by frog
Like Rasputin Peter Dunne, the eternal Minister of Revenue, is back once again. This time his pretence of sitting in the middle while actually belonging to the right of National is even more exposed now that he is actually in a cooperation agreement with National.
In his agreement with National we can look forward to these little policy nuggets, among other things:
- Reducing elective surgery waiting lists by greater utilisation of private hospital capacity, in a planned way where this cannot be met by the public hospital system;
Translation – transfer funding from freely accessible public health care to privately owned for-profit health care. It sounds like we are going to be using tax dollars to give business profits to consultants in wealthy private hospitals rather than fund doctors in public hospitals to do the same job.
- Support Public Private Partnerships for major roading infrastructure developments where these are deemed to be the preferred options regionally and nationally, such as the Transmission Gully highway.
So not only are we going to build roads, even though the business case for doing so does not stand up in the face of the environmental and peak oil challenges we will face in the future, but we are going to help private contractors make a profit from public money rather than building our own publicly owned infrastructure.
Dunne gives the impression that he will do anything to get Transmission Gully built into his electorate whether it is in the national interest or not. It’s a shame to see that level of parochial politicing and funding still so strong in our national parliament.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, November 17th, 2008
Tags: , national party, peter dunne, transmission gully, united future
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“Reducing elective surgery waiting lists by greater utilisation of private hospital capacity, in a planned way where this cannot be met by the public hospital system;”
If this improves health outcomes – what is the problem?
Or is this a case of green ideology over effective health outcomes ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What MikeE said – many private medical practices have spare capacity NOW, while public ones do not. Hmm, what to do?
It could actually be a case of ‘allowing’ public sector DHBs and the like to use the private sector when needed, but either way…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
I know party policy is that we don’t care for it, but Transmission Gully needs to be built before the coast road goes under water. I’ve pointed this out before. The Route opened is opened for good and it would be a good idea to have it open BEFORE it becomes needed.
Not that a lot of Wellington won’t be in trouble when the water rises, but the Wellington basin is a damned fine port no even with another 20 meters in it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Have you noticed what’s missing from Dunne’s deal with the Nats? Cannabis. Maybe the Medpot thing is worth another go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That “freely available” public heath care is a myth.
The “free” bit is not true as we pay for it collectively through out taxes.
The “available” bit is not true either, ask anyone wiaiting for an operatrion that is non life threatening.
Waited four years for a carpal tunnel operation on public health. Finally saved up to have the operation done privately (and without ACC cover who dont recognise repetitive stain injuries but I HAVE to pay $1200 to every year as a self employed worker) in 1 hours. In surgery for 15 minutes with an arm block and a local.
The private health system could do this operation for less then two thousand dollars. While the public system cant do anything.
Surely the public health system would be better to puchase this type of operation from the private sector instead of building public day surgery clinics and employing doctor and nurses
Make sense to me to outsource health requirements as and when required rather then having the to fund the whole health shooting match infastruture as required by Green party edicts.
The facilities are available, the skilled people are on “hand”, all it needs is common sense to utilise resources that are in place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So not only are we going to build roads, even though the business case for doing so does not stand up in the face of the environmental and peak oil challenges we will face in the future, but we are going to help private contractors make a profit from public money rather than building our own publicly owned infrastructure.”
Let us not forget the saying, once bitten, twice shy. The business case for electrifying the North Island Main Trunk stacked up, until the price of oil fell in the late 1980s. Treasury aren’t too keen to make the same mistake twice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories……It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October….When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007………”
Dolts.
Anyway, i’m tuning out of politics, hope you enjoyed my odd comment over the years….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You could provide the link and any further discussion from informed sources even.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic,
Link please. I know about the ERROR and I know of no such claim ever having been made.
Someone IS lying. It isn’t NASA. I suggest that you discard your source as being fraudulent charlatans unworthy of the attention you pay them.
Idiots, liars and incompetent sh!t-for-brains right wing slugs DO make sh!t up and I have no time whatsoever for them.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah… the source is the Telegraph. I could have guessed. They do not cite any reference for this claimed “claim”, no source at all.
They made it up. Embedded it in a story that had SOME truth, because there was indeed a mistake which is being corrected, and then passed it off as being part of the story and thus true.
Sophisticated liars are also sometimes called journalists.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A source of Evens quote Here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
and a response here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/#more-620
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’d make a great Green MP bj………… unfortunately your not the sort they are looking for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ for president!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what is the lefts proposal to sort out the mess that is our health system?.
