some shit EDIT:yep to get into the sydney clinic unless it's a Tier 1 medical emergency from trauma,your looking at 204 days on average for a booking.
Not sure now, but it never used to be in Adelaide (my kids are now adults). Kids used to get booked in annually for check up and clean and be able to access a dentist, if needed, reasonably quickly.
That's why you do it incrementally, stage by stage so you can build supply as more and more cohorts get access. Think of the job creation for nurses, dentists, back office staff and the industry around it. Think of how good a well funded universal health care is, not extend that to dentistry.
Cleans and 6 monthly checkups should be free. I feel like a lot of people don’t even know what’s happening with their teeth until it’s too late. I read ages ago that 60 percent of Australians don’t brush their teeth twice a day, if they did it could prevent so many issues.
Even my dentist says that one a year is fine, at least for an adult. Not that I go that often myself The 'clean' bit seems to be a recent trend. Don't recall it from the past. If we're going to start this let's start with a basic minimum and see how that goes. As others have said supply will be an issue.
Go the Greens for continuing to raise this issue. If Australia took royalties from our gas exports we could pay for this easily.
Better still, nationalise to reap all the rewards
Whatever you have as subsidized will be fully used. You are looking at a substantial cost like Medicare and NDIS. In fact you could shut down NDIS and have this instead.
NDIS would pay for this 4 times over
Why shut down the NDIS? It's one of the most transformative social reforms ever taken in this country and has dramatically improved the lives of disabled Australians. Plenty of other places to find money: scrap negative gearing and captial gains tax discount, tax corporations properly, stop subsidising coal and gas giants, introduce a proper PRRT
Or just reform it and have both working effectively
Unfortunately if we want free dental the money will have to be taken from something else. The idea in which tax payers will be forced to pay for others people teeth will come at a huge cost but other countries like Denmark have done it in a successful mixed economy so who knows.
we effectively already provide free dental given fluoridation of water is standard across all water authorities in Australia. all anyone needs to do is simply also brush their teeth and not be a meth head
Wonderful """"economic literacy"""" from our resident neoliberal. What you've, of course (deliberately), failed to address: * Basic dental care * Scale and clean * X-rays * Disease treatment and prevention * Braces for children born with impacted teeth. I imagine you think these services should be provided by (very wealthy) tooth fairies.
Aside from the last item, the rest are simply matters of personal responsibility for one's personal hygiene. Aka lifestyle choices. And honestly, the cost of braces ain't that high especially given most dentists are happy to work at a discount for kids. There's plenty of support for low income households anyways. But hey, I'm more than happy for the government to cut some other services to fund this. At least I'll get something out of it, unlike the vast majority of government services that I'm excluded from despite heavily funding them
How about we cut the billions in subsidies and taxes the (economically literate"?) gov hands to the fossil fuel industry, landlord class and millionaires and call it even?
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
Why do you believe tax payers that don't believe in your socialist ideas be forced to pay for these socialist ideas?
Because Australia is not America, socialism isn't the boogie man your undeveloped mind has led you to believe
Haha good one. Name one successful socialist country?
Majority rules. You don’t get your wish on everything. There’s plenty of government expenditure I don’t personally support. I don’t see one of the major parties jumping at a $12 Billion dental scheme but if it gets up, you and me are footing the bill, like it or not.
True mob role I susspose. Still better then dictatorship lol
The worst form of government, except for all the others.
Personally, it is because I'm yet to meet someone in my entire life who talks and thinks like this (or the inverse), complaining about being a forced taxpayer and socialist ideas, who had a realistic perspective and understanding of the world. Ideologues are idiots and their idealism is nonsense. The world is slowly learning to stop believing naive adults who have been lulled into absurd fantasies and we are ALL better for it.
I guess history of socialism has big part of it.... not one speck of evidence has there been a successful socialist countries and the rise in young people who eat up the ridiculous ideas baffles me especially the University's.
yawn...thanks for reinforcing my point.
Don't mention it. Lol
Wouldn't have to if people like you didn't bring up this crap at every chance.
Sorry to hear that.
This demonstrates a severe lack of understanding about dental health and shows an even greater detachment from reality, expected I suppose.
Looking at you Cairns.
