Column: "A Worm To Make You Squirm"
The worm is a moron. Channel Nine host Tracy Grimshaw ought to apply an IQ test to her audience of "undecided" voters before she gives them a licence to press buttons.
You are a moron. The Sydney Morning Herald should apply an IQ test to it's "journalists" before they are allowed to pollute it's pages with utter nonsense.
Since they were paid $50 each, you'd have thought the "wormologists" would pay attention during the leaders' health debate at the National Press Club. Instead, their combined wisdom produced the sort of reflex reactions you might see from a slobbering toddler.
Since you are paid what is probably a rather handsome sum for the 1000 odd words you write each week, I think you should pay attention to the world before before producing the sort of writing you might see from a certified idiot.
The wiggling line across the bottom of the screen reacted the same way to all Kevin Rudd's sunny platitudes: "more beds"
You heard it hear first people, the idea of more hospitals beds is a mere platitude.
"It's time for action, not finger-pointing" didn't score a cynical snort, but a worm in ecstasy.
Perhaps, and just perhaps that's because it's a step forward?
But when the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, appeared on screen, the worm plunged. The more he talked, the lower the worm fell.
Miranda, it's called experience. Eleven years of reading the SMH has taught me that with out fail every Thursday you will assault me with stupidity, just like the 16 years of Tony Abbott's career as an MP has taught us that when he opens his mouth, something stupid will come out.
And when he talked of pink batts, school halls, "rip-off after rip-off","waffle", ''amateur-hour experimentation", "anyone can list problems; the hard part is solving them", the worm maintained a sullen decline
Maybe because this is nothing more than tired, out dated negative orientated politics that everyone is sick of?
The worm awarded Rudd victory, as did almost every pundit, while most newspaper reader polls went the opposite way.
I know in your fantasy land everyone agrees with you, but we in reality realise people have differing opinions.
In the first Kennedy-Nixon presidential televised debate in 1960, the verdict of those who listened on radio was: Nixon won. But for TV viewers, it was a hands-down Kennedy victory.
Good to know, though any chance you could find an example from Australian politics within the last decade to support your argument?
Regardless of whether the worm genuinely reflected the wider audience's view, the only thing that matters is what the government's health reforms will mean, if anything.
Then why did you write about it for the first half of your article? You don't bury the lead, any journalist knows that. Oh, wait...
The debate may have been a way for Labor strategists to pressure a newly threatening opposition to present its health policies prematurely... But without an election in sight, and with a government adept at spin without substance, this ignores the importance of subjecting Rudd's hospital reforms to scrutiny, which is, after all, the job of an opposition.
Scrutiny is all well and good, but the role of an opposition is also to present alternative policy. This shouldn't be left until a month out from an election as a means to buy votes. It's only fair that if you're going to criticise then you should come out with a viable alternative.
when I sliced the top off my thumb recently, and my GP sent me to the emergency room, one of Australia's top hand surgeons happened to be on duty. She wanted to operate and I waited, but there was no bed and so my thumb was stuck back together and I went home.
But, Miranda remember more beds is just a "mere platitude."
Doctors who work in the NSW public system are not allowed to speak freely, but I could see this surgeon was locked into an absurd circus in which she sees patients in emergency, prepares to operate on the ones who need it, tells them to fast and wait, only to find there are no beds.
So wait, this doctor isn't allowed to speak to you, but you came to this conclusion anyway? Oh wait, I forgot your skills as a body language expert allowed you to formulate this opinion based on her facial expressions.
What's that, you're not a body language expert? Then how, oh never mind your explanation will just worsen this headache.
Without surgery I now have a thumb that looks relatively normal, but is numb. I wouldn't have minded a free operation for a better result but how much would I have been willing to pay from my own pocket? Not too much.
It took an elderly caller to 2GB's Jason Morrison this week to bring commonsense into the health debate. Jack, a retired surgeon, cited an adage about socialised medicine. "There are three things you want in a medical system: cost control; universal access; and provision of a full range of medical services."
But only two of these things can be achieved simultaneously. Currently, we have the first two.
The essential problem with giving away something so valuable as healthcare for nothing is it creates infinite demand which is impossible to satisfy.
Now I'm just confused. You say you aren't willing to pay "too much" to have your thumb fixed, but you don't think socialised medicine which would give you the operation for free is the way to go?
This is something the worm doesn't want to hear but which responsible political leaders need to say.
Nothing you have written is remotely close to what the public wants to read, nor did you need to write it.
Posts
