This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Rudd is nationalising the hospital system

Jump to new

Bushman

Joined
6 June 2007
Posts
1,314
Reactions
10
Is anybody else scared that Labour is nationalising the hopsital system? Maybe they will get Peter Garret to be the new Health Czar?

www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-ann...blic-hospitals-20100303-phnp.html?autostart=1

But seriously any plan to nationalise the hospital system must be good idea to ensure that all Australians receive a consistent level of health care.

Basics of the plan is that 60% of healthcare funding/capex/research will be funded from federal governemnt coffers.

What are people's thoughts on this?

PS: does this mean we will pay less GST and more income tax to pay for it?
 
There isn't much detail at this stage, but on the face of it, it seems reasonable and has been given the thumbs up by a Professor of Health Policy (or some such title).

Bushman, my impression is that our contributions to both GST and income tax won't be affected: rather, the GST will be redistributed, less going to the States.

I like the idea of Regional Boards to administer local hospitals.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the States.
 
Well, given the way everything else they've touched has turned to gold, what could go wrong? It's only the health system. Not like it will actually effect us, eh?
 

Julia, Hospital Boards were used for years with great success untill a certain bureaucrat in the Goss Government named Rudd abolished the system in favour of bureaucratic control. Now the the same gentleman wants to install another level of Federal bureaucrats over the states bureaucrats. As anyone can imagine, what do these pen pushers know about the running of hospitals.

My guess is it will turn out to be another Rudd Labor Government debacle. We'll hear the same lame excuse, "we goofed but we'll fix it". Oh my gawd I hate to think!!!

These people could not organise a beer in a brewry.
 
Idea alone does not look bad, idea with Mr Rudd implementing it does not look good.
 
Happy said:
Idea alone does not look bad, idea with Mr Rudd implementing it does not look good.
Click to expand...

That's the crux isn't it H. This big labour government has lost the faith of the electorate with its bumbling of parts of the stimulus roll-out. It goes on top of a litany of state labour gov't errors (i.e. Myki here in Vicotria).

If it is just an extra layer of bureacrats, then it will be an abject failure.

But it is a great idea and technically should unlock a lot of synergies by getting rid of the state system.
 
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...health-bill-rudd/story-e6frfku0-1225836677765

Hooray! At least 2 more terms of KRuddtastic gummint!!

:bananasmi
 
I am not a big believe in Rudd but must say its good to see at least he is trying to do something to improve the health system, my worry is that instead of improving it they will actually make it worse (just considering Labors history to do anything without stuffing it up lately). More information needs to be given out before we can really decide if it will be an improvement or not.
 
That's exactly right. The whole of the 7.30 Report this evening was given over to a discussion about this.
At the end I was absolutely no better informed as to how any shift in the funding is going to actually improve health delivery, especially as the main problem is simply lack of sufficient doctors to staff regional areas.

I'm starting to feel it's essentially a 'bureaucrat's dream', i.e. another whole entity, presumably separate yet part of the Federal Health portfolio.
In Qld more than two thirds of Qld Health employees are clerical/administrative workers. This is madness.

If Mr Rudd could come up with a plan to see two thirds of the health dollar spent on medical delivery, plus a foolproof plan of how not to bungle the scheme, then we might start taking him seriously.

So far - rather like the ETS - he has insisted that major reform is necessary.
But all he has delivered is a variation on how the GST is used, plus a new layer of bureaucracy to administer regional boards.
 

Julia, the whole thing is lacking in detail.

Rudd will take 1/3 of the GST from the states and redistribute it to the hospitals representing 60% of their needs. The states then have to contribute the other 40%.
Firstly, I would like to know how much it costs to run the health system and whether 1/3 of the GST will cover the 60% the federal Government is contributing or whether Rudd will spend more from our taxes. How will the monies be despersed among states, given that some states will require more than others. I can see a big 'BUN FIGHT' occurring amongst the states.
Victoria is already up in arms, fearing their 1/3 of their GST income will benefit the NT more with less population.

DETAILS-DETAILS-DETAILS Mr Rudd.
 
noco said:
How will the monies be despersed among states, given that some states will require more than others. I can see a big 'BUN FIGHT' occurring amongst the states.
Click to expand...

Good point noco.

In fact, you could extend that question down to the next "micro-management" level, to read: "How will the monies dispersed among the states then be given to the individual hospitals themselves, since some hospitals will require more than others. I can see a big 'BUN FIGHT' occurring amongst the local area hospital boards."

Oh yeah. BUN FIGHT of the Century.

 
Phew!

Thank heavens Honorable Chairman KRudd is such a workaholic. Where would we be without him?

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd says there's still no timetable on when he will release the Henry Tax Review, adding that he's been too "busy" on the health and hospitals reform.
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...lease-tax-review/story-e6frf7ko-1225836898564

Suggestion, Mr KRudd, sir. You could always re-employ Junior Under-Minister Herr Garrot on the far less important Tax Reform thingy-whatsit? Whaddya think?

 

It will be an extension of the hand wringing that goes on about the GST distribution.

One of the main issues with a fixed price per service system will be the old Telstra listing chestnut of providing services to remote areas. It is more expensive to run a regional hospital versus a CBD locale. Is this a sensitivity that a Canberra-based 'ubercrat' will be able to get their heads around?

The other option is to simply bite the bullet and push on with little Johhny's Federation.

Bitter bun-fight and if they get it wrong Rudd could do a Hewson.
 
I hope he watched the 4 Corners report on it last year or the year before. They looked at various countries. Fixed price seems to be something similar to the Japanese system.
 
Common boys & girls there's too much negativity towards Mr Ruddy good PM. How about giving him some credit in his management of good old Aussie Land?
Why shouldn't we leave the hospital reform in his capable hands?
I think we should start a new thread in "What has Mr Ruddy good PM got right?"
Nah bad idea noone would respond it.
 
This is typical of Rudd, policy on the run since he has been hammered lately over the delay in his 2007 election promise to take over the whole of the Hospital System by mid 2009 if the states did not get their act together. He has to be seen as doing something to improve his popularity which is sinking fast.

This is another typical Rudd diversion away from all the previous STUFF UPS in particular the Home Insulation Debacle.

Now that the ETS and CPRS is almost dead and buried, perhaps he might use the 150 bureacrats he has engaged to administer the ETS to be now used to admin. the new Hospital System. Bloody bureacrats who would not know a bee from a bull's foot how to operate a hospital.

I say bring back the boards comprising Doctors, Senior nursing staff and economist who have the expertise to administer a hospital efficientlly.

Rudd is now trying to create another bureacratic debacle.
 

I only heard a brief interview on the radio this morning, but I was under the impression that funding will be "activity" based. So the more procedures a hospital does, the bigger its funding. That would seem an equitable way to allocate between states and hospitals within states, if it can be achieved.
 
There is a minor benefit to this scheme. Federal elections run on 3 year cycles compared to the states with 4 year cycles. Health political pressure can be focused in 1 direction.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...