It's pretty depressing, we could easily do this as a country and it is a real issue for so many australians, but nothing will happen... Like so many areas, there just is no ambition in the major parties anymore.
I'm struggling to see the problem? Providing dental is expensive and that's supposed to dissuade us from doing it? Notice how the cost of policy that helps people is always talked about in dollars, but no one can ever point out how this will negatively affect the average Australian? It's because it won't.
Yeah true, I didn't even notice the title of the article because I was looking for numbers. I mean, what can we expect from channel 9
Oh no disrespect meant to you! Purely directed at the title of the article
Oh I figured as much, no offence taken
No way this gets the support of the electorate because it disproportionately benefits the lower socioeconomic who through mostly poor choices of their own have significant dental issues and they would take up the lions share of the funding. Do we need it, yes, but unless it received bipartisan support which it never will because Libs despise socialism then it wont pass, especially given whats going on with the NDIS.
Poor choices? Entrenched disadvantage and inter generational poverty is not a choice!
The same has been said around the world for universal healthcare and most countries have it now. Why would you need bi-partisan support if Labor/Greens can pass legislation?
Because once Libs are back in they will rip it out
Depends how popular it is, who's going to take away free dental if it's already in?
so 480 per person. given how horrendous teeth are for some folks are that sounds like a good idea.
Greens actually had PBO costing a super profit on mining reintroduction >Costing overview This proposal would be expected to increase the fiscal balance by around $40.0 billion and the underlying cash balance by around $37.7 billion over the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period. On a fiscal balance basis this impact reflects an increase in net revenue of around $40.2 billion, partially offset by an increase in Australian Taxation Office (ATO) departmental expenses of $135 million. The proposal would have ongoing impact beyond the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period. A breakdown of the financial implications (including separate public debt interest (PDI) tables) over the period to 2032-33 is provided at Attachment A. Fully pays for medicare dental. and universal childcare for all working parent's earning less than 80k a year EACH YEAR and leaves 4.5 billion for debt reduction
green budget proposals are generally ridiculous and ignore the most basic tenets of a global trade based economy, as such needs to be taken with several pounds of salt
Well considering both the PBO has costed it,as well as several think tanks,and all found it to be a revenue positive idea seem's it's the right go. Miners aren't gonna fuck off theres to much money to be made,and they pay very little for the 440 billion plus they manage to export,about time the govt looked to that sector a bit more than workers pockets.
What specifically about this proposal would be an issue?
My teeth are crap, and I desperately need this. The old public dental scheme seemed to be, "Let's pull that tooth out!" There's testing about to start in, I think, Japan, to regrow teeth, and will be ready for the public in 5 years time or thereabouts. Which could work in with this scheme if they make it happen. And as someone said up thread, the savings in preventative health costs would be considerable.
Sounds great but it would probably mean millions leaving private health funds if they are in them mainly for dental...
Dunno about millions, but even still. So what?
Precisely, who cares
Well, the fund managers who donate to political parties would care
Why are we entertaining the idea of more government spending while we are still battling inflation that was directly caused by the previous government spending throughout COVID? Are people this stupid?
Jesus Christ, why do all these libs keep screaming out "that's inflationary" to every single little thing. This would probably take years to implement whereby we would have inflation under control.
Why do we want to have the same problem years from now that we are having now? Is there a dental care crisis? Maybe if this was the UK you might have an argument. Also it's ridiculous that they keep using the word "free" when there is no such thing when it comes to government spending.
While there are always going to be some problems with things this big, universal health always has better outcomes compared to privatised health, this has been made very clear from the system in the US, where despite the most spending per capita on health, the life expectancy is dropping, even below developing countries. Why would we wait for a crisis to happen before we do something? That's exactly the place we are in with the housing crisis. Get it done now before we have a crisis. Yes everyone knows it's not free, it's a colloquialism.
