Comments on Jennifer Hewett “Non-delivery on policy makes Labor vulnerable”, 2/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/non-delivery-on-policy-makes-labor-vulnerable/story-e6frg9if-1225835850302
So far from some of the leaks on Rudd health reform plan seem to suggest that it is likely to be equally disappointing, with still too many layers of bureaucracies, albeit with another layer of regional health bodies in addition to the federal and State ones.
The simple matter of fact is that the federal government should have the financial resources to take over and streamline the administration of the national health system to make it much more efficiently run.
In terms of financial resources, the federal has the health care grants and the GST resources, although the latter is untied at the moment, so the States can use as they see fit. The federal government can reach an agreement with the States to have a national health care system with the removal of States' finance and administration responsibilities by reduce the amount of GST to the States by the corresponding amount of their spending on public hospitals and healthcare, so the States are not losers.
The federal health department should not directly administer individual hospitals like Howard/Abbott did for the Tasmania one. Instead, it should be focused on standard, evaluation, training, creating the best incentives for all people involved in the system and fair funding allocation.
With the federal government taking full responsibility for all healthcare, including public hospitals, there will be no rooms for shifting blames.
How the hospitals should be run, they should be run by either their own board, or a regional board, depending on the size of the hospitals and their geographical distributions and the distribution of population. Those boards should be elected or selected by their regional population and healthcare professionals, especially those in the hospitals.
The department sign service agreement with those individual boards.
How can it evaluate the system? It can use independent bodies, such as the Productivity Commission, in conjunction with AMA and representatives from the relevant bodies. Funding should be based on independent evaluations.
Is that difficult? No, it is not. There is only 23 million people in Australia, the size of a large cities in some very populous countries. Why should it be difficult to run healthcare for such a population?
Why the Rudd government thinks it is difficult? Who knows?
2010-03-02
Make appropriate adjsutments to the stimulus now
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Forget about rescuing us from recession, just repair the deficit”, 2/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/forget-about-rescuing-us-from-recession-just-repair-the-deficit/story-e6frg6zo-1225835814383
It is only a natural and responsible action to adjust policies when the circumstances have changed. This is particularly true in relation to the stimulus programs.
In that light, it is not only that Rudd/Swan should make adjustments to the original stimulus, but a must for them to do to be a responsible government and good economic manager.
The emergence has been over for quite some time, and some of the hastily organised programs with quick action and quick effects in mind have lost all of their rationale to be quick and hasty, at expense of long term effectiveness and value for taxpayers' money.
So it is already overdue that the government needs to adjust its programs, and have the normal governance criteria in place.
So far Swan has shown to be an ineffective Treasurer. He needs to wake to the reality now and learn to be as good as the other Treasurers before him.
The crisis mentality of "go early, go hard and go households" should have been corrected.
It will not only contribute to a better management of teh economy over teh next period, but also reduce unnecessary government deficits and debt that is good for future taxpayers.
It is only a natural and responsible action to adjust policies when the circumstances have changed. This is particularly true in relation to the stimulus programs.
In that light, it is not only that Rudd/Swan should make adjustments to the original stimulus, but a must for them to do to be a responsible government and good economic manager.
The emergence has been over for quite some time, and some of the hastily organised programs with quick action and quick effects in mind have lost all of their rationale to be quick and hasty, at expense of long term effectiveness and value for taxpayers' money.
So it is already overdue that the government needs to adjust its programs, and have the normal governance criteria in place.
So far Swan has shown to be an ineffective Treasurer. He needs to wake to the reality now and learn to be as good as the other Treasurers before him.
The crisis mentality of "go early, go hard and go households" should have been corrected.
It will not only contribute to a better management of teh economy over teh next period, but also reduce unnecessary government deficits and debt that is good for future taxpayers.
On the value-based system
Comments on John Hemm “EU-China relations: Disappointment after Copenhagen”, 1/02/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/01/eu-china-relations-disappointment-after-copenhagen/
It is so interesting to see how some people may be so good intentioned sometimes or even all the times can produce so much hypocrisy in their approaches to different situations and still either do not realise that or deliberately avoid or hide that.
While I do not in any ways imply any fault with the author, the above observation can also be seen rather clearly from some points in this article.
For example, it is completely understandable to desire or even demand good governance by any governments, including foreign and sovereign governments. However, that does not equal to selective application of that principle or demand, especially by some world powers.
Kosovo is a part of such examples. The European Union countries and the United States opposed to the Serbian rule or the Serbian way of rules of Kosovo. That is still fine and I personally do not have big problems with that, if that is really fair and good for all peoples involved.
Another side of the story is the Iraq invasion. Some world powers, without a clear mandate from the UN, unilaterally invaded Iraq, under the false information of the existence of WMD. How many deaths, including how many innocent Iraqi civilians and destructions has that caused? It is not just the information was proved inadequate later on, but how the information was produced and used by those at the centre of the decisions to make the war.
So, who are responsible for those deaths and destructions?
Do those who made the decisions have any war crime responsibilities?
Or, is that good governance by any internationally accepted decent standard? Was the invasion of Iraq before or after the Kosovo intervention?
Was that for good governance or for oil or attempting to do so in Iraq?
Why didn’t the author have a balanced view of major world events?
