Doctor and activist


Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home2/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Category: Government

Health Insurance Executive Targeted in New York

6 December 2024

A top health insurance executive was killed in what seems to be a targeted shooting in New York’. It seems that he was threatened over ‘health insurance issues’.
Every day I see patients who have their perfectly reasonable treatment requests refused by workers comp or CTP (Compulsory Third Party = Green Slip) insurers. The ‘case managers’ who are grandly titled case clerks have little power and follow protocols dictated by more senior folk in the organisati0on. I am unsure if they get bonuses for cases costing less than some statistical average for that type of claim, but nothing would surprise me. Sometimes it seems that they just refuse treatments because they think that they will get away with it, but the odds are stacked that they will often succeed anyway. The case clerks (Case ‘Managers’) cop a lot of abuse and are rotated frequently, perhaps to prevent their abuse or perhaps to prevent them getting to know their ‘clients’, who some of us would call ‘patients’. The case clerks have very little discretion and the system is very slow and seems designed to ensure that absolutely no one could ever be overpaid. The clerks follow their protocols, and are often unavailable and do not return calls. Most use their first names and a letter (presumably the first letter of their surnames) presumably so that they will not be personally targeted by those whose treatments they are refusing. (One would have thought that as people handing out money to people in distress that they might be very popular). It is as if one side are playing a game with money, but for the other side it is deadly serious.
Given that about a third of the population live from paycheck to paycheck, the fact that insurers have 3 weeks to accept or reject the whole claim, then 3 weeks to approve or deny any treatment, and longer if it is a difficult case, a huge amount of human misery can be created without even stressing any protocols. Governments are keen to keep premiums low and seem keen to support any insurer –suggested legislative amendments that achieves this aim. Interestingly the NSW Parliamentary Committee reviewing the NSW Workers Compensation legislation in 2022 had no input for either patients or doctors or their organisations. Presumably they did not seek such input and there was no publicity for the inquiry.
I see in my practice many distressed people whose lives are destroyed by these treatment denials. Now with the insurers only liable for the first 5 years after injury, if they can delay treatment longer than that, they are off the financial hook and the patients need to be treated by Medicare if that is possible. When I say ‘if that is possible’, many specialists will not do any Medicare work as it pays less than half the private rate. The waiting list is usually over a year for non-emergencies and the specialists are even more reluctant to treat cases that should have been paid by workers comp or CTP insurers. Even that assumes that the patients have Medicare; overseas students or people on working visas do not.
My belief is that insurers want to control medicine and the WC and CTP insurers, now with considerable input from the American Health insurance industry are preparing for the (very soon) day when Medicare is irrelevant and insurers tell doctors what they may do.

The patients whose lives are destroyed by the insurer denials of their reasonable treatments are upset and angry, often shattered physically and by the loss of their homes, properties and marriages do not think through how this has all happened. They are angry with the ‘case manager’ but not those higher up in the organisation who set the protocol that was the basis of their treatment denial.
Years ago, when I went to tobacco control conferences in the USA, there would sometimes be discussions among doctors about how to treat various medical conditions. Amongst the non-Americans, the talk was about what regimes were best. The Americans were usually concerned with what the insurers would pay for to the point that it was sometimes frustrating to have them in the conversations. I won a Fellowship in 1985 to study workplace absence and got some flavour of the way treatments were denied. I now see it all unrolling in Australia.
In the US guns are easy to get. When I saw a US health executive had been shot by an unknown person, I did not find it hard to find a motive, and thought that there could probably be a very large number of suspects. I Australia the case managers do not dare give their surnames, but the top executives are still all on the company websites.
If we continue to let Medicare be defunded because of private health donations to the major political parties and put money ahead of people’s reasonable needs, we will follow the Americans.

Here is the Reuters article in the SMH 6 December 2024

Health executive shot dead on New York street

Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealth’s insurance unit, was fatally shot yesterday outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel in what appeared to be a targeted attack by a gunman, New York City police officials said.

The shooting occurred in the early morning outside the Hilton on Sixth Avenue, where the company’s annual investor conference was about to take place. Thompson was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. The attacker remained at large, sparking a search that included police drones, helicopters and dogs.

“This does not appear to be a random act of violence,” New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said. “Every indication is that this was a premeditated, pre-planned, targeted attack.” The suspect, wearing a mask and carrying a backpack, fled on foot before mounting an electric bike and riding into Central Park, police said. Law enforcement authorities said the gunman appeared to use a silencer on his weapon, CNN reported.