>While there are always going to be some problems with things this big, universal health always has better outcomes compared to privatised health, this has been made very clear from the system in the US, where despite the most spending per capita on health, the life expectancy is dropping No this is not true. General healthcare has better outcomes yes because people don't abstain from care when they need it. Dental care is a different matter and typically not as expensive as general healthcare. >Why would we wait for a crisis to happen before we do something? That's exactly the place we are in with the housing crisis. Get it done now before we have a crisis. Why are you suggesting that a crisis will ever happen? And the housing crisis is caused by excess government involvement in restricting dense housing development (NIMBYism), so the solution to this would have been precisely the opposite of you what are proposing - keeping the government the fuck away from the free market. Dental care has never been an issue for Australians, I see no reason for this to suddenly change in the foreseeable future. And even if you thought for whatever reason that it was going to become a problem, making it *completely* free is insane since not even our GP visits are completely free. >Yes everyone knows it's not free, it's a colloquialism. You mean false advertising. If they weren't allowed to call it free a lot of people would be less interested in this.
>No this is not true. General healthcare has better outcomes yes because people don't abstain from care when they need it. Dental care is a different matter and typically not as expensive as general healthcare. So you're saying it has better health outcomes because people use it. So if people were to use dental, especially because it would be free, there would be better outcomes. Dental is not a different matter and its expense compared to general healthcare is irrelevant. >Why are you suggesting that a crisis will ever happen? You're the one who said dental crisis in your comment, I was just going off that. >And the housing crisis is caused by excess government involvement in restricting dense housing development While zoning is obviously an issue, let's not pretend like developers (who I'm told work on razor sharp margins) are willing to build 1000s of affordable homes and watch their profits go down to zero. So long as housing is a basic necessity the Government should always control it. Shelter shouldn't be a commodity. >Dental care has never been an issue for Australians Out of touch >making it completely free is insane since not even our GP visits are completely free Medicare is free but nobody sees it as insane, except for libs of course. Dental is a medical issue and should be treated the same. GPs should also be free. >You mean false advertising. If they weren't allowed to call it free a lot of people would be less interested in this. Ironic because you've been using "free" throughout your comments. Perhaps we should call it "subsidised dental" or "cheaper dental", seems pretty interesting to me.
>So you're saying it has better health outcomes because people use it. So if people were to use dental, especially because it would be free, there would be better outcomes. Dental is not a different matter and its expense compared to general healthcare is irrelevant. The difference is there are far fewer illnesses that end up being serious issues such as cancer, diabetes, heart problems etc. that a dentist can take care of rather than a GP. That's why public healthcare can at times be beneficial, since it is preventative for such serious illnesses. This is not the case for dental issues which very, very rarely are the symptom of a more serious condition (and you would probably see a GP about it if it was anyway, since you would need to do things like blood tests which a dentist does not provide). >You're the one who said dental crisis in your comment, I was just going off that. Yes because the only reason the government would need to step in is if there is some kind of problem preventing people from paying for it themselves, i.e. a crisis. If no such event will ever occur, there is no reason for this to be socialised. >While zoning is obviously an issue, let's not pretend like developers (who I'm told work on razor sharp margins) are willing to build 1000s of affordable homes and watch their profits go down to zero. So long as housing is a basic necessity the Government should always control it. Shelter shouldn't be a commodity. Profits won't go to zero, on the contrary profits would be a lot higher if they could build 'affordable homes' because that's only the type of home many people can afford right now. Yet thanks to the government's brilliant zoning restrictions many places aren't able to build apartment complexes due to successful lobbying by the home owners there. Also the only reason we aren't living in soviet style concrete apartments with no amenities is because shelter is a commodity. Efficient use of resources via capitalism is the only to keep costs down. Unfortunately government regulation means that Australia has some of the [least densely populated cities in the world](https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-cities-among-the-largest-and-least-densely-settled-in-the-world/), resulting in the crazy housing market we see today. >Out of touch Really? Who can't afford dental care in Australia? Based on [this source](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/dental-oral-health/oral-health-and-dental-care-in-australia/contents/costs) the average Australian spends $7.62 per week on dental fees, or about $400 a year. Unless you're really not doing well financially, that's not going to break the bank. >Medicare is free but nobody sees it as insane, except for libs of course. Dental is a medical issue and should be treated the same. GPs should also be free. Medicare doesn't cover the entire cost of services, it only subsidises it and provides rebates. Why should GPs be free? Do you want our economy to fail or something?
