Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 3

[fortunatecrow]

Congratulations on completely misinterpreting the reasoning for why people were missing care during the lockdowns.

I think you are in Canberra, where lockdowns did not cause much disruption. I'm in Victoria. If you think there is another explanation you are allowed to say what you think it is.

The ABC seem to see the same link, my underlining:

During COVID, diagnoses were delayed. Now there's been a huge spike in demand for palliative care​

By Sarah Sedghi posted Fri 29 Jul 2022 at 12:28pmFriday 29 Jul 2022 at 12:28pm

Demand for palliative care services has risen by up to 40 per cent since the pandemic began, putting strain on health workers and patients.

Experts say delayed or disrupted access to healthcare services during lockdowns has contributed to many people being diagnosed later, particularly with cancer.
In many cases this meant a more advanced or later stage diagnosis.

 

[fortunatecrow]

Clearly the government need to engage with the indigenous communities to put some details around how it will all work.

Not according to the government, apologies for quoting the Guardian:

"Linda Burney has rejected as “rubbish” suggestions that Labor has not released enough detail about the Indigenous voice to parliament, as the Liberals continue to call for a free vote in the referendum."

 

[1970crow]

Not according to the government, apologies for quoting the Guardian:

"Linda Burney has rejected as “rubbish” suggestions that Labor has not released enough detail about the Indigenous voice to parliament, as the Liberals continue to call for a free vote in the referendum."

What I cannot understand is how the government won't rule out legislating a 'voice' should the referendum fail. If it fails, it's purely because they've not prosecuted the case well enough (or at all), so they'll just ignore their failure and the will of the people and do it anyway. Why do people not see a democratic problem with this? It's absolutely outrageous.

 

[LeftyLuke]

Good on the NHL player for standing up against this woke rubbish. Politics should stay out of sports.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Not according to the government, apologies for quoting the Guardian:

"Linda Burney has rejected as “rubbish” suggestions that Labor has not released enough detail about the Indigenous voice to parliament, as the Liberals continue to call for a free vote in the referendum."

Be warned. You have used up your 1 get out of jail card quoting the Guardian. Sometimes you have to get an opinion from the Devil to get balance.

 

[BRL121]

What I cannot understand is how the government won't rule out legislating a 'voice' should the referendum fail. If it fails, it's purely because they've not prosecuted the case well enough (or at all), so they'll just ignore their failure and the will of the people and do it anyway. Why do people not see a democratic problem with this? It's absolutely outrageous.

Anyway, isn't the whole point of a referendum to have a binding result? How can it be legal to hold it and go against the result?

 

[Eagleboy2011]

The Dems are cutting Biden loose. Probably Newson v Desantis. Trump still won't back away from the jabs. He's done unless he has a late reversal and distances himself from that disaster. He's still claiming they saved hundreds of millions of lives. Give it up Don.

It keeps getting better. Is fake news CNN turning on Brandon?

 

[Mutineer]

Clearly the government need to engage with the indigenous communities to put some details around how it will all work.

Not just the indigenous communities how about all Australians that are of voting age...so far nothing forthcoming and every time an ALP MP and Albo himself get questions from the media it's always basically "trust us" which is not on.

 

[Vader]

I think you are in Canberra, where lockdowns did not cause much disruption. I'm in Victoria. If you think there is another explanation you are allowed to say what you think it is.

The ABC seem to see the same link, my underlining:

During COVID, diagnoses were delayed. Now there's been a huge spike in demand for palliative care​

By Sarah Sedghi posted Fri 29 Jul 2022 at 12:28pmFriday 29 Jul 2022 at 12:28pm

Demand for palliative care services has risen by up to 40 per cent since the pandemic began, putting strain on health workers and patients.

Experts say delayed or disrupted access to healthcare services during lockdowns has contributed to many people being diagnosed later, particularly with cancer.
In many cases this meant a more advanced or later stage diagnosis.

The problem is that you're misinterpreting this as meaning people didn't access healthcare because of the lockdowns. This is patently incorrect - they didn't attend during lockdowns, not because of lockdowns.

People didn't attend because they rightly considered hospitals and waiting rooms to be high risk areas, and they were scared of catching COVID. The root cause was fear of COVID, not the lockdowns that resulted from COVID. There is a relationship between the two, but it is not a causal relationship.

Put in logical terms:
A (COVID) resulted in B (lockdowns)
A (COVID) resulted in C (not attending primary health care)
B did not result in C

 

[ad victoriam]

Not possible, or is it?

MSN

www.msn.com

Could be, Word out of the US is a there are few High ranking Dems that do not believe he will win against anyone but Trump,
And the only reason he running is that Trump announces his run.