UnitedHealth Group said Thompson was a respected colleague and friend to all who worked with him. “We are working closely with the New York Police Department and ask for your patience and understanding during this difficult time,” it said in a statement. “Our hearts go out to Brian’s family and all who were close to him.”

UnitedHealth Group is the largest US health insurer, providing benefits to tens of millions of Americans who pay more for healthcare than in any other country.
Video footage showed the gunman arrived outside the Hilton about five minutes be
fore Thompson. He ignored several other people walking by, NYPD Chief of Detectives, Joseph Kenny told reporters.

When Thompson approached the hotel, the gunman shot him in the back with a pistol and then continued firing, even after his gun appeared to jam. “Based on the evidence we have so far, it does appear that the victim was specifically targeted, but at this point, we do not know why,” Kenny said. The shooting happened not long before the scheduled investor conference at the Hilton.

UnitedHealth Group chief executive Andrew Witty took to the stage about an hour after the event started to announce the rest of the program would be cancelled.
“We’re dealing with a very serious medical situation with one of our team members, and as a result, I’m afraid we’re going to have to bring to a close the event today,” he said.

Police tape blocked off the area on 54th Street outside the Hilton, where blue plastic
gloves were strewn about, and plastic cups appeared to mark the location of bullet casings.
Thompson’s wife, Paulette Thompson, told NBC News that he told her “there were some people that had been threatening him”. She didn’t have details but suggested the threats may but suggested the threats may
have involved issues with insurance coverage. Eric Werner, the police chief in the Minneapolis suburb where Thompson lived, said his department had not received any reports of threats against the executive. The killing shook a part of New York that is normally quiet at that hour, about four blocks from where thousands of people were set to gather for the city’s Christmas tree lighting. Police promised extra security for the event.

“The police were here in seconds. It’s New York. It’s not normal here at seven in the morning, but it’s pretty scary,” said Christian Diaz, who said he heard the gunfire from the nearby University Club Hotel where he works.

Police issued a poster showing a surveillance image of the man pointing what appeared to be a gun and another image that appeared to show the same person riding on a bicycle. Minutes before the shooting he stopped at a nearby Starbucks, according to additional surveillance photos released by police. They offered a reward of up to $US10,000 ($15,500) for information leading to an arrest and conviction.

Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, where the company is based, said the state was praying for Thompson’s family and the UnitedHealth team. “This is horrifying news and a terrible loss for the business and healthcare community in Minnesota,” he said in a statement. Thompson, a father of two sons, had been with UnitedHealth since 2004 and served as chief executive for more than three years. Thompson was appointed head of the company’s insurance group in April 2021 after working in several departments, according to the company’s website.

“Sometimes you meet a lot of fake people in these corporate environments. He certainly didn’t ever give me the impression of being one of them,” said Antonio Ciaccia, chief executive of healthcare research non-profit 46brooklyn, who knew Thompson. “He was a genuinely thoughtful and respectable guy.”
Reuters, AP

 

There was considerable follow up:

www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/bullets-used-in-us-healthcare-exec-s-killing-had-writing-on-them-20241206-p5kwa6.html

www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/wave-of-hate-flows-for-health-insurance-industry-after-ceo-s-shooting-death-20241206-p5kwcz.html

 

Continue Reading

The Revolution Has Happened- no one noticed- Just that Trump Won

6 November 2024

Trump won the US election. A convicted felon, who achieved nothing positive in his last time in the White House except perhaps the only boast that was true, ’I didn’t start any wars when I was President’.

Trump will win the dodgy electoral college system, which gives small states more votes than they should have based on their population.  Someone said that the US has 36 Tasmanias, which is not a bad simile.  But he may also win a majority of the popular vote.

Why? everyone asks. ‘He had no policies’. ‘He was totally inconsistent’.  ‘He seemed not to know and not to care that he didn’t know’.  ‘How could he be trusted?’  ‘Even those who had worked with him in high positions came out against him’.  ‘He was lazy and self-indulgent’.  ‘He did a lot of dodgy business deals’. ‘He never paid his contractors’.

