Nats do U turn on GP cap?
In spite of all the spin coming from the National Party, and its blog supporters over at KiwiBlog justifying the position of removing the cap on the cost of GP visits, National are now backing away from the position. This is good. We need to keep an eye on them to make sure they actually do change their position, rather than just make a few noises about it.
The danger is that the cap will be removed and the subsidy will decline in real terms over time because it won’t be inflation adjusted. The result will be that GPs will need to increase their fees to cover their increased costs. And before you know it we’re back to the dark days of paying $60 per visit and poor people won’t be able to afford to go to the doctor and middle class people will put it off as long as possible. With the resultant poor health outcomes.
We need to ensure that GPs have a decent income, to encourage them to stay and work in NZ if for nothing else, and we also need to ensure that the public have affordable GP visits. Leaving it up to the free market as Key suggested will not produce this outcome.
Tony Ryall is clearly a throwback to the new right of the 1990s but it seems that someone in National understands that reinstating all the new right policy of that era is not going to win the next election for them.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:34 am
INteresting how so many of the recent posts have focussed on attacking National. Quite discontinuous to previous postings.
What has brought about this apparant change? Could the polls be a concern or the constant kicking you are getting on the EFB?
Even the Law Society is saying it is unworkable and should be pulled. DOn;t you think it is time to take a hint? Or are the lawyers just worried about their trust accounts?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Insider, could you entertain the possibility that I’m criticizing the Nats because the Nats floated some policy we don’t like? Such as flogging off the family silver and making poor people pay more for doctors?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I’ll entertain it, but the reaction does seem slightly OTT. But it;s your blog.
Interesting you describe companies like Solid Energy, Air NZ and Genesis as “the family silver”. Who would have thought the Greens were so enamoured with the benefits of coal, gas and international air transport….
September 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Maybe OTT. Anyone who wants to deny access to medical treatment on the basis of wealth is going to get a strong reaction from me.
The advantage of having some nasties owned by the state is that it’s easier to regulate them then if they are privately owned. The spying episode was an example of that. Making all new electricity generation renewable is another. But I cerainly don’t like the fact that an SOE is a coal miner - especially if they move into lignite in Southland.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
People in their tens of thousands are being denied access to medical treatment due to wealth Russel. HAve you not heard of ‘waiting lists’ and ‘health rationing’?
On the spying issue, I wonder it they would have done that if they were not state owned. Being state owned may have made them feel bullet proof or that they had an entitlement to do that. A privately owned company may have just giot on with the job. Just a theory.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Well said insider, I wonder why Russel is so quick to attack the Nat’s over this while we have people who are on waiting lists for years.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Russell said “The advantage of having some nasties owned by the state is that it’s easier to regulate them then if they are privately owned.”
On the flip side, the disadvantage of having some nasties owned by the state is that it creates a conflict of interest - to regulate or to profit-take?
Land transport provides a classic example. When Tranzrail failed to properly maintain it’s infrastructure due to profit taking the LTSA got tough with speed limits. The cost of the speed limits was greater than the cost of fixing the tracks so Tranzrail finally began fixing the tracks. When Transit failed to properly maintain it’s infrastructure due to profit taking the LTSA got tough with speed limits. The profit takers discovered that this increased their profits from State Highways by 25%. Instead of fixing the highways (as recommended by the LTSA in 2000 and Treasury in 2004)they took down the signs warning users where the worst maintained sections of highway were located because this further maximised their profit taking. To add insult to injury they then began arguing that their profit from highways didn’t even cover the accident costs imposed on the state by highway users, without bothering to mention that this would never have been the case if the exhorbitant profits had actually been spent on the highways.