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.
2010-04-08
Understand poplation statistics and population issues
Comments on Bernard Salt “Making sense of population push”, 8/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/making-sense-of-population-push/story-e6frg9gx-1225851117721
If Salt's reasoning and argument is true, then there is a case to distinguish between temporary and permanent residents in Australia from ABS population statistics.
If that information is clearly disseminated and understood, the public, bureaucrats and politicians can make a better debate on what is the optimal population level and how to plan and manage population growth in the future.
Further the argument of overseas students by Salt appears incomplete, because while there are more comings, there should generally be more leavings as well, leaving the net increase of overseas students not that high.
There must be something else that Salt either ignored or neglected. I guess it could be the increase in the graduates from overseas students in Australia to become permanent residents or at least allowed to stay temporarily longer.
In order for the public to make sense of population issues, we need the public to understand important information behind population statistics.
If Salt's reasoning and argument is true, then there is a case to distinguish between temporary and permanent residents in Australia from ABS population statistics.
If that information is clearly disseminated and understood, the public, bureaucrats and politicians can make a better debate on what is the optimal population level and how to plan and manage population growth in the future.
Further the argument of overseas students by Salt appears incomplete, because while there are more comings, there should generally be more leavings as well, leaving the net increase of overseas students not that high.
There must be something else that Salt either ignored or neglected. I guess it could be the increase in the graduates from overseas students in Australia to become permanent residents or at least allowed to stay temporarily longer.
In order for the public to make sense of population issues, we need the public to understand important information behind population statistics.
2010-04-07
Hetherington sings praises for Rudd and Co
Comments on David Hetherington “Labor wins vote of confidence on economic management”, 7/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-wins-vote-of-confidence-on-economic-management/story-e6frg6zo-1225850657938
One must be wondering if Hetherington is doing an advertisement for the government or on the government's behalf!
He attempts to rationalise what the government has done and sugar coat them. He states that
"Labor has built its claim to economic competence on three pillars: first, its response to the global economic crisis; second, national infrastructure investment to lift productivity; and, third, the use of market mechanisms to deliver public goods and services."
He then used cash handouts for the first pillar, $16 billion for BER and $5 billion for social housing for the second and a number of policies for the last.
But do they hold any water? Firstly, cash handouts are inferior to a cash subsidy to consumption purchases, because people save part of them. Secondly, the Australian has exposed many rorts with the BER that suggests 20-30% of it may have been wasted. Social housing, look at what has happened to the NT Indigenous housing program. Lastly, market mechanism, where is it, apart from Rudd government's big government approach and big welfare spending?
Hetehrington must have forgotten what Rudd's essay in Feb 2009 was about, or he has conveniently hidden it under the carpet!
Then I realised that Hetherington is the executive director of Per Capita, a progressive think tank!
No wonder he is singing high praises!
One must be wondering if Hetherington is doing an advertisement for the government or on the government's behalf!
He attempts to rationalise what the government has done and sugar coat them. He states that
"Labor has built its claim to economic competence on three pillars: first, its response to the global economic crisis; second, national infrastructure investment to lift productivity; and, third, the use of market mechanisms to deliver public goods and services."
He then used cash handouts for the first pillar, $16 billion for BER and $5 billion for social housing for the second and a number of policies for the last.
But do they hold any water? Firstly, cash handouts are inferior to a cash subsidy to consumption purchases, because people save part of them. Secondly, the Australian has exposed many rorts with the BER that suggests 20-30% of it may have been wasted. Social housing, look at what has happened to the NT Indigenous housing program. Lastly, market mechanism, where is it, apart from Rudd government's big government approach and big welfare spending?
Hetehrington must have forgotten what Rudd's essay in Feb 2009 was about, or he has conveniently hidden it under the carpet!
Then I realised that Hetherington is the executive director of Per Capita, a progressive think tank!
No wonder he is singing high praises!
Australian scientists using lasers to create clean nuclear energy
ABC report "Lasers could create clean nuclear energy", 6/04/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865472.htm?section=justin
The following is the first section of the report:
An Australian-led team of scientists may have found a way of creating a cheap and abundant source of clean energy through nuclear fusion.
The process could generate no radioactivity and produce little pollution.
The scientists have used computer models to simulate nuclear fusion without the extreme temperatures currently needed for other fusion methods.
Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora, of the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of New South Wales, is leading the research effort, and says the process relies on a new generation of extremely powerful and very fast lasers being developed.
"The key is a very carefully controlled extremely short laser pulse essential for ignition. The pulse would ignite a fuel made of ordinary hydrogen and boron-11," Professor Hora said.
"The idea of a hydrogen and boron fusion reaction is interesting because it wouldn't cause neutron production. Neutrons are a problem because they generate radioactivity."
The team's findings appear in the journal Energy and Environmental Science.
Professor Hora says his team was originally developing computer models using next generation lasers to duplicate the work being done at the new $4.34 billion National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States.
The US scientists are developing what is currently the world's largest laser to ignite highly compressed spheres of deuterium-tritium fuel in a nuclear fusion reaction.
The second section starts with the following:
Fast and furious
The laser can produce a pulse of a few billionths of a second duration which produces 500 times more power than all US power stations combined.
If that is true and confirmed, then it will be good for human bings in terms of energy and dealing with climate change.
The following is the first section of the report:
An Australian-led team of scientists may have found a way of creating a cheap and abundant source of clean energy through nuclear fusion.
The process could generate no radioactivity and produce little pollution.
The scientists have used computer models to simulate nuclear fusion without the extreme temperatures currently needed for other fusion methods.
Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora, of the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of New South Wales, is leading the research effort, and says the process relies on a new generation of extremely powerful and very fast lasers being developed.
"The key is a very carefully controlled extremely short laser pulse essential for ignition. The pulse would ignite a fuel made of ordinary hydrogen and boron-11," Professor Hora said.
"The idea of a hydrogen and boron fusion reaction is interesting because it wouldn't cause neutron production. Neutrons are a problem because they generate radioactivity."
The team's findings appear in the journal Energy and Environmental Science.
Professor Hora says his team was originally developing computer models using next generation lasers to duplicate the work being done at the new $4.34 billion National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States.
The US scientists are developing what is currently the world's largest laser to ignite highly compressed spheres of deuterium-tritium fuel in a nuclear fusion reaction.
The second section starts with the following:
Fast and furious
The laser can produce a pulse of a few billionths of a second duration which produces 500 times more power than all US power stations combined.
If that is true and confirmed, then it will be good for human bings in terms of energy and dealing with climate change.
2010-04-06
Percy Allan has an excellent idea in government governance
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “How to defuse population bomb”, 6/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/how-to-defuse-population-bomb/story-e6frg6zo-1225850074371
Percy Allan's idea of a state funded network of public, not-for-profit and private organisations to serve the public, which are then held to account against agreed yardsticks, is excellent.
I have long thought that the current parliament politics of democracy has significant shortcomings, as manifested in many problems with the federal government's stimulus programs and spending.
A better and more ideal governance could be government sets the directions based on advices and then leave the implementations such as when, where and how to spend, to independent agencies.
Publicly funded independent organisations can also inform the public and taxpayers on government directions and priorities, assisting in their understanding and evaluation on whether they are good or not.
Much of the current public services could be transformed to those types of publicly funded independent organisations accountable to parliament as opposed to government of the day.
With a strong network of independent public organisations, taxpayers’ money will be better spend, public policies will be more effective and efficiently implemented, the short term, myopic and partisan approach of the current political system can be overcome.
The governance of the government and political parties will be improved significantly.
Percy Allan's idea of a state funded network of public, not-for-profit and private organisations to serve the public, which are then held to account against agreed yardsticks, is excellent.
I have long thought that the current parliament politics of democracy has significant shortcomings, as manifested in many problems with the federal government's stimulus programs and spending.
A better and more ideal governance could be government sets the directions based on advices and then leave the implementations such as when, where and how to spend, to independent agencies.
Publicly funded independent organisations can also inform the public and taxpayers on government directions and priorities, assisting in their understanding and evaluation on whether they are good or not.
Much of the current public services could be transformed to those types of publicly funded independent organisations accountable to parliament as opposed to government of the day.
With a strong network of independent public organisations, taxpayers’ money will be better spend, public policies will be more effective and efficiently implemented, the short term, myopic and partisan approach of the current political system can be overcome.
The governance of the government and political parties will be improved significantly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