Why is it that left wing people have no problem with people dying, so long as their ideology is upheld.
I can only imagine the carnage if labour/greens had have won the election and Kevin Hague got any where near the health minister. We really dodged a bullet there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is an interesting point – note Hansen’s support of Crowley in this –
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/will-next-ice-age-be-very-very-long/
As long as we keep our knowledge and tech base, we can cope… even with the next Ice Age. It is in our own hands.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PPPs for roads are economic madness. Governments can borrow cheaper than corporations. Roads that are half built are worse than useless so they must be completed so the risk is socialised no matter what you do. All they do is make money for financiers.
There may well be a case for using surplus private capacity for public health care as a bridging measure. This is done already I believe. Doing it on a permanent basis is public money for private profit, no gain for any one but the private operator. The shortages in health are shortages of money. It does not matter where you spend it, money is (in most cases) the limiting factor.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see our gnatty friends are going “to do something” about NZ’s emissions excesses.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/5152854/national-vows-sort-nzs-poor-record-emissions/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>
It sounds like we are going to be using tax dollars to give business profits to consultants in wealthy private hospitals rather than fund doctors in public hospitals to do the same job.
>>
Here’s the rub., the “consultants in wealthy private hospitals” are the same consultants as in the public hospitals, where they usually work 2 or 3 10ths (i.e. two or three half days a week) plus on-call time at weekends and evenings/nights. For this contribution they are paid at a rate of $135k per year, pro-rated (so $13,500 per tenth per year).
To put this princely sum in perspective the Specialist Consultant has spent six years in medical school, two years as a gopher doitall in a hospital and then another six to eight years to become a consultant/specialist. If they worked full time in a public hospital they would earn 10% LESS than at least one Very Senior Manager in a government agency who has no qualifications at all that I know.
With a student loan of about $100,000 being the norm for a newly qualified MD, it’s no wonder they don’t work full time in the public system and so many leave the country for better pay!
IN a similar vein, it would be interesting to know what the ‘overhead’ of an hour in an operating theatre is today. Back in 1997 it was said to be ‘about’ $750.00, and in 2003 I did a study in one of our larger DHBs that put it at $2,210.00.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Costs are a critical feature of ‘the battle’ between public and private medical provision. As I understand it, private practices know how much these things cost, but things are not so obvious in the public sector – is this true? Are any of these studies publicly available?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stephen
Certainly the work I did is not in the public domain, despite a number of attempts to get hold of it by National’s health spokesman. That is in the same vein as a report I did on Value for Money in Education. The most important appendices and chapters were not made available.
In the private side of health, there are clear arrangements between suppliers and insurance funders regarding what a particular thing is worth, ranging from a night in a hospital bed, right through to brain surgery to remove a clot (as examples only). Clearly, the insurers want to know the extent of their liability and have actuarial processes to ascertain frequency that are matched with these ‘set rates’ to establish premiums. The providers want to take in more than they have to spend, so they are able to generate capital to keep their service capability at the front end of the demand curve.
A particularly good example of this working in a ‘public’ system is in Ontario. The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) is the government provider of funding raised through taxes. ALL hospitals and doctors are ‘private’ and free to charge what they think they are worth. However OHIP pays a set rate for every ‘treatment’. If a GP thinks they are worth more than the basic rate, they can try to charge extra on top of the OHIP payment, if they have no patients they soon realise they aren’t perceived in the market as being worth the extra. Same for specialists – some charge nothing and let OHIP pay them, some charge more and attract people with more ability to pay. Often, the higher the ‘extra’ the shorter the waiting time. MOST doctors, etc., do not charge the patient at all and operate within the OHIP price-book. Private insurance is available for those who want to use ‘the best’ including specialists, GPs, hospitals, etc, but is cheaper than here (on a comparative, not absolute, basis) because whoever you use, they get the OHIP base payment.
This approach gives a vast incentive to doctors and hospitals to keep their overheads as low as possible, so you don’t see many ‘admin’ people or ‘non-clinical managers’ around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
level of payment to doctors is a valid issue but more an argument for simply increasing public sector pay than for subsidising private sector profits.
thing to bear in mind is that interactions with the market always change that market. in this case as public funding follows practitioners into the private sector, the incentive for them to work in the private sector increases, sucking even more money after them
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)