The biographical movie, ‘The Apprentice’,  (which is still on at the Palace Cinema in Leichhardt) is about Trump’s early years and shows him coming under the influence of an amoral lawyer, Ron Cohn. Cohn won by recording conversations and blackmailing judges, especially gay ones at a time when homosexuality was illegal.   Cohn used his methods to get rid of some bills and taxes for Trump and teaches his 3 principles:

  1. Morality is an option,
  2. Truth is whatever you say it is, and
  3. You must never admit defeat because you must believe that you are a winner so that you can convince everyone else that you are.

At the end of the movie, having betrayed even Cohn himself, Trump, unkeen to talk to a would-be biographer states these 3 principles.

So why did people vote for him?

Because there has been a revolution that no one has noticed.  People no longer believe that the government can or will help them. Consider this. The rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer and the gap between the two groups have continued to grow. With the world turned into a market, US jobs in the steel industry and the car industry went offshore. Manufactured goods were increasingly imported, while working Americans lost their jobs.  The welfare and health system in the US are quite inadequate for a decent life, yet taxes to the rich are cut.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seemed to care. Bernie Sanders tried to point this out and looked like winning the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016 and even 2020, but the party put in Hilary Clinton and then Joe Biden to stop him.  The Republicans did not want Trump, but could not stop his populist campaign. Most of them were scared to speak against him, and when he won the nomination and looked a chance to be President again, they all supported him.

Trump spoke whatever suited him at the time. He used racial scapegoats for the national problems, but still recruited blacks and Latinos, presumably because of his speaking to their economic pain. When he did not win in 2020, he simply accused the other side of cheating- true to the 3 Cohn principles. He principally criticised the Establishment and said that he would change it. That was the key point. He was going to change the Establishment. That was what people wanted to hear.  He was right in the key issue. The Establishment had not fixed the problems of declining living standards. The wealthy were getting wealthier. Their benchmarks of economic growth were doing fine, and the mass media and business pages trumpeted their success. But a lot of people were hurting and no one seemed to care.  Trump criticised the Establishment and said that he would fix it.

Harris said that the election was about Democracy and Trump’s character.  But Democracy is an abstract concept and has not delivered material benefits for them. As far as a lot of people were concerned, if Trump could deliver they did not care about his character flaws.

So there was a revolution. People rejected Government as it has been practised by both Democrats and conventional Republicans. It is  just that no one has yet noticed that it was a revolution, and unfortunately the rebels have Trump instead of Sanders to lead them.

Continue Reading

Why Trump May Win

31 October 2024

 

The situation is the logical consequence of turning the world into a ‘market’. This was always favoured by big business, but it got turbocharged by the idea that competition for markets caused the two World Wars. Thus the object of world political policy was to turn the world into a market, so that the rich could get richer without wars over markets and virtue would be rewarded.
The US had a huge percentage of world markets and a huge say over it all- what could possibly go wrong?
In a hierarchical system, those at the top set the prices and the wages, whereas those at the bottom are in a perfect market of labour, so take whatever prices and wages they can get.  Money therefore movies upwards as in a Monopoly game.
The whole situation was turbocharged by a number of factors.  As trade became cheaper, goods travelled and workers competed with workers from other countries, so workers in more developed countries were not able to compete on price and the owners of capital moved their industries to cheaper countries, which gave these countries something of a leg-up, but most of the profit went to the owners of capital.  Technology also advanced, so fewer workers were needed to produce anything- mechanisation was here.  We could produce much more than we could ever consume. Business developed built-in obsolescence, so goods would wear out or become unfashionable, so they needed to be bought again. Marketing became immensely significant, so we were no longer to consider what we needed, but what we wanted.
Increasingly most of the goods being manufactured needed to be sold, but did not need to be bought.  Western consumers were actually in the box seat with all their needs met, so needed to be persuaded to consume for status or whim.  Marketing was largely up to the challenge.  As Dave Ramsay famously put it, ‘We buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like’.
 
Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor continued to grow between countries and within countries, a general recipe for social and international malaise.  The residue of colonialism remains. Nigeria is oil rich, yet its resources are foreign-owned and its main employment industry is scamming.  South America has had its governments frequently act on  behalf of foreign companies.  The result of the problem is seen as ‘illegal migration.’
So just as the inexplicable ‘Brexit’ vote was a longing for an earlier time and a rejection of the Establishment and the status quo, so Trump is seen as a disruptor. He wil tell them all to ‘get fu..ed’  That is enough. He speaks to the pain of rust belt Americans who saw their jobs in steel, cars or manufacturing disappearing through no fault of their own and their standard of living falling. He is a  demagogue who tells them what they want to hear.  The migrants caused the drug problem, and every other problem. If it is not consistent or even coherent, it does not matter; they listen to the shock jock. Again, technology is relevant. Policy is no longer broadcast, it is selectively narrowcast with truth an early casualty. Trump ads tell Jewish voters that Harris is pro-Palestine while other Trump ads tell Muslim voters that she is pro-Israel. Whatever it takes.  The country is very polarised and there is even talk of civil war.  Marx believed that revolution would happen in an advanced capitalist system because the logical end point of unfettered capitalism was that a few people would end up with all the money and the majority would be unhappy.  (We had better not mention who said this).
The American voting system is as bad as its health and welfare systems. The politicians set the electoral boundaries in a huge gerrymander, and the electoral college gives each state the same voting rights, whether they have large or small populations. The Constitution is fossilised, with 36 Tasmanias, states that are declining relatively or cannot pay their way. These are the States that will determine the election.
The polls are neck and neck in these ‘swing states’, but the betting favours Trump, and the betting has been generally more correct than the polls.  A financial friend of mine told me that the bond market is behaving in anticipation of a Trump victory.
Things are not always pleasant, but there is usually an explanation.
Continue Reading

The Effect Optional Preferential Voting had on the 2023 NSW State Election

19 April 2023

 

Preamble

Preferential voting gives a more democratic system and avoids the electoral distortion of ‘First Past the Post’ which favours those with bigger primaries and can give huge distortions of the vote, such as occurs in the UK where there is an effective north-south division between Labour and the Tories, and a very polarised system, as non-major parties get far fewer seats than their share of the primary vote.

NSW has ‘optional preferential voting’ which is an anomaly  in Australia, which Federally and in other States have compulsory (or mandatory) preferential.  This simplifies the voting system, but also distorts the results towards a ‘first past the post’ system.  It was introduced by Neville Wran in 1980 as part of some excellent reforms, but it might be wondered if the less democratic Optional Preferential was introduced to make it difficult for the Liberals and Nationals when they had ‘3 cornered contests’, i.e. Liberal, National and Labor.  If so, it is backfiring now, as on this analysis optional preferential voting has given NSW Labor six fewer seats and an extra 3 Independents would have been elected in the 2023 election.

This paper looks at some seats and tries to quantify what difference a change to the compulsory preferential system would have made to the result of the NSW election.

 

This analysis suggests that Labor would have gained an extra 6 seats, and Independents an extra three. Labor would have gained Drummoyne, Goulburn, Holdsworthy, Oatley, Ryde and Terrigal. The Independents would have gained North Shore, Pittwater and Willoughby, (though WIilloughby would have been already Independent after the 2022 by-election.)

 

Method

Where a candidate gets an absolute majority, clearly they have won the seat. If the final margin of victory is less than the exhausted vote, there is a possibility that if the votes had not exhausted, the result may have been different. The question is which candidate would the exhausted votes have favoured. A reasonable guess is that the voters who exhausted would have voted the same way as the voters who filled in all squares for their primary vote.

If this is applied to a number of electorates with close margins, a reasonable estimate of the effect of compulsory voting can be made.

This paper looks at some electorates that have final victory margins less than the exhausted vote number, and multiplies the ratio of known preferences for the last two candidates by the number of exhausted votes.  This is then compared to the current margin of victory to see if the result would have been different.  These results can then be examined to see the change in the composition of the Parliament that would have resulted from a change to compulsory preferential voting.  The seats that would change below are  in alphabetical order.

The record for each seat shows the number of Formal Votes (FV), the Final Margin of Victory (FMV) and the number of votes that Exhausted (E).

The tables for each seat show the results for the successful candidate and the second candidate. They show the Primary Vote count (PV), then the Final Vote (FV) count after preferences have been distributed.  The difference between these is the number of preferences that the candidate received.  The Total Distributed Preferences Distributed (TPD) are added and the ratio between them determined as an index of how the preferences flowed. These ratios are then multiplied by the number of Exhausted Votes  to see what the final count is likely to have been if preferences were mandatory.

 

(A more detailed description of the tables is in an Appendix at the end if it is required).

Drummoyne

Total Formal Votes 51,639. Final Margin of Victory 1,285. Exhausted Votes 2,308.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Di Pasqua Lib 24,526 25,308 782 0.1691 390 25,698
Little Labor. 20,182 24,023 3,841 0.8308 1918 25,941
FMV = 1,285 TPD=

4,623

E= 2,308 New Result

-243

Comment:

If there were compulsory preferential voting, Labor would have won this seat.  It is remarkable how few preferences flowed to the Liberals- only 16.9%.  83% of the Exhausted votes would have gone to Labor, winning it the seat.

