Suggestion - Relocate Our Capital Cities

The headline in todays Courier Mail reported something along the line of "20 years of water problems". Why? Well, most would argue it was a lack of planning. I would agree - but not for more dams in the South East - no the REAL problem is overpopulation in the South East and a lack of planning to force/redirect/encourage the mexicans into other parts of the state.

But frankly, this is NEVER going to happen because whilst the capital remains in Brisbane, the vast majority of people will want to move there. So why does the Capital have to be Brisbane? Perhaps the solution is to move it elsewhere in the state.

As much as we harp on about it, North Queensland statehood just isn't going to happen (a) because the majority in Queensland (those in the SE) know it would kill their futures and b) the remaining states don't want to unsettle the balance of power in the Federal Parliament (where NSW and VIC have the seat of power by the balls). So, if that's not possible, why not move the capital?

My suggestion - put it on a 25/50 year rotation. Why? Well, moving the capital will come with some costs and time to plan things - so if it's on a fixed arrangement, then planning becomes simpler. It also means that Brisbane wouldn't loose it forever - you'd get it back eventually. But by that time, it will have had the necessary affect - namely to encourage development and population growth away from the South East.

So, what things do we need to do to plan for moving the capital? How would we plan to "upgrade a city" to accommodate future growth - sustainably? I think it's an excellent challenge.

And my preference for the new State Capital? Charters Towers!!! Why? Well, if we leave it coastal we'd never get anyone to agree (e.g. the usual Townsville vs Cairns rivalary). Charters Towers has historical importance (it was "The World" in a previous life). It has ample room for growth - has plentiful water (Burdekin River) and yet is still close enough to the coast to be accessible.

So what do we need?

• Improved Airport (perhaps even an International Airport one day)
• Improved Rail Services (high speed links to surrounds)
• New Road Networks
• New Subdivisions
• New High Rise Development
• What Else?
  

Just imagine - Macrossan could become the "upmarket" riverside suburb of the new Capital?

Prediction - End of Medicare

As mentioned in a previous post, we're seeing the gradual dismantling of the medicare safety net but the government - yet another case of boiling the frog. If they came out and said "that's it, we're killing off medicare", it wouldn't happen because they'd be toss out quick smart - so they're taking it apart a piece at a time. How's that possible? Well:

1. 80% Coverage Clause

This change that provides 80% coverage (regardless of the scheduled fee) means that, before long, we will have $200 consults. How's that possible? Well, people are "comfortable" paying $40 per consult now. So, if the government will stump up with 80% ($160), then all the poor punter has to cough up is $40. Now, is the government is going to bankroll $160 consults??? Not bloody likely mate. No, well before that happens (lets say $80), the government will say "this is too expensive" and start to roll it all back (and put the cost back onto punters).

2. 30% Private Insurance Rebate

As per the above, this is gouging the health budget because, year after year, the punters are slogged with > than inflation increases (7-8% each year for 3-4 years!).

All of these moves are against the original tenets of medicare - namely to contain cost increases of these essential services. By imposing a scheduled fee, doctors are effectively forced into being competative or else pass on the costs to the punter - which would be political suicide.

So, now they simply bankrupt the system and wait for it to collapse.

How long have we got???

Prediction - FTA - Backdoor Abolition of PBS

In a New Years heart warmer, Mark Vaile has mooted that the government is considering dropping Labor's anti-evergreening clause, which was aimed at protecting access to cheaper generic drugs.

In an astonishing load of BS, the drug companies have argued that removing the cause would not result in increased prices.

I'm sorry, if removing the clause will NOT result in increased prices then surely leaving it in will have no impact either - so please, humour us on this one.

But no, I suspect this is the start of the gradual undermining of the PBS (as predicted by many) - expect it to be "no more" within 5-10 years!!! We're already seeing an undermining of Medicare (thanks to recent Private Medical Insurance rises that will mean our 30% contribution increases) as well as the government's 80% coverage shite (which means doctors will just start charging to the $40 per person limit (+80% paid for by us). Within 2-3 years it will be unsustainable...