It can be less/more than 2 percent too dependent on income. But yes we are extremely blessed in this country with a healthcare system that isn’t perfect but is extremely affordable.
With seeing a doctor we have two main systems that you can use and each will have a different waiting time. Bulk-billing and the fully public option has longer waiting times because there aren’t enough clinics/specialists or doctors, The reasons for this are complex but they stem from an unwillingness from prior governments to raise the amount the government pays for each service to adequately to support this system meaning less doctors and practices being willing to support it.
You’ve then got practices/specialists etc… that charge copays and they tend to have less waiting times because less people are willing to pay copays. A lot of these practices will also do outright private billing which is what you’re experiencing.
Got it. In India, I am used to the concept of Government hospitals vs Private hospitals. Things are pretty clear on how they work. Insurance was introduced a couple of decades or so back in my home state, which allows people to use private hospitals at govt expenses (premiums paid by govt), but it’s still heavily govt (free) vs private (paid). Here it seems like there are no “govt hospitals” if I understand correctly. So things are a little more complicated.
This isn’t an inherent flaw of public health care. A lot of the health care problems in this country (Australia) stem from a continued disinvestment in the public system after a decade (prior to the current government) of conservative mismanagement. Most state funding here comes from the federal governments standard sales tax. They intentionally gimped our public system to fund a private system that isn’t financially viable. Reversing that is going to take time. The problem exists it’s just important to attribute it to the correct sources. Medicare (our public insurer) is an incredible privilege that we should protect and hold our leaders accountable for managing.
I don't understand where you got that I am saying public health care systems are flawed. Both systems have pros and cons. And I have seen the "going to take time" phrase for quite a long time now and so don't think it holds any value anymore.
In terms of affordability which you also referenced in a separate comment, I disagree. Compared to some prices I've seen in the US, it is cheaper. Compared to other countries I've experienced, it is more expensive. Comparing private and public systems is not straight forward and I don't think this adds any value to the discussion.
In terms of attributing failure to correct sources, Victoria hasn't had a "they"(who you're claiming gimped our public system) for many years now but I am not interested in a discussion about politics.
I think it is mostly just a problem with Victoria - and they are are hardly conservative.
Hospitals and ambulance service is a state issue and other states fair much better.
I just don’t see why Joe Public will ever care about decentralisation as a concept.
We tend to hand wring about principles within the tech sphere, when the bulk of people just want a place that won’t make them feel immediately (longer term doesn’t matter) crappy when they use it, whatever that means for them. That tends towards centralisation because decentralised services have awful moderation and tend to create an even stronger strain of groupthink.
I think Bluesky exists to demonstrate that people want the features that come with centralization without the oppressive platform lock-in. If Bluesky's moderation, TOS, UI, default feeds, etc. are intolerable to you, then you should be free to move your content and your network to an app with different moderation, TOS, feeds, etc.
Bluesky isn't marketing itself as a decentralized platform because it's not. It's an opinionated view of a decentralized network, and others are free to use differently opinionated views or make their own.
> I just don’t see why Joe Public will ever care about decentralisation as a concept.
IME they do care, but they have no patience to deal with the hurdles that decentralisation imposes upon your user experience. So ease-of-use and convenience always win.
This article feels self defeating. It’s rewriting the meaning of the word bubble itself. There is a speculative asset bubble. Whilst I think there is some correctness in saying that drawing parallels with the Dotcom boom/bust is intellectually lazy I still think this acts as a notable precedent. Is there potential for AI usefulness long term? Yes, will it take exactly the same form as now or do the products and services exist now? No. So there is some utility in comparing the two. Either way this article reads like a bit of cope.
Yeah CTFs are definitely a big part of our culture in security. We’re blessed with unending material in the form of vulnerabilities and mis configurations :)
I will say (as someone that runs, organises and builds CTFs) organising meaningful CTFs is becoming slightly challenging though, a lot of challenges are highly treaded ground where one very mature team just comes along and clears the table.
That and generative AI can solve a lot of CTF problems with enough prodding if it’s at all derivative.
reply