What does it say about John Key and National?
The really interesting aspect of the GP cap episode was John Key’s instinctive response at the press conference announcing the health proposals - the Standard has the tv3 video footage. He immediately jumped to an abstract theory of how markets work - people could just go to another doctor if they didn’t like the price - without understanding how real markets work in the real world. In the real world there are often high non monetary costs in changing GPs (trust, relationships, records, history) and there aren’t always other GPs available (rural areas, oversubscribed GP books).
This instinctive response throws up a few questions.
Could this be a result of Key having worked in the financial sector for so long, a sector where markets behave closer to theoretically perfect markets than in any other sector of the economy? This would conclude that he has a poor understanding of real markets.
Or did his response demonstrate a complete disconnect from ordinary people with ordinary incomes and choices? This would conclude that his life of privilege is such that he’s forgotten what it’s like for the rest of us.
Or did his response, and Tony Ryall’s, expose a ruthless new right ideologue beneath the moderate exterior? This would conclude that National are a bunch of new right ideologues like Labour and National in the 80s and 90s and nothing’s changed. They intend to re-engage the war on the poor that they started with the benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act when they last came into power.
I don’t claim to know the answers to these questions but clearly we need to find out exactly what we’re dealing with here before the next election.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I don’t claim to know the answers to these questions but clearly we need to find out exactly what we’re dealing with here before the next election.
I often think this about the Greens. It would be nice to be able to explore the range of opinions about what various policies might mean and do, and I think that would become harder if the EFB gets pushed through. Given the number of people against it, shouldn’t we find out exactly what we are dealing with rather than forcing it into place before the next election?
I apologize for the thread jack. Just thought I’d get in before Phil does.
Back on topic - didn’t Helen say there was a shortage of Doctors? Maybe by removing caps, we would find out how the real market works … prices go up, people cover it with insurance, more Doctors are attracted to move to NZ due to the nice environment and good pay scales, which increases consumer choice, which levels off prices ….
Or you could just go with the cap theory and force Doctors to work for lower rates as the cost of attracting skilled support staff increases until they succumb to the lures of Australia and other places that pay Doctors a decent rate, and then bemoan that some politician is getting all theoretical because in the real world, there aren’t enough Doctors, because in the real world, meddling socialists have stuffed up the supply of Doctors, becuase in the real world socialists think when socialism isn’t working, they need more of it…
September 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Well, given that John Key was up to his eyeballs in the 2005 election shenanigans described in Hollow Men, then I’d say we have a good indication of his thinking already.
It certainly seems as if he had little objection to supporting lying to the public about whether some extreme right policies were going to be implemented. Regardless of whether he personally supported those policies, the whole affair reflects rather badly upon him.
It would also be well worth noting that aside from Don Brash himself, the National front bench going into the 2008 Election is the same as that of 2005, and I don’t imagine in that in the meantime (having gotten so close in 2005) that National’s multi-millionaire backers have had any change of heart. On the contrary I’d say because the media have been beating up a National win for the last several months, in order to soften us up for a change in government, that once you figure all the idiots who “vote for the winner” then it is possible that the media campaign will have some effect.
On the other hand, yesterday’s snafu may possibly indicate that that Key’s honeymoon period is finally over. I did particularly like Steve Braunias’ interview in the Sunday Times last weekend
September 28th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Ok so that’s exposed them on health. I would like to see them exposed on their employment policy.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
If that is “exposed” on health, how do you figure Labour’s efforts? - limit waiting lists to 6 months so the figures don’t look as bad, big spending on bureaucracy and little to show on the front line, caught out trying to electioneer health issues with public / tax payer money (another gaping hole in the EFB) and burdening health people with ridiculous policy initiatives (like asking all women if they are beaten up by their partners when ever they come in for a visit).
September 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“prices go up, people cover it with insurance,”
Zen,
I recommend you learn more about health insurance before making such cavalier statements. People don’t spend a thousand bucks a year on health insurance for their family in order to cover the odd visit to a GP.
The usual expert advice on health insurance is to avoid doing exactly what you advise: see, for example, the New Zealand Consumer article here.
http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?docid=41&category=Health&subcateg ory=Health%20services&topic=Health%20insurance&title=Ways%20to%20save& contenttype=general
Remember that health markets are not good markets because of information imbalances. That applies two ways. First, consumers aren’t
experts on medical procedures or technology so they don’t know
much about health provision so they what they should buy. Second, insurers make money by insuring people who won’t get sick and by
not paying out on claims, and they don’t easily know who’s healthy and what’s needed either, so they devote a large amount of money to
trying to figure out who’s a good risk advertising, filtering out undesirable risks, and complex administration to avoid paying on claims where they don’t need to.
That’s why in the USA health insurance companies spend around 18% of their income on administration (imagine if 18% of our health budget went to beaurocrats in Wellington - you’d be screaming about the inefficiency of that).
icehawk
September 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
> “In the real world there are often high non monetary costs in changing GPs (trust, relationships, records, history)”
Rubbish.
If you’re sick you’ll go to any doctor.
If you’re abroad on holiday you’ll go to any doctor.
The problem is that the rent-seeking medical profession is granted a monopoly on prescription by the state.
Stuff that.
If I don’t feel well I should go to the doctor for his expertise and not because I need to pay him $50 to sign a damn prescription.
Hell, I can diagnose most problems these days by typing my symptoms into Google, and I’ll gladly take the chance that I might be wrong.
But no. Apparently I need the state’s permission to medicate.
> “Or did his response demonstrate a complete disconnect from ordinary people with ordinary incomes and choices?”
Oh, the plebs, you mean. That’s us. People who are apparently too stupid and infantile to make decisions about our own healthcare. We need the medical profession, supported by the force of the state, to make those decisions for us.
> “They intend to re-engage the war on the poor…”
yawn
When did it first occur to you that we are all stupid and that you, with you superior intellect, need to protect us from ourselves?
Really, I want to know.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Mouldwarp
You know… I was with you on the prescription thing but not the trust issue with the MD. As you ARE relying on his skills when yours do not suffice. You either trust or you don’t and that is built up over time.
As you always do, you take things far further than your actual case can sustain.
I worry far less about Key than I do about Bill English.
respectfully
BJ
October 8th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
There are many countries in the world where doctors can be very wealthy. If all that they are interested in is chasing money…..well the USA bekons…
New Zealand is supposed to be more egaliterian-thank God.
If doctors are earning too little increase the subsidy a bit…do not pass it on to the poor..the casualty departments are already flooded with people who can’t pay their primary care givers.