- August 21, 2017 at 12:28 pm #1637739
Hero42MemberMember since: July 18, 2008
I see the poll of polls has the Labour Greens coalition level with National.
This follows the UMR poll showing Labour rising in the polls and National continuing to slide.
Trends say a lot.
Cheers 🙂August 21, 2017 at 12:30 pm #1637740
huiatahiMemberMember since: March 22, 2017
That is what pensioners are charged whether they have any other income or not. I think it is completely unfair on low income people who happen to live in an area that has been designated by govt as a wealthy area….something needs to change
huiatahiAugust 22, 2017 at 12:51 pm #1637902
Our Dr is $50,(more if not enrolled there) & I’ve heard of people paying as much as $90,or as little as $17.
Perhaps we’d do better to at least pay for Drs visits with taxes;that would have some obvious benefits all round since everyone could then access a Dr immediately.
The system we have now is an unfair one.August 22, 2017 at 1:18 pm #1637908
Guess we should remember doctors are business owners, or employed by business owners, and the prices charged for their expertise and services is up to them.
The govt contracts them to provide services at $x and allows a little extra to be charged on top of that – an amount set by the ‘social decile’ of the area where the practice is located.
Some of the most expensive GP practices are entirely private. GPs have the choice of working within the public health system or in the private health system.
The poor or those on fixed low incomes are penalised for living, going to school, or to a doctor in a high income area when funding is dependent on deciles .
I actually believe doctors and dentists for that matter, should have to choose either one or the other; the public or the private health system, with no ability to work both sides of the street at the same time.
Both systems offer worthwhile benefits for patients and practitioners IMO.
🌊Arandar🏄🏽♀️August 23, 2017 at 11:41 am #1638014
If it was up to me I’d probably take it further & do away with private health altogether,pay for health,housing & welfare with higher taxes. It would mean we’d have less spending money in hand but there’d be less coming out.
And the stress of providing healthcare,housing etc would be removed – which has to be a health benefit.
Those who live in highly taxed countries often tend to come near the top of hose ‘happiest people’ lists.August 23, 2017 at 2:33 pm #1638067
I see no problem with a mix of public and private service providers.
I truly believe the two should be independent of each other.
Let the public service provide for the public at whatever cost/price is determined by the elected govt (and thus the taxpayers) of the day.
Let business provide for its customers at whatever cost/price it can wring out of them. I would expect the private systems, eg health to be required to self fund the full complement of health services; ie primary, secondary and tertiary. There should be no dumping of the high risk/high cost procedures and the botchups and failures back into the public health service’s A&E, ICU, & Hi-dependency units.
And, I’d suggest, if a NZ trained health professional chose to work in the private sector, let them then work to pay back the public education system that subsidised their medical training.
Let the public choose its provider – but let them insure or pay for the services received.
🌊Arandar🏄🏽♀️August 24, 2017 at 10:37 am #1638198
While I do like the idea of trained health professionals in the private sector working to repay the public education system,I’m not so sure a dual system is a good idea.
If we were really going to make changes,we’d probably do best to have a look at what other countries do that works well & emulate that,making small adaptations where needed.
But I really can’t see that happening – I think probably the health system will just continue to be patched up in a haphazard fashion rather than getting the massive overhaul it needs.August 24, 2017 at 11:20 am #1638201
As I say, doctors and other health professionals are private business people working in the public sector.
In a vital, life and death, part of the public sector and IMO, most of them won’t vote for or allow, a total overhaul of how they earn their livings.
That’s why I can only see offering them a choice of one or t’other is the only other way forward bar continuing the status quo.
The other thing is, the demands upon and cost of the health service are going to increase exponentially until the boomers, like me, die off.
I think, it is beholden on any responsible govt to regulate and prioritise the health spend.
I think Pharmac does a great job and its role, independent of politicians and lobbyists, should be expanded.
🌊Arandar🏄🏽♀️August 24, 2017 at 12:44 pm #1638205
jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
But the increasing proportion of longer living seniors will not ease the medical (and NZ Super) costs after the “boomers” have passed.
So does it not make sense to start preparing for those increasing needs and costs now, –
by building up capital for at least partly pre-funding them, which together with the earnings (based on the profits) delivered by that pre-funded capital, transforms the future welfare sustainability concern into an economic growth and wealth creative productivity motivator – and motor ?August 24, 2017 at 5:24 pm #1638260
Considerably fewer elderly people, whether they live longer or not, should mean the demand on a future health system (or future welfare system) will be less.
Of course, there will be more costly new procedures and more expensive new medicines which may increase the cost of health provision.
However my point was more that, whatever happens in future, a responsible government must regulate and prioritise scarce and expensive public resources.
I think a responsible government will prioritise its need for say; housing, health, education, welfare and infrastructure, works out its probable spend and arranges its income according to its projected outgoings.
I am perfectly happy with a generally PAYG tax system – in the hands of a responsible government.
I see no reason why a government should not invest monies it accumulated for future spending, i.e. ACC or NZSF with the expectation of making more money but understand it might make less and could in fact lose that investment.
The fact remains. The government will be responsible, come what may, to meet the health needs of current and future citizens. Every election to date, and every survey, show there are not many NZers who would choose an entirely privatised health system.
And if NZers want to save a little of their income each month towards their own possible future health cares they already can; it’s called Health Insurance.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.