What I don’t understand is for someone who claims to love science when it comes to the climate change debate doesn’t have any grasp of statistics.
Okay Scottie, here’s a crash course.
According to these figures, by 2050, the Australian dependency ratio will *double* from around 19% to 40% by 2050. That means, in regards to say Medicare (but pick your Government provided service, be it welfare or defence) there will be twice as many users as there will be payers.
However if we look at Commonwealth spending projections from today going forward another ten years, in absolute spending terms, expenditure will double.
“Commonwealth expenditure on health is projected to nominally increase from about $65 billion in 2013-14 to $123 billion by 2023-24, or from around 4.1 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 to around 4.8 per cent by 2023-24. “
of which the number of Australians over 65 will, to quote the report :
” . Between now and 2050, the proportion of Australians aged over 65 years or more is expected to almost quadruple (Australian Government, 2010). “
These are the biggest consumers of healthcare as demographic & their numbers are expected to *quadruple*.
To summarise for the tl;dr crowd that inevitably clings to Greens social media: It means the number of people spending the Medicare dollar without contributing is expected to double, and the cohort of people expected to spend the most (those over 65) is expected to quadruple.. The amount of people aged over 81 is expected to increase fivefold.
A seven dollar co-pay was not a lot to ask to maintain our healthcare system. It’s an equitable user pays system. Sure, ideally all Australians should have access to tertiary education and universal healthcare. But we don’t because we can’t. Dental is a really good example of this. There’s a mischaracterisation of the Liberal party as attacking ‘universal healthcare’ , but we don’t have anything approaching universal dental healthcare.
The aggregate Left has shown it doesn’t want any new taxes to support healthcare. That, in effect, absolutely means no new dental schemes at all. The actual vision we have of “universal healthcare” isn’t in reality anything but universal. We already compromise on what Medicare can and cannot achieve – the choice was made decades ago that Medicare wouldn’t cover dental.
This is regardless of the fact that Bob Hawke attempted to introduce a co-pay scheme in 1991, before it was removed after Keating came to power. 
Now lets get to the lengthening human lifespan.
Geneticists and biochemists are already talking about and have developed in simpler organisms the ability to vastly improve the human lifespan.
Even caloric restriction and some drug therapy has shown some serious promise in human clinical trials
The number of people who live to be 100 years old as increased by 1004% in the last century and these trends here show that the human life expectancy increase on average by 3 months per year.
In conclusions, it’s absurd to continually point to U.N climate change forecasts with one hand, and on the other completely denounce U.N demographic projections with the other.
It is disingenuous to make continual references to “the science” in regards to climate change, but then utterly ignore the leaps and bounds we have made in human biology in the last one hundred years.
This can only lead to the one of two conclusions that Senator Luddite either is incapable of interpreting any kind of projection for himself; or that he only chooses to refer to science on issues when it is politically expedient to do so.
The question I put to the Good Senator is: Which is it?