Comments on news report by Jessica Gardner "Health insurance premiums to rise by up to 10pc a year", 21/07/2015
It is a national disgrace and possibly and particularly for the national regulator who has the right to approve the annual rises. It reflects a serious failure in regulation. Wages and salaries in the past decade and particularly in the last 5 years have not grow much, but each year health insurances increase quite a lot.
It is failure of policy and of insurance regulation. It is a failure of national leadership as reflected by federal health minister and the department of health.
And the worst part of that is the fact that it is forced by government for people to have private health insurance and it is the government health minister who approves the annual increase. For anyone having a sane mind, it is ridiculous that the federal government acts in that way.
The federal health minister should resign or at least those bureaucrats who made the recommendations for the health insurance to increase like that.
Furthermore, while the wages and salaries for ordinary workers and employees have not grown much, federal politicians' have increased a lot almost every year. What is a further disgrace of politicians is the fact that they hide behind the so called tribunal's recommendations, an organisation having virtually no accountability and eager to please national politicians.
It seems the only thing fair is for the politicians pay rise to be inversely linked to the increase in health insurance premium.
Further, their pay should be indexed with the average increase in national wages and salaries to the maximum..
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
2015-07-15
States are better positioned to run public hospitals
Comments on Peter Breadon "Forget health takeovers, here’s how to fix hospital funding and chronic disease care", 15/07/2015
The best approach still remains to have one layer of governments to be responsible for funding and running public hospitals and it would be better for the state and territory governments to do it with a reallocation of taxes so that the states and territories have a greater tax revenue share than its currently have, so the funding of state level public services comes from their own revenue as opposed to from the Commonwealth.
Alternatively as a second best, it can be shared in terms of funding with a fixed ratio between the states/territories and the Commonwealth, and the states and territories still run the public hospitals.
The Commonwealth should not be given the responsibilities to run public hospitals, given that it lacks the local knowledge and the relevant other expertise to do so. It is not well positioned to run the public hospitals in Australia. With the states and territories retaining the responsibilities to run the public hospitals, there will continue to be the inter-states competition and that is a good thing for the efficiency and quality of public hospitals services.
The Commonwealth should not be greedy in terms of both responsibilities and tax revenue. Otherwise Australia would end up to be a poorer place in terms of health and Australians will suffer from that as a result.
The best approach still remains to have one layer of governments to be responsible for funding and running public hospitals and it would be better for the state and territory governments to do it with a reallocation of taxes so that the states and territories have a greater tax revenue share than its currently have, so the funding of state level public services comes from their own revenue as opposed to from the Commonwealth.
Alternatively as a second best, it can be shared in terms of funding with a fixed ratio between the states/territories and the Commonwealth, and the states and territories still run the public hospitals.
The Commonwealth should not be given the responsibilities to run public hospitals, given that it lacks the local knowledge and the relevant other expertise to do so. It is not well positioned to run the public hospitals in Australia. With the states and territories retaining the responsibilities to run the public hospitals, there will continue to be the inter-states competition and that is a good thing for the efficiency and quality of public hospitals services.
The Commonwealth should not be greedy in terms of both responsibilities and tax revenue. Otherwise Australia would end up to be a poorer place in terms of health and Australians will suffer from that as a result.
2011-03-16
Jeremy Sammut has good points
Comments on Jeremy Sammut “Cure Medicare mess”, 16/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cure-medicare-mess/story-e6frg6zo-1226022070655
The following idea of Jeremy Sammut's is worth considering:
"Bulk-billing should be scrapped and the budget savings used to establish a national system of individualised Health Savings Accounts. Consumers will become cost-conscious and overuse will be minimised when they spend their own money on GP and other non-hospital services."
Two points are important in terms of health care. Firstly, its expenses cannot be open ended and funded freely by government alone, because it has some characteristics of luxury goods besides its normal functions of cure needs. There must be effective constraints on them.
Secondly, the best health care system is to have each person in charge of his or her own care needs and the priority of health care spending with a budget constraint that is funded through taxation. Each one can be different and has different needs. It is impossible for a government to be in charge and to provide tail-made health care for everyone.
Rapid growth in healthcare spending is a big problem for governments. Population aging will add further pressure to it. The government should reform the current Medicare system. And it’d be better to start it as early as possible.
