Health reform:

David Hand writes: Re. “Lies, lying liars and health funding graphs” (yesterday, item 2). I’m not surprised by Bernard Keane’s story of the Liberal Party use of graphs, it’s the left wing fare I’ve come to expect.  I read the item thinking that he would have commented on the main point, which is to show that the Liberals have hidden Tony Abbott’s “$1b gouge from hospitals” in the statistics.

Alas, no, the main theme of the issue is completely ignored in favour of a picky discussion about graphs.  I take the point about a non-zero axis graph and also the change of government in 07-08, but why should Crikey put an entire story up about proper graph construction under the heading “Lies, lying liars” when the fabled $1b gouge is nowhere to be seen?  There’s not even speculation about how the Liberals might have fudged it.

I don’t suppose Labor’s repeated lie that “Abbott gouged $1b out of health” is a story worthy of your  left wing propagandist.  He’s not saying by this glaring omission that the government (God forbid!) is lying, is he?  I challenge Bernard to once, just once, stop acting like a left wing version of Piers Akerman and admit that the “$1b gouge by Tony Abbott” is a straightforward lie, concocted by Rudd’s spin factory as a sound bite to sway a disengaged electorate that Abbott is a bad guy.

Either that mate, or I await a detailed expose about how he did it, with graphs, if you like.

John Shailer writes: Re. “The debate behind the non-debate” (yesterday, item 3). It is a sad indictment of the media, when the Canberra Press Gallery and the two TV channels handpicked “worm” audiences overwhelmingly scored Tuesday’s health debate to Kevin Rudd, whereas the general public on various sites, including  Yahoo 7 and Sky News, scored a comfortable win to Tony Abbott.

The media is charged with providing balanced and impartial reporting of politics. You know what to expect from the ABC and Fairfax Media, but it is time the Press Gallery particularly, lifted its game and put aside their own partisan political views in these situations.

Steve Blume writes: Re. “Rundle: health reform votes clock over as US braces for momentous change” (Monday, item 4). I don’t whether it is Obama’s writers or him or both, but hell this was a great speech — and superb delivery — the passion, the passion! The contrast with the faux health debate in Oz today will be stark. But of course we are really well served by our universal coverage and mostly arguing about the detail — we are where Guy Rundle put it so well in Crikey yesterday (along with a number of other countries with universal healthcare):

“And below in the karaoke bar, they’re singing U2’s One. Again. And everyone out there in the street will get whatever care they need, whenever they need it, and no questions asked.”

That’s where we are with our Medicare even if we have debates about costs, timeliness, efficiency and more arcane health system issues. What a wonderful legacy Labor has given us all!

Niall Clugston writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. Your editorial suggests health reform in Australia pales in comparison health reform in America.  But what’s the difference?

Both schemes do no more than tinker with the existing systems, but are hailed as panaceas because people want them to be.  Even if Obama’s bill succeeds, America will remain the only developed country without a public health care system.

Working families:

Denise Marcos writes: The Prime Minister must drop the exclusionary “working families” tag before Eddie Perfect turns it into a musical. I know a substantial number of single people, others who are not working, others who are self-funded or who are retired. Government policy affects everybody in Australia — not merely “working families”.

This flogged phrase is mawkish, trite and inappropriate. It infers that unless a person is employed and familial they are an irrelevance. Occasionally the PM makes a lame gesture to cast a wider net to his listening audience by mentioning pensioners and carers along with the ubiquitous WF. Hence the clear message: unless you are a WF, a pensioner or a carer the rest of you can sod off.

We are Australians and/or citizens: these two nouns are all- encompassing. I strongly urge politicians to use them.

Tony Abbott:

Kaye Deeley writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 8). What a dreadful lunch time surprise in the Daily Mail today  to be confronted by not only Abbott in yet another pair of lurid, way-too-much-info budgie smugglers but to be additionally affronted by the mention of his “man-scaping” at the same time!

In future please provide a content warning so that I can scroll at high speed past the offending material or leave it up to First Dog to deal with the issue in a sensitive and less offensive manner.

I would like to confer Mr Abbotts crotch with “state secret” status so that the truth is never revealed … again!

Stern Hu:

Alan Kennedy writes: Re. “Multinationals to tread carefully in Hu’s wake” (yesterday, item 21). To paraphrase my old mate Captain Willard as he set out on his pursuit of Colonel Kurtz … charging a man with bribery in China is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

Banks:

Beryce Nelson writes: Re. “Westpac gets ready to gouge Australia” (yesterday, item 22). I think the best “gouge” the banks makes is through abolition of “rounding” up and down and therefore the re-introduction by stealth of 1c and 2c as currency.

Every EFTPOS transaction in the country by every bank includes the 1 and 2 cent extra on as many of their transactions as possible. The problem is widespread — but a good example is petrol stations where the pumps seem programmed to go just over the dollar each time. If you pay cash it is rounded down to the dollar amount below — or up to 5c if the amount reaches the statutory 3c.

However, if you pay by card the 1c and 2c are charged onto the transaction. It does not seem like much – but multiply it a million times across the nation daily and it is a “nice little earner” for the banks. But wait there’s more — when your Visa or MasterCard account comes at the end of the month and it includes an amount say $52.01c  or $52.02c the bank charges you $52.05 and says the other 1-4c remains as a “credit” on your account — another nice little earner for them in the meantime!

And they are all doing it. Is it legal?