 

Goulburn

Total Formal Votes 50,775. Final Margin of Victory 1,170.  Exhausted Votes 5,575.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Tuckerman Lib 20,737 23,185 2,448 0.3804 2,121 25,306
Pilbrow Labor. 18,028 22,015 3,987 0.6196 3,454 25,469
FMV = 1,170 TPD=

6,435

E = 5,575 New Result

-163

Comment:

Goulburn would have changed hands from the Liberals to Labor if there had been compulsory preferential voting.

Holsworthy:

Total Formal Votes 48,791. Final Margin of Victory was 331 Votes.  Exhausted Votes 4,404.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Ayyad Lib 20,449 22,359 1,901 0.4092 1,802 24,161
Maroney Lab 19,284 22,028 2,744 0.5906 2,602 24,630
FMV = 331 TPD=

4,645

E = 4,404 New Result

  • 469

Comment:

The result is that with compulsory preferences the 2nd candidate, Maroney of Labor, would have won by 469 votes.

 

North Shore

Total Formal Votes 48,177. Final Margin of Votes was 3,658, The Exhausted Vote was 6,808.

Primary V Final V Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh. V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Wilson Lib 21,308 21,987 1,901 0.0802 547 24,161
Conway Indep 10,308 18,329 7,802 0.9199 6,261 24,630
FMV = 3,658 8,481 E = 6,808 New Result

  • 469

Comment:

The result is that the Independent, Conway would have won with compulsory preferential voting.  Note that the primary of Conway was 21.9%, less than half of Wilson at 44.2%, but the preference flows to Conway were 7,802 votes, 92% and Wilson 697, only 8%.

Ironically, the current 2 Candidate preferred, which favours Wilson by 55.69% to 44.31%. makes it look like a safe seat, but this is because of the Exhausted Votes, as the existing system looks only at the Final Vote Count.

Oatley

The total formal vote was 50,196. Final Margin of Victory 754.  Exhausted Vote 3,032

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Coure Lib 22,877 23,959 1,082 0.244 740 24,698
AmbihaipaharLabor 19,851 23,205 3,354 0.756 2,292 25,497
FMV = 754 TPD=

4,436

E = 3,032 New Result

-799

Comment:

The result would have been that Labor would have won. The heavy preference flows suggest that a majority of people do not want the candidate that was elected.

 

Pittwater

Total Formal Votes 49,511.  Final Margin of Victory 754.  Exhausted Votes 3,387.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Amon Lib 22,137 23,365 1,228 0.1970 667 24,032
Scruby Indep 17,754 22,759 5,005 0.8030 2,720 25,479
FMV = 754 TPD=

6,233

E  = 3,387 New Result

-1,447

Comment

Again, the Independent, Scruby would have won if there were compulsory preferential voting because the Liberal got only 19.7% (667) of the Exhausted Preferences. On the preference ratio Scruby would have got 80.3% (2,720).  Since 754 + 667 = 1,421 is less than 2,720, Scruby would have been elected by 1,299.

 

Ryde

Total Formal Votes 53,840. Final Margin of Victory 54.  Exhausted Votes 3,032.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Lane Liberal 24,383 25,431 1,048 0.1933 586 26,017
Howison Lab. 21,004 25,377 4,373 0.8067 2,446 27,822
FMV = 54 TPD=

5,421

E = 3,032 New Result

– 1,804

Comment

This seat had a re-count and aroused a great deal of interest.

Again, the result would be changed and Howison of Labor elected if there were compulsory preferential voting, because the majority of preferences would favour Labor. Few preferences went to the Liberals who in this case were greatly helped by the lack of preference flow due to Optional preferential voting.

 

Terrigal

Total Votes 50,470. Final Margin of Victory 1,467. Exhausted Votes 2,703.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

Crouch Liberal 23,507 24,467 960 0.2107 569 25,036
Boughton Lab. 19,703 23,300 3,597 0.7893 2,134 25,434
FMV = 1,467 TPD=

4,557

E = 2,703 New Result

– 398

Comment:  Boughton of Labor would have won if there were compulsory preferential.

 

Willoughby

Total Formal Votes 52,830. Final margin of Victory 2,450. Exhausted Votes 5,826.