The following idea of Jeremy Sammut's is worth considering:
"Bulk-billing should be scrapped and the budget savings used to establish a national system of individualised Health Savings Accounts. Consumers will become cost-conscious and overuse will be minimised when they spend their own money on GP and other non-hospital services."
Two points are important in terms of health care. Firstly, its expenses cannot be open ended and funded freely by government alone, because it has some characteristics of luxury goods besides its normal functions of cure needs. There must be effective constraints on them.
Secondly, the best health care system is to have each person in charge of his or her own care needs and the priority of health care spending with a budget constraint that is funded through taxation. Each one can be different and has different needs. It is impossible for a government to be in charge and to provide tail-made health care for everyone.
Rapid growth in healthcare spending is a big problem for governments. Population aging will add further pressure to it. The government should reform the current Medicare system. And it’d be better to start it as early as possible.
2010-05-06
A disturbing finding
Comments on ABC news report "Up to 40pc of Hunter children have had asthma", 6/05/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/06/2892234.htm?section=justin
If the report is true it is deeply disturbing that so such a high percentage of children in that region have had asthma. This is, of course, in the context that the rate of asthma children is 17 per cent lower in the central coast, according to the report.
There is nothing to suggest that the report is not true, because it is a NSW government report.
The Hunter region has coal mines and power stations and there have been calls for a comprehensive health study in the Upper Hunter region.
The report seems to confirm the need for such a study, for the children's sake.
If the report is true it is deeply disturbing that so such a high percentage of children in that region have had asthma. This is, of course, in the context that the rate of asthma children is 17 per cent lower in the central coast, according to the report.
There is nothing to suggest that the report is not true, because it is a NSW government report.
The Hunter region has coal mines and power stations and there have been calls for a comprehensive health study in the Upper Hunter region.
The report seems to confirm the need for such a study, for the children's sake.
2010-04-09
Brumby health plan deserves careful analysis
Comments on Adam Cresswell “Self-interest rules in Premier's plan”, 9/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/self-interest-rules-in-premiers-plan/story-e6frg6zo-1225851594480
It appears unfortunately that Adam Cresswell's short piece is so short of real analysis.
Obviously it appears that Adam Cresswell is for a big highly Centralised Canberra controlled health system which would be bond to fail if the experience of the past two years or so serves any purposes.
Adam Cresswell is so quick to criticise the Brumby plan organised in a month or so for lacking of detail, but is presumably much more comfortable to the fact of the incomplete disorganised Rudd plan after two years in the making.
The 50-50 model resolves the funding and costs issues altogether. It also makes it clear who is responsible for any issues in providing health services, that is squarely the States. It deserves much more analysis than Adam Cresswell has poorly done.
If Victoria is efficient in providing health services, why should it hand over to Commonwealth, a proven failed service provider? The Victoria health system is not broken. Most of the unmet needs can arguably attributed to the lack of adequate funding from the Commonwealth. So what is the case for Commonwealth to take an efficient provider?
It begs belief how Adam Cresswell can so casually dismiss an alternative health plan in such a short and empty piece devoid of any analysis?
Isn’t better that we have some competition on plans for reforming the health system? Isn’t better that the nation is not fall into hostage of Rudd’s confrontational threat to the States? Where is Rudd’s earlier claim for a cooperative federation?
Why is Adam Cresswell so undemocratic?
Adam Cresswell probably needs to go back to school to get some sense and sensibility.
It appears unfortunately that Adam Cresswell's short piece is so short of real analysis.
Obviously it appears that Adam Cresswell is for a big highly Centralised Canberra controlled health system which would be bond to fail if the experience of the past two years or so serves any purposes.
Adam Cresswell is so quick to criticise the Brumby plan organised in a month or so for lacking of detail, but is presumably much more comfortable to the fact of the incomplete disorganised Rudd plan after two years in the making.
The 50-50 model resolves the funding and costs issues altogether. It also makes it clear who is responsible for any issues in providing health services, that is squarely the States. It deserves much more analysis than Adam Cresswell has poorly done.
If Victoria is efficient in providing health services, why should it hand over to Commonwealth, a proven failed service provider? The Victoria health system is not broken. Most of the unmet needs can arguably attributed to the lack of adequate funding from the Commonwealth. So what is the case for Commonwealth to take an efficient provider?
It begs belief how Adam Cresswell can so casually dismiss an alternative health plan in such a short and empty piece devoid of any analysis?
