Health Reform: Where is it heading?

[noco]

There has been much debate on Health Reform, which nobody can deny is long over due.

After listening to John Brumby on The National Press Club today, it would appear very evident that Kevin Rudd's proposal has no real substance or plan to really improve our ailing health system and in fact it has been dubbed a failure by many experts in the field of health. There is little doubt, Rudd's proposal has a political agenda to aid his bid to retain office. A political agenda to make him look like he is doing something to reform health. A major diversion away from the Labor Party failures over the past 2.5 years.

As John Brumby states, Rudd will recycle 30% of the states GST and increase Federal bureaucracy without any initiative to improve the health system in general. Brumby has stated there will only be 1% added in 10 years and nothing whatsoever in the next 4 years. He wants to see a 50/50 deal starting immediately or there will be no agreement.

Rudd has used bullying tactics on the states and threatens a referendum if he does not get his own way. Different spokespersons have stated he already has the constitutional power to take over the health system. He threatened to do just that prior to the 2007 election if the states did not improve their hospital system by July 2009. So why did he renege? I'll tell you why, because he feared another debacle like every thing else he has touched. He now has the option of blaming the states if things go wrong.

The concern of many Australians is, if Rudd does call a referendum, how will he word it as I posted on another thread a few days ago?

It will be tricky, make no mistake, for everybody wants to see health reform and he will word it so as to acheive the required outcome.

 

[trainspotter]

Kevin Rudd's health reforms are teetering on collapse with WA Health Minister Kim Hames accusing the Prime Minister of stinginess and Victorian Premier John Brumby angrily digging in his heels.

Mr Rudd cannot move ahead with his health plan unless all the premiers agree at a meeting in Canberra next week, but Mr Brumby, who has devised a rival plan, insists he will not be held hostage to take-it-or-leave-it tactics last seen under Queensland's autocratic premier Joh Bjelke- Petersen.

"You've got to go back a long way, probably to the Bjelke-Petersen government in the 70s, for the last time I can remember that a Government held the States to ransom and said 'Oh, if you don't do things the way I tell you, I'm going to take money off you'," Mr Brumby said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/7057492/health-plan-on-verge-of-collapse/

 

[matty77]

The scary thing is this, if he doesnt get his way he just turns all "communist" then throws a bit of "shadow cash" the states way to make the general public believe that if the reforms dont go ahead its not his fault.

More spin than win thats for sure, lets hope the public dont fall for this crap yet again and elect this government again, does anyone really trust the federal government to manage our hospitals when they cant even manage insulation?

 

[noco]

The scary thing is this, if he doesnt get his way he just turns all "communist" then throws a bit of "shadow cash" the states way to make the general public believe that if the reforms dont go ahead its not his fault.

More spin than win thats for sure, lets hope the public dont fall for this crap yet again and elect this government again, does anyone really trust the federal government to manage our hospitals when they cant even manage insulation?

It sure makes one wonder how his health reform will turn out if ever he gets it passed by the states. But then again, it has to also be passed by the Senate which would appear most unlikely at this point in time.

The wording of a referendum is what I fear most of all.

 

[Julia]

Noco, I absolutely share your concern. I've sent a message via the ABC to Antony Green, their political analyst, asking about the criteria for a Referendum, and whether the Opposition is given the opportunity to have a say in the wording. (I'd doubt it.)

I couldn't find a direct email address for Mr Green so will hope the ABC forwards the message and Mr Green takes the time to reply.

I really admire John Brumby and the W.A. leaders for so forthrightly standing up to Rudd. The pressure has also been mounting exponentially from the medical experts, plus people like Roger Corbett. Hard to see that Rudd won't be forced to either change his terms or back down.

Some constructive input from the Opposition would be nice, but that's probably too much to expect.
At the very least they need to insist that Mr Rudd explains exactly how his plan will benefit the consumer. So far there has not been even a mention of mental or dental health!