Primary V Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh V Added New Total

FV + EVA

James Lib 23,032 24,727 1,695 0.1711 997 25,724
Penn Indep. 14,064 22,277 8,213 0.8289 4,829 27,106
FMV = 2,450 TPD=

9,908

E = 5,826 New Result

-1,382

Comment:

Penn, a well organised Independent had massively more preferences than James, and would have beaten him with compulsory preferential voting. In contests with a strong 3rd candidate, in this case Labor, the preferences are crucial.

 

Conclusion

If current political trends to minor parties continue, a change in the voting system to compulsory preferential is likely to make an even greater difference in future and this is likely to favour both minor parties and Labor.

 

Appendix:

 

Definitions:

1st (Successful) Candidate’s Primary Vote = 1CP

2nd Candidate’s Primary = 2CP

 

After distribution of preferences

1st Candidates Final Vote = 1FV

2nd Candidates Final Vote = 2 FV

 

Final Vote Margin of Victory FMV = 1FV – 2FV

Exhausted Vote = E

If E > (1FV – 2FV), then the seat must be considered as able to have had its result changed by having the Exhausted vote preferences considered if preferential voting were compulsory.

 

The number of preferences P which went to each of the last 2 candidates are:

Ist Candidate 1FV – 1CP  = 1P

2nd Candidate 2FV – 2CP = 2P

Thus Total Preferences Distributed       1P + 2P = TPD

 

The ratio of preferences received will be:

1st Candidate = 1P/TPD

2nd Candidate = 2P/TPD

 

So  if the Exhausted votes followed the primaries of those who gave preferences the extra votes received by the candidates (EVA) would be:

1st Candidate 1EVA = 1P/TPD x E

2nd Candidate 2EVA = 2P/TPD x E

 

If the Exhausted Votes Added (EVA) to the second candidate is greater than the Final Margin of Victory, FMV (=1FV – 2FV), then compulsory preferential voting is likely to have changed the results.  This  is noted as a New Result, with a negative sign if there is a change to the existing result.

 

So the key to the tables becomes:

 

Primary Vote Final Votes

FV

Pref Rec’d Ratio of Pref Exh. V Added = Ratio x E New Total

FV + EVA

Successful 1st Candidate 1CP 1FV 1P 1P/TPD 1EVA 1FV + 1EVA
2nd candidate 2CP 2FV 2P 2P/TPD 2EVA 2FV + 2EVA
FMV = Final Margin of Victory = 1FV – 2FV TPD= Total Preferences Distributed = 1P + 2P Result =

(1FV + 1EVA) – (2FV + 2EVA)

 

 

Continue Reading
Continue Reading

DVA Still Screwing Veterans

21 July 2021

 

A recent article shows that the Dept of Veteran Affairs is still making it hard for injured veterans to get redress.

 

This is entirely consistent with the way that governments try to minimise all welfare payments.

 

Centrelink is a bureaucratic nightmare. They will not pay until you have absolutely no resources, and the amounts are not enough even to pay rent in capital cities.  Morrison claimed that he had cut the rate of people being granted the Disability Support Pension by two thirds. All the people refused have to keep sending off job applications as part of their ‘mutual obligations’.  I see these people. They have virtually no hope of a job and are wasting their own and employers’ time.

 

I work in the State area of workers compensation and CTP injury. SIRA (State Insurance Regulatory Agency) is chiefly concerned that insurers do not pay out too much, so that the government can boast that premiums are low.  There’s not much danger of insurers overpaying. They refuse a large number of investigations and treatments that are standard elsewhere.

 

Veterans Affairs used to be a special welfare system for returned service personnel and was set up after the world wars as a system to look after heroes. But wars lately have been neither popular, nor in Australia’s interest. The Vietnam war was unpopular, as were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam was a mistake, but the more recent ones were merely done to please the USA, who also should not have been there.  Our troops have lots of PTSD and because negative media coverage was stopped after Vietnam, the veterans cannot really talk about what happened to anyone who understands.  Their suicide rate has been high. But consistent with the lack of willingness for any sort of welfare, the veterans also have a bureaucratic nightmare, which delays payment as long as possible, often till their death by suicide.

 

The market-obsessed late capitalist system in which we live simply creates greater inequality, and the only way to maintain a harmonious social fabric will be to support disadvantaged people, whatever the cause of their disadvantage. It has been said that the Left tries to lessen inequality and the populist Right tries to defend privilege or finds scapegoats. As we watch the US unravel or see our government and opposition blame migrants for the housing shortage it is hard to argue with this proposition.

