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.
If the health care professionals are so au fait with what you suggest have been ongoing discussions, why are front line people like Professor Dwyer and Dr Deeble (the architect of Medicare) making their disapprobation so crystal clear? They have both indicated that what has been suggested will be at best counter-productive.
Then you have Roger Corbett, one of Australia's most successful businessmen, and a Reserve Bank Board member, telling us it would be a complete disaster.
If I have to choose an opinion to accept, then I'll sure as hell take that from these successful people, before that of a bureaucrat with no business experience whatsoever, who has overseen two of the most disastrous policies ever seen in Australia with the insulation and BER fiascos.
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.
What absolute nonsense.
What is it with people who are so rusted on to their party political views that they lose any sense of objectivity?
And yes, both sides can be equally guilty of this.
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.
I don't think that's fair, IFocus. I'd be more than happy to accord appreciation to Rudd & Co. if it genuinely appeared the proposed 'reforms' were actually going to achieve any improvement in either patient care or healthcare staff stress. Being unhappy with suggested policy from one side does not automatically translate into support for the other side, for heaven's sake!
So far all I can see is a shifting around of who does what with what money.
Perhaps you could explain how this is going to actually benefit either patient care or staff stress?
I'm a realist (unlike so many ASFers)...and this its health reform and political bravery on a major scale, and Rudd has ownership of it so will get the kudos if it goes well and the blame if it fails.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the exact nature of these reforms and how they are going to benefit Australians?
Also, why is there so much urgency to have the States sign up?
Why is Rudd unprepared to release the Henry Tax Review before the States sign up to his health 'reforms'?
These are very reasonable questions, and do not mark me or anyone else asking them as 'anti government' because of being either an opposition supporter or simply a Rudd hater, as you and others have observed.
Since you and IFocus are obviously keen to see all the States sign up, then you should have no problem in explaining to the rest of us just what they will be signing up for, and why I or any other voter should be supporting whatever is planned.
If my understanding that what has been clearly suggested so far is a shifting of proportions of funding paid by the States and the Feds, and an assurance that this will result in better care for emergency departments, aged care, and elective surgery (note: no mention of mental health or dental care???) is incorrect, then I'm very happy to be corrected and to be informed about how Australian consumers of the health system will be better off.
And please don't ignore these questions a second time, while continuing to criticise those who are not falling over themselves with admiration for anything from the Rudd Design Corporation.