 

[So_Cynical]

Almost all the usual suspects having a Labor bash again, GG will be along shortly anyway lets have a look at how the 2010 election betting is going as of last Friday....Oh dear its the usual bad news for the Right wing of the ASF.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/04/09/betting-market-friday-9/
~

 

[Whiskers]

Almost all the usual suspects having a Labor bash again, GG will be along shortly anyway lets have a look at how the 2010 election betting is going as of last Friday....Oh dear its the usual bad news for the Right wing of the ASF.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/04/09/betting-market-friday-9/
~

lol, yes I don't know if it's just me, but there seems to be quite a disparity between labour and lib/nat bashing.

But on a serious note I'm waiting for some decent technological innovations in health administration. From my experience this is where there is probably the most scope for efficiencies in the system. Things like centralised or portable patient (and health staff) records to avoid delays and duplication of processes etc when patients are referred to or processed to different sections of the system.

Maybe a centralised database like our tax and centrelink records easily available to all authorised personell, to minimise wasted time, duplication, expense and the bureaucracy of administritive paper shufflers.

There are still doctors out there who don't use computerised patient files, just the old paper copy including srcipts, referrals, blood test, xray requests and results etc.

 

[RamonR]

In regards to waiting for innovations in health admin.
Speaking from Qhealth perspective.

The systems they eventually buy are so antiquated and non user friendly.
You can not imagine how non-user friendly.

Had a system introduced in the last few years, which was probably developed in the 80's, gauging by the interface.

It would be understandable if they got them cheap but pay good price for sub par systems.

 

[noco]

The Labor Party did not release their policy on Health untill 2 weeks before the 2007 election, so I don't see why the Coalition should reveal their policy on health untill the time is right.

Under the Rudd proposal, little will be done to stop the blame game between the Federal and State Governments if things go belly up.

IMHO, the Federal Government should go the whole hog like they threatened to do in 2007, and that is to take over the whole system nationally. They have the constitutional power to impliment it without going to a referendum.
But do you know something, (sounds of Kevvie), firstly he does not have the confidence to do it (no guts, no glory) and secondly he fears another big debacle like evrything else he has touched. So he has opted to go half way and if things do go wrong, he has the states to blame. Smart man our Prime Minister??????????????????

 

[noco]

Almost all the usual suspects having a Labor bash again, GG will be along shortly anyway lets have a look at how the 2010 election betting is going as of last Friday....Oh dear its the usual bad news for the Right wing of the ASF.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/04/09/betting-market-friday-9/
~

WTF has this got to do with the tread which is about health.

If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate Cynical, I suggest you stay away from this thread full stop.

 

[noco]

Whilst it is common knowledge that Rudd and the Labor Party were not happy about the introduction of the GST and the fact that they were going to roll it back when they got into power, would it not solve all their health problems if they raised the GST to 12.5%? At least everyone would know they would be contributing 2.5 cents in the dollar on everything that was purchased.

To raise money from an ETS, which would be passed on to consumer goods, one would not know how much goods would be costing extra and would it not be open to rorting by unscrupulous manufacturers?

But whether Rudd has the fortitude to raise the GST is another question. It was raised by the states before the 2007 election, but Rudd did not want a bar of it, probably fearing a back lash from voters.

The Labor Party keeps talking about fairness to working families, so it would probably be fairer to raise the GST where it is all out in the open. No more hidden costs like we had with the sales taxes and I recall sales tax was often raised when Governments needed money and no one was any the wiser.

 

[So_Cynical]

WTF has this got to do with the tread which is about health.

If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate Cynical, I suggest you stay away from this thread full stop.

WTF has this thread got to do with health reform...you started it as a political, Labor bashing exercise so you and the ASF right could do the usual, whiny, end of the world, Rudd bashing demolition job on all things Labor.