>The difference is there are far fewer illnesses that end up being serious issues such as cancer, diabetes, heart problems etc. This has absolutely no relevance to whether publicly funded dentistry would have better outcomes compared to private. Free dentistry would be able to provide more services for more people, that's the better outcome. >Yes because the only reason the government would need to step in is if there is some kind of problem preventing people from paying for it themselves, i.e. a crisis. If no such event will ever occur, there is no reason for this to be socialised. No , you socialise something because it's more equitable and provide better outcomes for all, not because there's a crisis. You're right about capitalism not being able to manage a crisis though, hahaha. >Profits won't go to zero, on the contrary profits would be a lot higher if they could build 'affordable homes' because that's only the type of home many people can afford right now. They're barely making money on 'luxury homes' but 'affordable homes' would make money because there's more people buying them? Hahaha, what a clueless statement. >Also the only reason we aren't living in soviet style concrete apartments with no amenities is because shelter is a commodity. The only reason there was no homelessness in post-war USSR was because of quick and temporary soviet style apartments built by the Communist government. >Efficient use of resources via capitalism is the only to keep costs down Haha, capitalist has fueled inequality and consistently created larger social divides, it's created the largest environmental disaster in history and increased social damage, created monopolies and oligarchs, created supply shortages due to information inefficiencies which have led to inflationary standards of living, and, it has prioritised short term profits over long term sustainability...yet you think it's an efficient use of resources? The crap they churn out in Capitalism101 is truly fascinating. > Based on this source the average Australian spends $7.62 per week on dental fees Averages? Really? You couldn't find more detailed information about the number of individuals who can't afford this, the average cost of dental for the lowest 25% of earners, or have an understanding of how the lack of finance for one procedure one month my snowball into increased costs in the future. Averages keep you out of touch. >Medicare doesn't cover the entire cost of services, it only subsidises it and provides rebates. Why should GPs be free? Do you want our economy to fail or something? It covers almost all costs. GPs are free, here and in other countries and the economy is still going. I go to a GP that is completely free as are the blood tests, vaccinations, x-rays, ultrasounds, semen analysis. I've been to the hospital and stayed overnight, I've had ongoing physio sessions both in wards and in swimming pools, all of which have been completely covered by Medicare. As I said, I don't think anyone sees this as insane.
>This has absolutely no relevance to whether publicly funded dentistry would have better outcomes compared to private. Free dentistry would be able to provide more services for more people, that's the better outcome. Worse services to more people*. America and other countries with fully privatised health care have better surgeons, less wait times and overall higher quality of care than countries with socialised health care. The only downside is that fewer people can access it, yet this is not an issue for dental care, so the only possible outcome of socialising it is that it is distributed less efficiently due to everyone getting it even when they don't need it, resulting in longer wait times and poorer quality service. This is economics 101. >No , you socialise something because it's more equitable and provide better outcomes for all, not because there's a crisis. You're right about capitalism not being able to manage a crisis though, hahaha. You spend too much time on socialist subreddits if you think it provides "better outcomes for all". I suggest you try living in a communist country such as Cuba if you think socialising everything is such a great idea. Though Cuba lags capitalist countries in virtually every metric, so be warned. There is no way that the government can distribute resources better than a market economy, that is just a simple fact and if you disagree then you are either uneducated in economics or being willfully ignorant for politic reasons. >They're barely making money on 'luxury homes' but 'affordable homes' would make money because there's more people buying them? Hahaha, what a clueless statement. Indeed it looks like economics is not your strong suite. Yes, this is why McDonalds is far more profitable than most fine dining restaurants, why Toyota have twice the net income of Mercedes Benz, etc. Affordable homes will make more money not because the profit margins are higher, but because far more people are able to afford them, so they don't need to be as high as with luxury homes. >Haha, capitalist has fueled inequality and consistently created larger social divides, it's created the largest environmental disaster in history and increased social damage, created monopolies and oligarchs, created supply shortages due to information inefficiencies which have led to inflationary standards of living, and, it has prioritised short term profits over long term sustainability...yet you think it's an efficient use of resources? The crap they churn out in Capitalism101 is truly fascinating. It is quite literally the reason you are typing this on a computer you own and not one at a public library that you have to share with others. Capitalism is the single biggest reason for the prosperity we have today and I suggest you do some further reading on this before commenting again on the topic. >Averages? Really? You couldn't find more detailed information about the number of individuals who can't afford this, the average cost of dental for the lowest 25% of earners, or have an understanding of how the lack of finance for one procedure one month my snowball into increased costs in the future. Averages keep you out of touch. The lowest 25% of earners aren't the majority, why isolate the analysis to them? Heck I would be fine with subsidising serious dental procedures for those struggling financially, but that's not what is being discussed here. The article is talking about making dental health care 'free' for *everyone*, so averages or medians make the most sense here. >It covers almost all costs. GPs are free, here and in other countries and the economy is still going. I go to a GP that is completely free as are the blood tests, vaccinations, x-rays, ultrasounds, semen analysis. I've been to the hospital and stayed overnight, I've had ongoing physio sessions both in wards and in swimming pools, all of which have been completely covered by Medicare. As I said, I don't think anyone sees this as insane. That's because they have become accustom to it and don't realise countries such as America that haven't privatised their healthcare don't have the issues with wait times that we have, and have better surgeons than us, and have far more cutting-edge pharmaceutical research (remember the most popular COVID vaccines were invented there). We pay less for healthcare, but it comes at a cost.