Both the GOP and Dems' run for the presidential nomination could turn out to be more interesting than the 2024 election.
On one hand, you have the MAGA vs the Rest, and on the other, you have Old School (really really old school) vs New School

 

[Vader]

Anyway, isn't the whole point of a referendum to have a binding result? How can it be legal to hold it and go against the result?

There are two separate things - changes to the constitution (via the referendum), and changes to the Law (via legislation in Parliament).

The Govt is bound by the result of the referendum, but that only affects the constitutional change. It has no impact whatsoever on their ability to legislate in Parliament.

My understanding was that they needed to change the constitution, to give them the power to legislate the Voice. Apparently this is not the case.

All of which begs the question - if they can already legislate the voice without any changes to the constitution, then why do they need to have a referendum in the first place?

 

[1970crow]

There are two separate things - changes to the constitution (via the referendum), and changes to the Law (via legislation in Parliament).

The Govt is bound by the result of the referendum, but that only affects the constitutional change. It has no impact whatsoever on their ability to legislate in Parliament.

My understanding was that they needed to change the constitution, to give them the power to legislate the Voice. Apparently this is not the case.

All of which begs the question - if they can already legislate the voice without any changes to the constitution, then why do they need to have a referendum in the first place?

and more importantly, if the referendum fails, why are they going to try and legislate anyway. Haven't the people spoken?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Be warned. You have used up your 1 get out of jail card quoting the Guardian. Sometimes you have to get an opinion from the Devil to get balance.

Yeah, so true about Murdoch.... the devil.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Not just the indigenous communities how about all Australians that are of voting age...so far nothing forthcoming and every time an ALP MP and Albo himself get questions from the media it's always basically "trust us" which is not on.

Sure, but this is about an indigenous voice, so pointless all of Australia agreeing on something they don't want.

 

[Mutineer]

I'm sure a couple of our climate conscious lefties would be Toyota Prius drivers wouldn't they?

 

[Mutineer]

Sure, but this is about an indigenous voice, so pointless all of Australia agreeing on something they don't want.

HUH?

Nope all people of voting age should be fully informed on what they're actually voting on then it's up to them to vote yes or no...pretty basic really.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

HUH?

Nope all people of voting age should be fully informed on what they're actually voting on then it's up to them to vote yes or no...pretty basic really.

Agree everyone needs to he informed.

My point is it's important for indigenous to agree on the way forward, otherwise the whole exercise is futile... as this is more about them not us.

 

[1970crow]

Agree everyone needs to he informed.

My point is it's important for indigenous to agree on the way forward, otherwise the whole exercise is futile... as this is more about them not us.

"them" and "us". Couldn't have inadvertently identified the problem any better Fonz. Well done.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What bit about "more" don't you understand!

Why is this being proposed?

Just engage the brain for once & think about it... rather your primary objective of being a dick!

 

[kirky]

Nah I have you pretty well summed up. Someone that consumes the CNN narrative hook line and sinker. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but there are no coincidences. Get out of that mainstream media safe space and learn what's going on in the world. It may hurt initially but it's better than living in the matrix.

Do you understand irony?

Coz that is what that whole post was - pot meet kettle.

 

[kirky]

Hahaha they are few and scant so you'll be waiting a long long time because that's not going to happen...it's going to be "trust me" Albo...

There is more than enough information out there. You just have to open your eyes.

You really are sucked into the Dutton way (who thankfully will never get to be PM).

 

[Mutineer]

There is more than enough information out there. You just have to open your eyes.

You really are sucked into the Dutton way (who thankfully will never get to be PM).

That is utter bullshit!!

 

[kirky]

That is utter bullshit!!

No you are incorrect, read what Constitutional Lawyers are saying.

Everyone is getting the legislation mixed up with the Constitution. They are two separate beasts.

But unsurprisingly this is exactly what the “No” case, and in particular Mr Potato Head, want. Confusion.

fromtheheart.com.au

 

[fortunatecrow]

Clearly the government need to engage with the indigenous communities to put some details around how it will all work.

Well I agree with you but the government has actually decided that for the first time ever this will be a referendum with no public funding for the yes and no cases.

Per the ABC: "The Albanese government will leave the "yes" and "no" camps in the upcoming referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to do their own fundraising rather than providing an even contribution from taxpayers, the minister for Indigenous Australians told 7.30. "We will not be using public funds to fund a yes or no campaign," Linda Burney said

 

[fortunatecrow]

What I cannot understand is how the government won't rule out legislating a 'voice' should the referendum fail. If it fails, it's purely because they've not prosecuted the case well enough (or at all), so they'll just ignore their failure and the will of the people and do it anyway. Why do people not see a democratic problem with this? It's absolutely outrageous.

They won't rule it out because they don't want to rule it out!

The problem that they have is that if they say "if the referendum fails we will pass the legislation" everyone will realise that they could pass the legislation without a referendum today