Seriously have a look at your opening post with the few neutral sentences removed.

it would appear very evident that Kevin Rudd's proposal has no real substance or plan[/B] to really improve our ailing health system and in fact it has been dubbed a failure by many experts in the field of health. There is little doubt, Rudd's proposal has a political agenda to aid his bid to retain office. A political agenda to make him look like he is doing something to reform health. A major diversion away from the Labor Party failures over the past 2.5 years.


Rudd has used bullying tactics on the states and threatens a referendum if he does not get his own way. Different spokespersons have stated he already has the constitutional power to take over the health system. He threatened to do just that prior to the 2007 election if the states did not improve their hospital system by July 2009. So why did he renege? I'll tell you why, because he feared another debacle like every thing else he has touched. He now has the option of blaming the states if things go wrong.

The concern of many Australians is, if Rudd does call a referendum, how will he word it as I posted on another thread a few days ago?

It will be tricky, make no mistake.

The above is all political content and your right wing opinion...all talk back radio, no facts or figures just political spiel...what i did was cut thru the crap and got down to the real issue, the fact that the coalition is going to get smashed at this years election.

 

[Julia]

So Cynical, usually we see what we want to see.
So you view Noco's intial post as propaganda against the government.
I viewed it as a fairly reasonable summary of the situation on the proposed health 'reforms' to date.

I have put 'reforms' in quotes because I can't for the life of me see how Mr Rudd's suggested moving around of the dollars is going to in any way at all benefit patient care, or remove any of the stress on healthcare staff.

Obviously you as an ardent fan of the Prime Minister will have clearly understood what I'm missing here, i.e. how Mr Rudd's suggested changes (I can't bear to say 'reforms') will improve our health system. You will be able to counter the warnings from Professor Dwyer et al, very experienced medical professionals, who say Mr Rudd's suggestions are nothing short of disastrous and absolutely should not be pursued.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people at the coalface of Health will actually appreciate what would be useful and what would not?

So I look forward to your explanation of exactly how the proposed Rudd changes will bring benefits to all of us who participate in the health system, whether as patients or healthcare professionals.
You'll need to give a justification, amongst your explanation, of a whole new level of bureaucracy to administer this new system.

 

[snowking]

Loosely related the Health care debate but i thought this little snippet from The Australian highlighted the 'his way or the highway' mentality that Rudd is taking with this health policy.

How a busy Prime Minister keeps abreast with the news of the day

The Nine Network's Today show, October 3, 2007:

JOURNALIST: Labor staffers make sure he is across the day's issues even before he gets to a newspaper.

Kevin Rudd: They're out of bed at 4.30 in the morning. So when I wake up, it's a telephone call to say, `What's happening in the world, guys?'

The Prime Minister on ABC North Coast yesterday:

YVETTE Steinhauer: Mr Rudd, the architect of Medicare, John Deeble, who your party often cites as a health expert, has come out this morning and has not been very flattering about your health agenda.

Rudd: Well, perhaps. I haven't seen those comments from John.

The Prime Minister on ABC Wide Bay on Monday:


JOURNALIST: Roger Corbett has labelled your health reforms bizarre and also a formula for disaster. How to do you respond to those criticisms?

Rudd: I haven't seen those comments.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ing-in-the-world/story-e6frg6zo-1225853798229

 

[drsmith]

Whilst it is common knowledge that Rudd and the Labor Party were not happy about the introduction of the GST and the fact that they were going to roll it back when they got into power, would it not solve all their health problems if they raised the GST to 12.5%? At least everyone would know they would be contributing 2.5 cents in the dollar on everything that was purchased.

To raise money from an ETS, which would be passed on to consumer goods, one would not know how much goods would be costing extra and would it not be open to rorting by unscrupulous manufacturers?

But whether Rudd has the fortitude to raise the GST is another question. It was raised by the states before the 2007 election, but Rudd did not want a bar of it, probably fearing a back lash from voters.