Isn’t better that we have some competition on plans for reforming the health system? Isn’t better that the nation is not fall into hostage of Rudd’s confrontational threat to the States? Where is Rudd’s earlier claim for a cooperative federation?
Why is Adam Cresswell so undemocratic?
Adam Cresswell probably needs to go back to school to get some sense and sensibility.
2010-04-08
Strategy for funding nation's healthcare
Comments on Arthur Sinodinos “Health strategy at risk from political tactics”, 8/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/health-strategy-at-risk-from-political-tactics/story-e6frg6zo-1225851108116
On population issue, it seems better to have any Treasury analysis as a feed and input to better and more informed debate among the public, rather than the basis for government policy making.
Besides, it also seems better to sponsor some independent research organisations to do the analysis, as opposed to or along side Treasury's. Treasury may be perceived as somewhat politically influenced, as opposed to independently done. That will not be very good for the nation.
Secondly on health, the first thing is to create an environment in which people can have longer working life as life expectancy increases, if they so choose. That will create more wealth available that people can use for retirement and health as well. Interestingly, it could be the case that while people are engaged in work, their health status might be better than otherwise that will reduce health costs.
As to the funding of healthcare, given the likely increase costs and the need to have good care but contain the costs, it will be much better if there is explicit link between the healthcare costs and a specific healthcare or medicare levy. The more transparent the link between the two is the better for the public to make the choice between the tradeoff of costs and care and contribute to the reduction of costs.
Further, the idea of individual accounts of healthcare charge is not a bad idea, but clearly there are alternatives that could be even better.
For example, if the explicit link between healthcare levy and total healthcare costs is made, the idea of healthcare rebate can be used to encourage unnecessary spending on health and contain the costs of total healthcare, if an entitled person has not spent. The rebate level can vary according to a number of factors, such as age.
Such a system has the advantage of being simpler and fairer or more equitable.
On population issue, it seems better to have any Treasury analysis as a feed and input to better and more informed debate among the public, rather than the basis for government policy making.
Besides, it also seems better to sponsor some independent research organisations to do the analysis, as opposed to or along side Treasury's. Treasury may be perceived as somewhat politically influenced, as opposed to independently done. That will not be very good for the nation.
Secondly on health, the first thing is to create an environment in which people can have longer working life as life expectancy increases, if they so choose. That will create more wealth available that people can use for retirement and health as well. Interestingly, it could be the case that while people are engaged in work, their health status might be better than otherwise that will reduce health costs.
As to the funding of healthcare, given the likely increase costs and the need to have good care but contain the costs, it will be much better if there is explicit link between the healthcare costs and a specific healthcare or medicare levy. The more transparent the link between the two is the better for the public to make the choice between the tradeoff of costs and care and contribute to the reduction of costs.
Further, the idea of individual accounts of healthcare charge is not a bad idea, but clearly there are alternatives that could be even better.
For example, if the explicit link between healthcare levy and total healthcare costs is made, the idea of healthcare rebate can be used to encourage unnecessary spending on health and contain the costs of total healthcare, if an entitled person has not spent. The rebate level can vary according to a number of factors, such as age.
Such a system has the advantage of being simpler and fairer or more equitable.
2009-09-10
A good move by the senate to reject the health bill
The following ABS report says that the senate has rejected the government's bill to change the private health insurance scheme and the medicare levy. That is good news.
The government has a mean spirit against middle and high income people and deny people's equal rights to public hospitals. It is a bad policy based on old dated Labour ideology. It should be defeated and it was.
See the report: "Senate rejects private health changes", 9/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/09/2681382.htm?section=justin
The government has a mean spirit against middle and high income people and deny people's equal rights to public hospitals. It is a bad policy based on old dated Labour ideology. It should be defeated and it was.
See the report: "Senate rejects private health changes", 9/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/09/2681382.htm?section=justin
2009-09-02
Tobacco tax to make pack of cigarettes $30 is crazy
Comments on Christian Kerr “Higher taxes a poor shield”, 2/09/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/higher_taxes_a_poor_shield/
Kerr asks a question that whether the Preventative Health Taskforce report to recommend very high taxes on tobacco and alcohol is just a revenue grab or cultural snobbery and his answer is it if both. That is likely to be true, because it is very attempting for government to increase revenue and be seen as doing good for the society’s health.
If the government embraces the recommendation that imposes high taxes to make tobacco packs cost $30 or more, that would be a popular but not a rational approach to public policy.
