Rudd healthcare reforms proposal falls too short

Comments on “Rudd's hospital overhaul to cost states $50b”, By ABC online political correspondent Emma Rodgers, 3/03/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/03/2834814.htm?section=justin

While some of the ideas in Rudd health reforms proposal are good, it is disappointing to see there are significant shortcoming in some areas.

For example, why is there a need to continue to have State health department and existing regional arrangements?

Secondly, why the fed only fund 60% but not 100% excluding privately funded part? Who will fund that shortfall? If it is the states to shoulder that, then why the States should give public hospitals or any other healthcare to the fed?

Why is there a need for local hospital networks uniformly? Why can the fed health department directly sign contracts with some large hospitals and local health bodies if there is a need for such bodies?

After all, why is there a need for a referendum for this? Why can't the fed simply takeover all healthcare responsibility and funding?

Is it another promise and another trick?

What if for some reason the referendum returns a no outcome? Is there a plan B? Or does that mean the end of health reforms and a continuation of the current poor healthcare state?

It seems there is much left to be desired from Rudd health reforms proposal.