The Labor Party keeps talking about fairness to working families, so it would probably be fairer to raise the GST where it is all out in the open. No more hidden costs like we had with the sales taxes and I recall sales tax was often raised when Governments needed money and no one was any the wiser.

If the Rudd government proposes to raise the GST then it will have lost the plot politically as well as economically.

These idiots should be spending it more wisely, not raising taxes.

 

[moXJO]

WTF has this thread got to do with health reform...you started it as a political, Labor bashing exercise so you and the ASF right could do the usual, whiny, end of the world, Rudd bashing demolition job on all things Labor.

Hey how did I miss this thread, nothing like a good labor bash(luckily you pointed it out). Let’s face it labor = fail on so many levels. You don't need that many facts and figures, as all of their policies seem to turn to brown. I'm beginning to wonder if they could organize flies on $hit.

But alas, I unfortunately agree with cyn libs will lose next election unless Rudd bumbles early.


As far as the health reform goes, it sure does have the stink of the ETS rush job on it. Why are all of Rudds polices pressured rush jobs with no detail for anyone to analysis, but must be done right absolutely now?
Election time all my policies failed blues

 

[noco]

Hey how did I miss this thread, nothing like a good labor bash(luckily you pointed it out). Let’s face it labor = fail on so many levels. You don't need that many facts and figures, as all of their policies seem to turn to brown. I'm beginning to wonder if they could organize flies on $hit.

But alas, I unfortunately agree with cyn libs will lose next election unless Rudd bumbles early.


As far as the health reform goes, it sure does have the stink of the ETS rush job on it. Why are all of Rudds polices pressured rush jobs with no detail for anyone to analysis, but must be done right absolutely now?
Election time all my policies failed blues

moXJO, you are absolutely right, but what I can't understand is his rush to push this through before the budget without the finer details for all to understand. Does he have a hidden agenda to set up Health Reform before the Henry Tax review, is it to make him look like he is doing something which he knows is a major concern on everyone's minds or is it just another diversion from all his failings? He knows how to push the right buttons and the naive fall for it every time.

As Julia says, The Architect of Medicare, John Deeble has not been very flattering of Rudd's health agenda. Rodger Corbett has labelled Rudd's health reform as bizarre and a formula for disaster.

In addition to these medical academics, Ken Baxter is suggesting an increase in the GST to 12.5% would solve the problem for the states to seek more money for health reform, but Rudd says over my 'dead' body. He would sooner raise monies by other devious means which one can be assured will hurt the Mum's and Dad's and the working families, you know the one's he is so passionate about, more than the GST. Let's face it, health care is now costing a lot more than it did 20 or 30 years ago and with the increase in life expectancy with modern medical care, we are all living a lot longer and the money has to come from somewhere. Who knows with modern medical research and stem cell developement, humans could be living to the age fo 120 years and beyond by 2050. What impact will that have on the population growth and the capacity to take care of them? I have not heard one comment from any of our so called political experts from either side. Is it a possibility? It is not only a possibilty but inevitable! At least some of the journos are tyring to work out what the question wil be put to the public if we have a referendum.

Yes, we need health reform, but it has to be implimented correctly with a lot of thought and common sense, but the way Rudd is going about it may prove to be of no benefit to anyone.

 

[So_Cynical]

what I can't understand is his rush to push this through before the budget without the finer details for all to understand. Does he have a hidden agenda to set up Health Reform before the Henry Tax review, is it to make him look like he is doing something which he knows is a major concern on everyone's minds or is it just another diversion from all his failings? He knows how to push the right buttons and the naive fall for it every time.

As Julia says, The Architect of Medicare, John Deeble has not been very flattering of Rudd's health agenda. Rodger Corbett has labelled Rudd's health reform as bizarre and a formula for disaster.