Taxes on tobacco or alcohol should not be too punitive and go beyond the externalities that consumption of those goods generates. An economically sound tax on a good that has a negative externality to the society should be enough to counter that externality. In the tobacco case, the benchmark is the additional health costs that consumption of cigarettes causes to the nation, such as losses in normal well being and treating any illnesses due to tobacco.
We have a Henry review going on at present and its recommendations will be made at the end of the year. Presumably, its rationale or designing principles are based on the economic foundation. It would be ill-advised to depart from good tax design principles to pursue for reasons of popularism.
The health minister should and must act with caution regarding to the Taskforce’s recommendations on taxes as solutions to health problems and goes too far beyond economic reasons.
Kerr asks a question that whether the Preventative Health Taskforce report to recommend very high taxes on tobacco and alcohol is just a revenue grab or cultural snobbery and his answer is it if both. That is likely to be true, because it is very attempting for government to increase revenue and be seen as doing good for the society’s health.
If the government embraces the recommendation that imposes high taxes to make tobacco packs cost $30 or more, that would be a popular but not a rational approach to public policy.
Taxes on tobacco or alcohol should not be too punitive and go beyond the externalities that consumption of those goods generates. An economically sound tax on a good that has a negative externality to the society should be enough to counter that externality. In the tobacco case, the benchmark is the additional health costs that consumption of cigarettes causes to the nation, such as losses in normal well being and treating any illnesses due to tobacco.
We have a Henry review going on at present and its recommendations will be made at the end of the year. Presumably, its rationale or designing principles are based on the economic foundation. It would be ill-advised to depart from good tax design principles to pursue for reasons of popularism.
The health minister should and must act with caution regarding to the Taskforce’s recommendations on taxes as solutions to health problems and goes too far beyond economic reasons.
2009-07-25
Abbott solution to federation no solution
Comments on Paul Kelly “A blueprint for rule” – comments on Tony Abbott’s new book, 25/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25831896-12250,00.html
Mr Abbott experienced some of the problems of the Australian federation and seemed to be frustrated, not only or necessarily by those problems or failures, but by the Liberals loss at the last federal election in 2007.
His solution appears to be a response to Rudd’s election promise of a national takeover of public hospitals from the States if they do improve by the middle of 2009.
Both reflect Abbott’s further failure as a federal politician and his inability to lead the national health portfolio. It is regrettable for him and for the nation.
As a result, both Abbott’s diagnose of the problems or failures and his solution are knee-jerking reactions, as opposed to careful analysis and true leadership based on a rational vision for a better Australian federation.
There is neither a need to change the Australia constitution, nor an abolition of States, nor an increase of the Federal government. There are better and more effective solutions.
For example, the national public hospital system has mostly been funded by federal healthcare grants, a special purpose payment (SPP). The national government should have been able to specify conditions for State governments to meet, or to make changes by the federal government. The federal government have the power to do it and there is no need to change the constitution or federation.
Even for other untied federal grants to the States, the federal government should be able to change them to SPPs and attach conditions.
Australia federation works reasonably well in international standards. Short term politics should not be used to change the constitution.
Abbott had a nice try, but that was not enough.
Mr Abbott experienced some of the problems of the Australian federation and seemed to be frustrated, not only or necessarily by those problems or failures, but by the Liberals loss at the last federal election in 2007.
His solution appears to be a response to Rudd’s election promise of a national takeover of public hospitals from the States if they do improve by the middle of 2009.
Both reflect Abbott’s further failure as a federal politician and his inability to lead the national health portfolio. It is regrettable for him and for the nation.
As a result, both Abbott’s diagnose of the problems or failures and his solution are knee-jerking reactions, as opposed to careful analysis and true leadership based on a rational vision for a better Australian federation.
There is neither a need to change the Australia constitution, nor an abolition of States, nor an increase of the Federal government. There are better and more effective solutions.
For example, the national public hospital system has mostly been funded by federal healthcare grants, a special purpose payment (SPP). The national government should have been able to specify conditions for State governments to meet, or to make changes by the federal government. The federal government have the power to do it and there is no need to change the constitution or federation.
Even for other untied federal grants to the States, the federal government should be able to change them to SPPs and attach conditions.
Australia federation works reasonably well in international standards. Short term politics should not be used to change the constitution.
Abbott had a nice try, but that was not enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
