English Oral

[M_BONG]

Oh thank you so much, thank you thank you. I couldn't thank you enough. I'm going to do some research and look on the articles online and I'll begin formulating a speech. There hasn't been many articles as it is a relatively new issue and people haven't seemed to discuss it much. But thank you again!

In regards to the 'equity' argument most people put out, high-income earners are still being taxed at a flat rate (I think 2% of their income) to pay for the Medicare system so they are still paying significantly more than low-income earners. (Ie. the more you earn, the more you pay) and you don't have to pay the medicare levy if your income does not meet a certain threshold. So I don't think an average, reasonable person would buy the argument that $5 a visit is suddenly going to cause an even larger disparity in terms of disposable income between rich and poor. Plus, even if $5 does cause this disparity, the inequality b/ween "rich and poor" is offset by the fact that high income earners contribute much, much more of their income to Medicare.

So be careful how you phrase it on your oral - don't overuse hyperbole or dramatisation and hope your audience will believe suddenly that $5 a consultation is going to open the floodgates to more illness/inequality/other cliches etc.

Also, I don't know which side you are taking but you can argue that Australia has, comparatively, one of the world's best health care systems. In terms of funding the system, I don't think $5 per visit will suffice. A typical GP charges ~$50+ for a standard consultation. So a fee like this, you can argue, is not sustainable and serves little purpose in funding the system (apart from preventing possible abuses of the system).

[2NE1]

In regards to the 'equity' argument most people put out, high-income earners are still being taxed at a flat rate (I think 2% of their income) to pay for the Medicare system so they are still paying significantly more than low-income earners. (Ie. the more you earn, the more you pay) and you don't have to pay the medicare levy if your income does not meet a certain threshold. So I don't think an average, reasonable person would buy the argument that $5 a visit is suddenly going to cause an even larger disparity in terms of disposable income between rich and poor. Plus, even if $5 does cause this disparity, the inequality b/ween "rich and poor" is offset by the fact that high income earners contribute much, much more of their income to Medicare.

So be careful how you phrase it on your oral - don't overuse hyperbole or dramatisation and hope your audience will believe suddenly that $5 a consultation is going to open the floodgates to more illness/inequality/other cliches etc.

Also, I don't know which side you are taking but you can argue that Australia has, comparatively, one of the world's best health care systems. In terms of funding the system, I don't think $5 per visit will suffice. A typical GP charges ~$50+ for a standard consultation. So a fee like this, you can argue, is not sustainable and serves little purpose in funding the system (apart from preventing possible abuses of the system).

 do you think this topic would be hard to research, because now that I have started looking at the points, some of them may be hard to expand and I might not be able to produce a 4-5 minute speech :/

[mia-la-bella]

I wrote mine on the "bamboo ceiling" back in 2012. Absolute pleasure to research for, and scored full marks.

Hi I was wondering if you could share which newspapers you sourced articles from? Also out of interest, what were your main arguments? I'm looking to do a topic which hopefully not too many other people are