In addition to these medical academics, Ken Baxter is suggesting an increase in the GST to 12.5% would solve the problem for the states to seek more money for health reform, but Rudd says over my 'dead' body. He would sooner raise monies by other devious means which one can be assured will hurt the Mum's and Dad's and the working families, you know the one's he is so passionate about, more than the GST. Let's face it, health care is now costing a lot more than it did 20 or 30 years ago and with the increase in life expectancy with modern medical care, we are all living a lot longer and the money has to come from somewhere. Who knows with modern medical research and stem cell developement, humans could be living to the age fo 120 years and beyond by 2050. What impact will that have on the population growth and the capacity to take care of them? I have not heard one comment from any of our so called political experts from either side. Is it a possibility? It is not only a possibilty but inevitable! At least some of the journos are tyring to work out what the question wil be put to the public if we have a referendum.

Yes, we need health reform, but it has to be implimented correctly with a lot of thought and common sense, but the way Rudd is going about it may prove to be of no benefit to anyone.

Do a google search for "Australian health care reform" and you will find many papers, articles and submissions on the subject going back over a decade...this isn't rushed or new to the majority of the health industry, just surprising in that a Fed Govt has the guts to try and do something positive about it.

Health reform is a little like tax reform and emission's trading/global warming in that the right side of the Australian political spectrum don't know much about it and are somewhat surprised its on the Labor party agenda...that's what a decade in the Howard wilderness will get ya.

The Howard Govt buried all these issues preferring to put them in the politicly 'to hard basket' and move on to issues closer to there heart..immigration discrimination, industrial relations reform, introduction of a GST and supporting Hanson and the far loony right as a distraction from there own gutless, do nothing agenda.

Howard's greatest achievement was probably the Firearms law reform as it required political guts, just like Rudd's health reform also requires political guts, because success will be fairly easy and quick to measure...the ASF right should be all for this reform as its a huge political risk for Labor and could easily be the issue that sinks them in the election after next...if they get it wrong.

 

[IFocus]

So Cynical, usually we see what we want to see.
So you view Noco's intial post as propaganda against the government.
I viewed it as a fairly reasonable summary of the situation on the proposed health 'reforms' to date.

I have put 'reforms' in quotes because I can't for the life of me see how Mr Rudd's suggested moving around of the dollars is going to in any way at all benefit patient care, or remove any of the stress on healthcare staff.

Obviously you as an ardent fan of the Prime Minister will have clearly understood what I'm missing here, i.e. how Mr Rudd's suggested changes (I can't bear to say 'reforms') will improve our health system. You will be able to counter the warnings from Professor Dwyer et al, very experienced medical professionals, who say Mr Rudd's suggestions are nothing short of disastrous and absolutely should not be pursued.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the people at the coalface of Health will actually appreciate what would be useful and what would not?

So I look forward to your explanation of exactly how the proposed Rudd changes will bring benefits to all of us who participate in the health system, whether as patients or healthcare professionals.
You'll need to give a justification, amongst your explanation, of a whole new level of bureaucracy to administer this new system.

Hope you caught the insiders program today they covered it quite well.

They showed a NSW reporter taking Brumby apart on his claims of Vic health.

Really the 1st part of reforming the health system is having a secure funding method, you might notice states are only talking about money and the method of funding not new beds etc.

This really is only the 1st step

WA and Victoria already have many or most of the required practices deployed or being deployed i.e the 4 hr rule etc.

Getting the states to agree on any thing is really mission impossible but they actually do agree on reform even WA Liberal Kim Hames has praised many parts of Rudds plan

As for Rudds position its just part of the negotiations interesting if a deal gets done as there are meeting today between Rudd and premiers.

 

[IFocus]

Almost all the usual suspects having a Labor bash again, GG will be along shortly anyway lets have a look at how the 2010 election betting is going as of last Friday....Oh dear its the usual bad news for the Right wing of the ASF.

~

Agree, to me looks more like Liberal Party members pushing the party line with the hate message. I say this simply because of the absence of any balance in the comments.