 

In the meantime, the veterans need help against the government’s lawyers. And the population should try to stop us being drawn into very silly wars.  Taiwan looks like the next danger.

 

Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide confronts lawfare, cronyism and a bureaucratic nightmare

 

Continue Reading

Israeli Parliament votes down Two-State Solution 68-9

21 July 2024

Israel has been settling people, largely poorer folk from Eastern Europe on hilltops on former Palestinian occupied land since 1948. Because they did recognise land title before the declaration of the State of Israel, they can claim that no one owns this land, which is of course nonsense, as the Palestinians had been occupying and farming it.

They have continued to pretend that a peace could be negotiated as they gradually took more and more land, and built roads to all the settlements so that the army could come and help the occupiers if the Palestinians resisted. They called the Palestinians terrorists, basically to undermine their legitimacy.

Now there is no land that could be a Palestinian state- there are about 750,000 Jewish settlers in the West bank in fortified villages, and they are educated in Hebrew only, so they cannot go anywhere even if they agreed to.

Israel has pretended for years that there could be a two-state solution because it has been playing for time to make it impossible. Now, because the world is calling out for a peace solution, the Knesset has said that it will not have a two state solution. The Palestinians obviously have nowhere to go. Gaza is rubble and the land on the West Bank is largely Jewish-owned.

Jeff Halper in his book ‘An Israeli in Palestine’ recognised this problem more than a decade ago and said that there would have to be a one-state solution with and post-Apartheid type of reconciliation similar to South Africa’s. Good luck with that now!

It is hard not to believe that the hard right who control the Israeli Knesset wanted the Gazans either to die or to flee to the Sinai, but Egypt did not allow the latter, as they knew that they would be refugees there forever. The Gazans knew it too, though we might wonder what they would choose now as Israel bombs them and blockades them till their children starve.

This is colonialism and genocide more obvious than it has been in public memory, and the Knesset has just shut the door on the peace process that Australia and many other governments have been vainly clinging to.

https://johnmenadue.com/israeli-lawmakers-vote-against-palestinian-statehoodpic-zeev-elkin/

Continue Reading

Anglo Democracies- What a Mess. We need a New Constitution

7 June 2024

If a mob stormed Parliament, overcoming the security system, causing great fear, killing one person and injuring others, we would regard that country with suspicion; South American tin pot democracy?  If a few of the rioters were charged, but the instigator was not charged 4 years later, we would regard that as a farce. If the instigator then got a fine for irregularity in the bookkeeping of his election funds 4 years later and got a fine that was a tiny fraction of his election budget, he might as well have had a parking ticket. If the instigator then with total impunity stood again for election we would say that the tin pot nature of a quasi-dictatorship was confirmed.  Yet this is exactly what has happened in the USA, where Trump will get a non-custodial sentence, i.e. a fine or some charitable work.  Photo-op in a soup kitchen perhaps?

The Republicans will win if Biden becomes unpopular because the economy turns down, or he supports Israel too much because of the power of the Jewish lobby, or if the scare campaign on his age is successful enough.  This is because there are only two options, Democrat and Republican.  The leaders in the Republican party do not want to criticise Trump because if he succeeds their fortunes will suffer and if he fails, they want to run in 4 years.  In a Big Party, it is all about climbing up their hierarchy- tough luck about the country’s welfare. Even Nikki Haley, who criticised Trump in a desperate effort in the Republican primaries has endorsed him. So we have a President who is too old and should step down standing against Trump who has a criminal record and for some reason cannot be brought to book within 4 years; his past failures, ignorance and appalling policies almost irrelevant in the scheme of things.

In Britain, with First-Past-the-Post voting, the electoral system is similarly distorted to favour only two parties and the inequities are such that you can almost draw a line across the country. Conservative Blue in the South, Labour Red in the North. Other parties and opinions are a dot here and there, they get far more votes than seats.  Post-Brexit the economy has tanked, which is what one might have expected since most their trade was with the EU.  The Conservatives will get a caning, putting in the lack- lustre Labour party, the only alternative, of course.

Back, in Australia, Labor is criticised for doing so little and being Liberal-lite.  They had agreed not to raise taxes and even to give tax cuts because Shorten had been defeated by scare tactics in 2019, so having no policies was a safer, small target option.  The Conservatives rule from beyond the grave.

