MisterFrog

Indeed we say "the bill", this is of course a joke, a play on words.

Etymology of using "cheque" (American spelling "check") is a bit murky from my very surface level searching: https://www.etymonline.com/word/cheque

Seems logical is gained it's meaning from 1812: "a counter-register as a token of ownership used to check against, and prevent, loss or theft" from "coat check". Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch for the meaning to then mean a token of how much you owe for the food.

'The meaning "restaurant bill" is from 1869.' according to this website.

This reads as you would expect from Newscorp. The way it's written is clearly biased towards a US agenda.

"Targeting our cities" seems like a weird way to put this, seems like emotionally charged language.

At no point does the article actually mention how the Chinese were targeting Australia cities.

Unless they're actually firing something at a city, is it targeting? Intimidating perhaps? Even then, they just passed by.

The deputy PM's response makes way more sense than what this piece seems to be implying.

It then straight up puts forward the American agenda on military spending and the strategic interests of Taiwan. Unlike the Australian side where it just quotes, it straight up takes a position for the Americans.

There's so much actual stuff to be criticising China for, but this passing by isn't one of them.

This shit is manufacturing consent for a future war with the US and China. If the US want to get into a war over Taiwan, that's none of our business. We are a middle power, and have a tiny military. Joining another war for the US would be a huge mistake. Especially against another superpower.

The current government seems on the money on this one, and absolutely fucking stupid when it comes to backing the US strikes again Iran.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergon_Energy

You're in the situation what we wish to get back to in Victoria, you should feel lucky, not complaining.

"Bargain hunting" for a electricity retailer is absurd. Because the privately owned electricity distributors set the rates, and the retailers just repackage the wholesale rates as fixed cost supply and usage charges. There is no "choice". (This is the situation in Victoria)

There should be one electricity distributor, the government (this is buy-in-large, your situation), who provides electricity at cost. Because it's a natural monopoly, there's no use of having parallel energy transmission wires owned by different companies, which is why that isn't done anywhere in Australia (in most cases).

This is exactly why our costs are way higher than in Queensland. "Competition" of privatisation doesn't work.

Thanks Kennett (the Liberal Premier who sold off the Vic SEC).

Yeah you make very good points. I do hope we can shift the culture to preferring walkable/bike-able/public transport oriented cities.

I personally think our cities are ludicrously spread-out and we need to massively improve laws surrounding strata management to make apartment living better, and build for public transport, walking and cycling, and not cars as personal daily transport.

The data is in, traffic will never be solved without viable alternatives to driving.

You shouldn't need to drive literal hours to make it across a city.

The problem here is density and transportation. 3M people is nothing, just that with cars it becomes unmanageable.

Though, I am not personally knowledgeable about Perth, another centre may be warranted!

The Sydney Morning Herald

I'm mean, it's better than newscorp, but let's not pretend like any Nine-Fairfax companies don't toe the right wing corporate line.

They are the embodiment of the teals (our socially progressive, economically right wing politicians).

The guardian which is not Australian ranks highest in my mind here. ABC is okay, but after their funding cuts under the LNP they're way less critical of the government.

Part of the problem is that private health exists, but it can't cover you for anything other than hospital.

"Extras" aren't really insurance, it's a incentive scheme but you basically pay whatever you're using at cost.

The solution here is not to allow private health to cover the gap between Medicare and the out of pocket cost. The solution is to say, if you charge more than the rebate then it's 100% private, you won't get a cent of Medicare.

Watch as private healthcare absolutely bottoms out because they'll actually have to cover the whole cost, and therefore premiums will rise like crazy.

How we we afford this? We're already affording it. We subsidise private health, we pay insurance premiums. If you can convince people: oh hey, want cheaper health insurance? Oh hey, what's this? You can pay LESS in universal healthcare than you do in premiums!

Lots of people would go for it. A lot of us have private health insurance because of how the incentives are currently set up. We don't want it. Before the tax concessions no one wanted it.

You'd have to couple it with a massive investment in Medicare, completely removing all tax concessions for private health (which they should have never implemented in the first place). Better pay for medicos.

But we can damn well afford it now, just that it's politically difficult, especially with the corporate media, and everyone wanting taxes to go down (which I personally think is dumb as fuck).

We need to put private health in the bin where I belongs. Hybrid systems are shit.

I second this, but make it +0% or else 100% private.

Honestly, we need most medicos to be employees (of the government), and they can start a union to keep conditions and pay appropriate.

Our subsidy system is just funneling money into practice owner's pockets, who set prices based on supply and demand, which is a fucked way to run a healthcare system.

Let's just pay the average medico more, while skipping all the profits were subsidising.

We recently did have protests because of the recent death in custody in the NT. But you're right, they're not terribly large.

Even the weekly Palestinian protests are larger.

They can't form a political party. Right? We do not have freedom of speech in this country. Hate speech is illegal. At least, I would think so?

Ignoring their 3:30AM flashmobs seems prudent.

Don't give them the light of day

Private providers in a public system is ridiculous in my opinion. Here's an idea, hire them directly instead of paying for a profit margin. :O (this opinion extends to Medicare providers, also)

What I recall being ridiculous was the wait on Centrelink applications. (It's been a number of years since being off Centrelink so don't haven't paid attention recently)

Waiting 3 months was an option for me, but Christ, I can't imagine how shit that must be who need immediate stability.

I also very much hope Labor update payment rates. Where are you gonna find a place anywhere near services and public transport to rent cheaply enough in order to actually get by?

If only we heavily invested in public housing, I'd wager we'd either end up saving a bunch of money not going to private landlords, or otherwise massively increase the amount in the pockets of people on Centrelink, because it wouldn't be going to landlords...

Alas.

Make $100,000 from selling your labor. 2024-25 FY: $20,788 (not including deductions)

Make $100,000 from selling your appreciating assets: $5,788.00

Gotta love that capital gains discount...