Sometimes I miss the little gems as I scan the daily paper. Often it's my wife, Anne, who picks up these gems in the smaller articles. Perhaps she reads at a more leisurely pace - or maybe she's a better reader generally, I'm not sure.
Page 11 of last Friday's Adelaide Advertiser held one such story. Under the headline: HEALTH INSURANCE voters could pay extra, the article described how, under a Green/ALP alliance, private health insurance would rise by $1500 per annum and university students would be slugged a $250-00 "levy" (when is a levy NOT a tax) to pay for campus childcare and sports services.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, be careful what you vote for. While not every Australian is in a private health fund, an increase of $1500 will most surely reduce that number putting extra pressure on the public system and increasing public waiting lists. The Student 'levy' for the sake of childcare and sports is, in reality, a reintroduction of Compulsory Student Unionism by stealth and something that all reasonable people should reject as anarchic and just plain wrong!
Why didn't we hear about this in the 'great' debate!
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Health – decentralization is the key
None of us should be in any doubt that health and the growing national health bill will be significant issues for the foreseeable future. The solutions will not be easy, but there are principles which the DLP believes need to be adopted so that we’ve got the basic framework right for the future.
That principle is decentralization or, to use and old word, subsidiarity. This essentially means that decision making should occur at the lowest possible competent level. Put simply: local decisions for local needs.
When he was Health Minister, Tony Abbott made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to take over the running of our hospital system. The Rudd/Gillard new deal on health is similar, but with a dramatic increase in bureaucracy to boot.
Kevin Rudd was right about one thing: there are problems in the system and that health can and should be delivered more equitably and efficiently. In announcing his policy, however, he did not make anything like a convincing case for a federal takeover just as he failed to show us what the efficiency dividends might be. That’s because, in our opinion, there are none.
Last week Tony Abbott announced that a Coalition government would allow local schools to manage their own Building Education Revolution projects; arguing that this would save costs and provide better outcomes. Sound familiar? Then why not in the health sector?
The DLP, like Abbott on the BER, believes that local is better and that local hospital boards can and should have the opportunity to manage their facilities with the local community in mind.
That principle is decentralization or, to use and old word, subsidiarity. This essentially means that decision making should occur at the lowest possible competent level. Put simply: local decisions for local needs.
When he was Health Minister, Tony Abbott made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to take over the running of our hospital system. The Rudd/Gillard new deal on health is similar, but with a dramatic increase in bureaucracy to boot.
Kevin Rudd was right about one thing: there are problems in the system and that health can and should be delivered more equitably and efficiently. In announcing his policy, however, he did not make anything like a convincing case for a federal takeover just as he failed to show us what the efficiency dividends might be. That’s because, in our opinion, there are none.
Last week Tony Abbott announced that a Coalition government would allow local schools to manage their own Building Education Revolution projects; arguing that this would save costs and provide better outcomes. Sound familiar? Then why not in the health sector?
The DLP, like Abbott on the BER, believes that local is better and that local hospital boards can and should have the opportunity to manage their facilities with the local community in mind.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
hospitals and hoo haa
I can't help but think of the No Hoo Haa Party started by Adelaide businessman, Mr. Albert Bensimon some years ago when I look at the posturing of the major parties over the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
It strikes me more about dangling trinkets before the voters of this state than it does about a rational response to a very important subject(Have you seen those u beaut videos?)
Let's face it, we would all love a new or rebuilt-to-new major hospital in Adelaide regardless of where our government wants to put it. I'd like a new family car, too. but, you know, if my wife and I can't afford it we still need transport for the family so any reasonable (and more affordable) option will do right now.
Yes, the people of South Australia deserve the very best of medical care and state-of-the-art facilities can, indeed, provide that. But if the numbers of beds aren't there and there aren't enough nurses and with doctors in the public system on voting with their feet it doesn't really amount to much, does it?
Let's just take a deep breath and count to ten. Now is not the time to be focussing on the buildings as much as it is about increasing bed numbers and services. Sure, build a new oncology wing if it's needed but let's make sure that the need(s) are genuine and the solution, long term. The State Election will be over after the 20th of March 2010 and so will the Hoo Haa - but the need, present and future, may still remain unresolved.
It strikes me more about dangling trinkets before the voters of this state than it does about a rational response to a very important subject(Have you seen those u beaut videos?)
Let's face it, we would all love a new or rebuilt-to-new major hospital in Adelaide regardless of where our government wants to put it. I'd like a new family car, too. but, you know, if my wife and I can't afford it we still need transport for the family so any reasonable (and more affordable) option will do right now.
Yes, the people of South Australia deserve the very best of medical care and state-of-the-art facilities can, indeed, provide that. But if the numbers of beds aren't there and there aren't enough nurses and with doctors in the public system on voting with their feet it doesn't really amount to much, does it?
Let's just take a deep breath and count to ten. Now is not the time to be focussing on the buildings as much as it is about increasing bed numbers and services. Sure, build a new oncology wing if it's needed but let's make sure that the need(s) are genuine and the solution, long term. The State Election will be over after the 20th of March 2010 and so will the Hoo Haa - but the need, present and future, may still remain unresolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