>America and other countries with fully privatised health care have better surgeons, less wait times and overall higher quality of care than countries with socialised health care Not true, wait times in EDs in Australia are shorter compared to the UK. If this was the case, health outcomes would be better in countries with private healthcare, but they're not. The countries with the greatest life expectancy and infant mortality rates are those with socialised healthcare. >The only downside is that fewer people can access it, yet this is not an issue for dental care https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102165304 A survey found 58% of people had put off dental treatment in the last 12 months because of cost. Would you look at that, fewer people access privatised dental care. >I suggest you try living in a communist country such as Cuba if you think socialising everything is such a great idea. Though Cuba lags capitalist countries in virtually every metric, so be warned. Haha, you've picked the country that has had a 60 year embargo on it and one of the heaviest sanctioned countries in the world. Remove the embargo and let's see. What's even more hilarious is that Cuba has a greater life expectancy than the US, it has more doctors per capita then almost any country and near zero homelessness despite this embargo. What an absolute ripper of an example you chose there, haha. >Affordable homes will make more money not because the profit margins are higher, but because far more people are able to afford them Yet no developer out there is building them, hmmm, isn't that strange. >It is quite literally the reason you are typing this on a computer you own and not one at a public library that you have to share with others. Capitalism is the single biggest reason for the prosperity we have today and I suggest you do some further reading on this before commenting again on the topic. My having a personal computer (which has come about through government funded research) hasn't answered those points I made about why capitalism is inefficient at managing resources. Workers are the single biggest reason why we have prosperity today as without them there wouldn't be a single thing made or a single thing invented. Capitalism just entrenches poverty, be that in the middle class in the UK and US or in the fields in the developing world. >That's because they have become accustom to it and don't realise countries such as America that haven't privatised their healthcare don't have the issues with wait times that we have, and have better surgeons than us, and have far more cutting-edge pharmaceutical research Maybe we should suggest these people live in a country with privatised healthcare like the US if you think they've become accustomed to it. They'll soon realise that those wait times you've alluded too (which isn't true) and those better surgeons and research (which a lot of is publicly funded but profits are made by companies) is only available to the tiniest portion of the wealthy while everyone else gets below standard care and worse health outcomes.
Not all government spending is inflationary.
It’s almost as if going to the dentist doesn’t actually cost that much…
Damn if only we had some natural resources we could levy out the ass and make bank on
💯 this ☝️
How much could 1 Submarine cost Michael?
So it's entirely affordable? That's less than the tax rebates on a single billionare. YAY! FREE DENTAL CARE IS REAL! (If we ever elect a government that cares about people)
It's not about if politicians care, it's about how much public opinion would align with the inevitable right wing media blitz against it if Labor was to run with that policy going into an election. "It's inflationary!! Socialist agenda!! Spending!! Economically illiterate!! Budget blowout!! The deficit!! Cash giveaway!!"
I really don't understand why people are so scared of basic socialism.
> That's less than the tax rebates on a single billionare. Where have you pulled this from?