The problem is that the people have handed the power to a two party system.  When Churchill wrote the post-WW2 German constitution he wrote it so that no party would ever get an absolute majority. There would have to be negotiation about forming government and about each piece of legislation; no ‘winner takes all’.  The Swiss constitution has 3 levels of government, all but 7 politicians are part-time and limited to 2 terms, with their jobs protected so that when they leave they go back to them full time. This means there are no party hierarchies to climb up and no jobs for the boys and girls at the end. Also there are quarterly referenda where if citizens get enough signatures they can overthrow even Federal government decisions.  This is what Australia did not copy when our constitution was written in 1900 (though it was considered). Our 1901 constitution was a heroic effort to stitch 6 squabbling colonies into a nation. It was not all wisdom for all time.

Anglo countries may have been early in creating democracy from autocratic kingdoms, but better things are now known and we need to move up and on.

Continue Reading

Religious Update:  2 items from Secular Australia

2 June 2024

Wording of the Census

A battle is brewing between Catholic Church leaders and secular groups over the religion question in the Australian census. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is currently testing whether it would be better to ask “Does the person have a religion?” rather than “What is the person’s religion?”, after 9.8 million people (approximately 40% of responses) indicated in the 2021 count that they had no faith. The new question would have a mark box for both “No” and “Yes (specify religion)”. The bureau is also testing the use of a write-in box for respondents who wish to indicate more detail on their faith, rather than simply picking from a small list of common religions.

The Lord’s Prayer in Parliament House, Victoria

Liberal upper house member Evan Mulholland has placed a motion on the Notice Paper in support of faith leaders who wrote to all members of parliament earlier this month demanding that the parliament continue to observe prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer, at the opening of each sitting day.

It has been 1034 days since the state Labor government promised to replace prayers with something more reflective and appropriate for Victoria’s diverse community.

Victorian Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes has acknowledged the government’s “unmet commitment”.

The flurry of activity – the letter from faith leaders and motions on the Notice Paper – may be a sign that the government is ready to deal with the matter.

Earlier in the year, Mr Mulholland declared that the Liberal Party would “fiercely oppose” any attempt to remove prayer.

Census data show that Christianity has plummeted from 85 per cent of the Victorian population in the 1970s to 41 per cent in 2021. The percentage of people who identified as having no religion at the 2021 Census was 39 per cent.

https://secularism.au/

Continue Reading

EV Batteries are the Answer to Australia’s Electricity Storage Problem

23 May 2024

Everyday we hear about Australia’s energy problem.  The government wants to be re-elected because it gave the electricity companies $300 for each of us to offset our power bills.

Less than a fortnight ago, the Government announced a new gas strategy. Gas had to be a ‘transition fuel’ because we could not transition to renewables fast enough. Fracking with its associated damage to the rock strata, environment and greenhouse gas targets notwithstanding Last week the Liberals announced a nuclear future. This week Erarang coal fired power station closure has to be delayed. And, hey rooftop solar is too much in the day time, so owners will have to pay to have the power taken off their hands as grid prices go negative.

Meanwhile it costs $50,000 to buy an EV in Australia, despite the fact that China has an EV overproduction problem and BYD can produce a model called a Seagull for $US10,000 (about  $A15,000). An EV has a battery that stores about 50 kilowatt hours, whereas the average home battery is less than 10kWh.  The spot price of electricity varies and it would be easy to charge the EVs on solar in the daytime and use their batteries to power the houses in the evenings. Why does this not happen?  It does require standard plugs and meters that would allow electricity to move from the car to the grid.  Electricity already goes from the grid to the cars- it just has to be able to be reversed.

Why has this not happened?  The small number of electricity suppliers, who are arguably gaming the system by withholding supply at critical times to raise prices, do not want supply diversified. They are building solar as fast as they can and wanting to control the solar input. They even offer to put solar on your roof as long as they can control when it is used. If individual households could store solar in their EVs, and either use it or sell it into the grid at peak times, this would directly cut into their oligopoly profits.  Why does the government not have the courage to take them on?  Probably because solar owners and people who want to profit from the EV batteries in their cars have not made enough noise to make it a political issue.

So lets shout:

‘We want cheap EVs and we want to be able to use their batteries to store power for Australia, lessen greenhouse gases and make some money at the same tim.

When do we want it- NOW!’

Continue Reading