Talking about value-based system, whose value is it? Copenhagen is a good example.
What the rich countries wanted to do is nothing more than to entrench their excessive damages to the climate.
Emissions and global warming is a typical environmental externality problem at the global scale. So the best and most fair way is to remedy that externality by applying a global emissions tax to correct the incorrect price signal and allocate the proceeds from it equally among the world population who should have an equal right to a good climate.
Does the EU, or any rich countries’ proposal apply that principle? Was it because no state of the rich had the intellectual to design such a proposal, or something else?
Where was the economics most people in those rich states have learnt? Was it lost or forgotten?
But on the other hand, they demanded developing countries do this and do that, and when the latter did not accept the former’s demand, then the former, in turn, blames the latter for the failure of Copenhagen.
Is that value the right value that should be used as the basis for the value-based system?
It is so interesting to see how some people may be so good intentioned sometimes or even all the times can produce so much hypocrisy in their approaches to different situations and still either do not realise that or deliberately avoid or hide that.
While I do not in any ways imply any fault with the author, the above observation can also be seen rather clearly from some points in this article.
For example, it is completely understandable to desire or even demand good governance by any governments, including foreign and sovereign governments. However, that does not equal to selective application of that principle or demand, especially by some world powers.
Kosovo is a part of such examples. The European Union countries and the United States opposed to the Serbian rule or the Serbian way of rules of Kosovo. That is still fine and I personally do not have big problems with that, if that is really fair and good for all peoples involved.
Another side of the story is the Iraq invasion. Some world powers, without a clear mandate from the UN, unilaterally invaded Iraq, under the false information of the existence of WMD. How many deaths, including how many innocent Iraqi civilians and destructions has that caused? It is not just the information was proved inadequate later on, but how the information was produced and used by those at the centre of the decisions to make the war.
So, who are responsible for those deaths and destructions?
Do those who made the decisions have any war crime responsibilities?
Or, is that good governance by any internationally accepted decent standard? Was the invasion of Iraq before or after the Kosovo intervention?
Was that for good governance or for oil or attempting to do so in Iraq?
Why didn’t the author have a balanced view of major world events?
Talking about value-based system, whose value is it? Copenhagen is a good example.
What the rich countries wanted to do is nothing more than to entrench their excessive damages to the climate.
Emissions and global warming is a typical environmental externality problem at the global scale. So the best and most fair way is to remedy that externality by applying a global emissions tax to correct the incorrect price signal and allocate the proceeds from it equally among the world population who should have an equal right to a good climate.
Does the EU, or any rich countries’ proposal apply that principle? Was it because no state of the rich had the intellectual to design such a proposal, or something else?
Where was the economics most people in those rich states have learnt? Was it lost or forgotten?
But on the other hand, they demanded developing countries do this and do that, and when the latter did not accept the former’s demand, then the former, in turn, blames the latter for the failure of Copenhagen.
Is that value the right value that should be used as the basis for the value-based system?
2010-03-01
A fiscal and political strategy for Greece current woes
Comments on Karen Maley “Will traders catch Spanish flu?” 1/03/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Will-traders-catch-Spanish-flu-pd20100301-34RWV?OpenDocument&src=sph
Why don't the Greek government design a clever fiscal strategy to make its balance sheet or finance better without relying too much on government bond?
For example, the government can increase the taxes of all sources temporally for a period, and return the tax in the future with a set interest.
This would act as compulsory borrowing from its taxpayers.
It should be the best fiscal and political strategy and there are hardly any other strategies that are better.
While politically it is not without difficulties, it should be a reasonable political strategy to sell it to the taxpayers. People are rational.
Why don't the Greek government design a clever fiscal strategy to make its balance sheet or finance better without relying too much on government bond?
For example, the government can increase the taxes of all sources temporally for a period, and return the tax in the future with a set interest.
This would act as compulsory borrowing from its taxpayers.
It should be the best fiscal and political strategy and there are hardly any other strategies that are better.
While politically it is not without difficulties, it should be a reasonable political strategy to sell it to the taxpayers. People are rational.
Australia's trade deficits: terms of trade, productivity and macroeconomic policy
Comments on Adam Carr “SCOREBOARD: Import binge”, 1/03/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/SCOREBOARD-Import-binge-pd20100301-355KJ?OpenDocument&src=sph
While Carr sees a rosy short term picture from trade, especially imports, the authorities need to think about policy issues on how to balance trade over the longer term.
It is not so rosy if looking at the fact that Australia's trade advantage in terms of terms of trade is probably above the historical average and its resources exports are good, but there are still fairly large trade deficits.
Both macro and micro economic policies need to pay attention to this situation.
We need to raise our productivity and international competitiveness.
That is where hard work has to be done.
There are implications for both monetary and fiscal policies.
While Carr sees a rosy short term picture from trade, especially imports, the authorities need to think about policy issues on how to balance trade over the longer term.
It is not so rosy if looking at the fact that Australia's trade advantage in terms of terms of trade is probably above the historical average and its resources exports are good, but there are still fairly large trade deficits.
Both macro and micro economic policies need to pay attention to this situation.
We need to raise our productivity and international competitiveness.
That is where hard work has to be done.
There are implications for both monetary and fiscal policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