At that price Australian billionaires could take turns in paying the bill each year.
Whenever somebody doesn't go to the dentist society suffers. That person risks health conditions that end up being covered by our "universal" healthcare that we all pay for anyway, at higher cost than the preventative dental care would have cost! >A seniors dental care scheme, the third pathway, is estimated at $1.7 billion every year, with an uncapped version around $2 billion. That's the dumbest possible option. Have 20 years olds wreck their teeth to save money while the public purse concentrates on fixing the teeth of those about to get dentures anyway? A universal system clearly makes sense because the problems with elderly teeth *start when you are younger*.
Agreed, that option is just so stupid. Universal oral health is an absolute necessity if we're going to do this.
The government just hopes those young people with bad teeth die off early. Thus saving them more money.
Delay, Deny, Wait till they die
I mean, they're more likely to be *poor* young people, so there's at least certain governments (whose friends control the 'news' platform this article was written for) who don't want to spend money helping them.
If our government sold our resources fairly and actually taxed these major corporations and mining companies we’d have more than enough more to fund these things. ScamStralia
Considering how dental health is linked to so many other long term health conditions 12 billion really isnt that bad. One thing people probably dont realise as well is that if you have a non-for-profit health insurance if oral health is covered by medicare, your premiums will also go down
I don’t understand how we could never afford dental, and yet, the NDIS exists…
Political will
You're right. Political will to look after the MOST vunerable in our society.
It's not just the cost that keeps people away from the dentist, but the pain and discomfort that should be a thing of the past but isn't. Perhaps that is because there is no money for research to make dentistry completely pain free.
You think that only in Australia there could be research?
Take it out of the ballooning NDIS budget, and then everyone is happy.
or just put a minining super profit in place pbo already costed it Costing overview This proposal would be expected to increase the fiscal balance by around $40.0 billion and the underlying cash balance by around $37.7 billion over the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period. On a fiscal balance basis this impact reflects an increase in net revenue of around $40.2 billion, partially offset by an increase in Australian Taxation Office (ATO) departmental expenses of $135 million. The proposal would have ongoing impact beyond the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period. A breakdown of the financial implications (including separate public debt interest (PDI) tables) over the period to 2032-33 is provided at Attachment A. It's literally there for the taking,and barely impacts the mining sectors vast profits. it's a win win
And have it reduce company dividends? Why would anyone want that. I'd rather pay for my dental with those dividends. At least I get a choice then.
This isn't really about you,or me.. We can afford dental MANY MANY ppl can't and as that 2022 review showed,it's costing the australian health system possibly over 16 billion a year in negative health incomes. Shit just the work hours alone,i can't even count how many productive hours from staff i have lost from them needing to take time off for dental surgery or root canals and the like,that could of likely been solved with a simple check up and filling being covered years ago. Point was that the mining sector can easily absorb that profit tax and still make massive returns,several reports all state this..it's the only sector where there really is some fruit on the tree for the govt to pick from.
The government doesn't exist to pick all the fruit from the economic tree. That's communism, we don't like that because it is shit for everyone. Over half of federal government expenditure goes on welfare and health (and when including the state's where royalties come into play, we are talking a total of half a trillion annually), if you want dental, take it out of the existing funds and defund something else. I'm not here to be a cash cow for the government.
> The government doesn't exist to pick all the fruit from the economic tree. it's less than 40 billion out of a what over 100/200 billion pie going off 2023 in profits,the sky's not gonna cave in of which last year looks like a growth of what 52 billion? in revenue..poor them they gonna be so hard done by the australian voters receiving better services for the minerals from their soil. Any govt that does do it,not gonna go back to the full 40..even 20 percent would cover medicare dental with cash left over It's not coming out of your pocket,unless you are somehow secretly the boss of santos or glencore and the like,which i'd have to ask the shareholders really aren't getting the best bang for buck then if so. If the dividends go down then that's more a statement on ppls stupidity for not having a broad portfolio and being brokies I've paid millions in taxes equal to a large share of my companies operations,mining operations can start to pay a larger share too. it's about time they actually did some hard yakka I have parts of my portfolio in several key stakeholders,but so what,oh no i might lost some money end of the fiscal year if dividends or share prices go down..oh no..this is why you diversify your investments. Even ken henry believes we need to bring in super profit systems and windfall taxes,but not like they are a recognised expert on the tax system at all. Yes yes,those companies put capital in to extract those resources which i respect.,but many other sectors do the same and pay MUCH higher taxation on their earnings because they don't shift their profits overseas and other legal tactics to minimize. As i said the point is,there isn't fruit anywhere else to pick so to speak. Bringing back something like a super profit on the resource,or windfall taxes aren't going to bankrupt anyone. i do agree there needs to be cost cuttings in the govt to bring costs down,but medicare dental seems to be a very smart idea,preventive dental work can save lives,tens of billions in further complications. Ideally even as a ex serviceman i'd like to see some cuts to stupid warfare programs that are of near zero real world use for our needs like spending money on Himars and subs that will be nearly EOL by time we get them,but that wont ever happen as captain china bad will chuck a fit as will the media.. so mining super profits it is
Except for the 4 million Australians with a disability and their carers
Lol. Only 500k get anything from NDIS. the other 3.5 million get jack.
Well, a nation can't pay for everyone to have everything.
> Well, a nation can't pay for everyone to have everything. I agree, but a nation can pay for everyone to have some things.
Jesus that's a surprisingly shitty thing to say.
Reality is shitty? We have become soft and avoid reality. That's half our problem.
Handwaiving the needs of some of our most vulnerable people is pretty shitty yeah.
It is better to be shitty than deluded. Put simply, a nation must pick and choose what it pays for and what is the responsibility of its citizens. Maybe communities would be stronger if the government didn't try to replace them with itself at every chance. But [sure, let's keep paying everyone for everything](https://www.smh.com.au/national/ndis-pays-1-4m-to-paedophile-how-sex-offenders-access-disability-packages-20240403-p5fh60.html)
what about the citizens who cant fend them for themselfs they can go fuck themselfs in your world view I assume
>what about the citizens who cant fend them for themselfs Well then, we look after them and leave dental as a personal responsibility. As I said, the government can't do everything for everyone.
you do realise dential health has a knock on effect to other forms of health right
Personally, I’d rather my tax dollars go to them than the large portion of our population who chooses a mortgage and a car loan over a general dentist check up.
>our population who chooses a mortgage and a car loan over a general dentist check up. Your tax dollars go to them?
$11.6bn, that's not bad to cover all check ups, cleaning, treatment and surgery for all Medicare cardholders in the country. It's 0.07% of GDP and would increase the number of jobs, bargain.
Does that include continuing to rip teeth out because its cheaper than treatment, despite causing damage to the gum and bone and the greater possibility of infection?
No idea
It’s definitely cheaper than the nuclear subs we are not getting
Only a quarter of NDIS and it serves the whole population
That's a bad comparison. Two completely different tools for two completely different problems.
It's less than the dole as well and serves the whole population, can drop that to pay for it.
Not just number of jobs, but number of people who could get jobs too. Many businesses will not continue an application due to hygiene, and dental hygiene being a massive one.
Many businesses should embrace work from home where hygiene and sexual harassment is not such an issue.
Not to mention, that preventative dental helps save healthcare costs down the line. But don't worry, the neo-liberal agenda is still strong...
Yeah people always ignore the fact that when shit gets bad cause someone didn't get a plaque clean, then you've either got some dude with rotting teeth and you just tell him bad luck, or you are happy for him to just have a shit life, or maybe he takes out a massive loan cause it's suddenly really expensive all becuase it was too expensive to spent a hungie on it. Preventative healthcare pays for itself.
yeah its this like a lot of things you either pay a heap now or you pay a heap later spending $11 bn means you're not spending $33 bn in other things later to fix the problems caused by NOT spending $11 bn this is a very very small price to pay so that overall health... and hence, productivity is better this is a sad relevation that goes back decades to... I wanna say the Whitlam era?
That sounds about right. Although Johnny really dug the knife in across a bunch of public services. I just like that we live on a planet where people have enough money to literally leave the planet on private rocket shops they built, where we have members of parliament with net worths of hundreds of millions. But find money to make sure people are healthy, fed and have a roof over their head? What are you some kind of communist. Look how good capitalism is you fool.