Related Articles

5 Comments

  1. 1

    Ben Harris-Roxas

    It was nice to hear health policy being debated at some length and it clarified more of the Government’s position. Given the length of the debate a little more examination of some of the details of the Government’s proposals would have been nice. Programmatic specificity remains elusive.

    Prevention didn’t get much of a look in, which surprised me a little as I thought this would have been an effective tactic for the Prime Minister to get under Mr Abbott’s skin during the debate given his previously stated strong opinions on the subject.

    On an unrelated note, The Drum must have one of the strangest group of commenters of any Australian website. The comments on the story you linked to (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2853766.htm) were odd. For example:

    “So whose is the very first opinion published in this ABC run-down? ‘Professor Stephen Leeder, Director, Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney’ The Menzies Centre! A dead give away. The bloke is a LIBERAL – and receives first-billing at their ABC. Funny that!”

    I actually don’t know what Steve’s personal politics are but suggesting the Menzies Centre for Health Policy is some sort of Liberal Party think tank is ridiculous.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Jane Salmon

    I think it clarified zip. The Feds can’t trust the states. But rely on bean counters.

    We have people who can’t administrate their way out a wet paper bag (Rudd’s team of spotty young advisers) versus a guy who blows out the budget by $1billion on counsellors, (people who ask “How does that make you feel?” and charge you $150 to shut up and leave).

    If the original problem was that you can’t afford a house or fresh fruit or got golden staph in a public hospitals or that the chemo drugs are not on PBS, then you’re as cactus as the rest of the mental health system.

    How about we develop a government owned medical technology and drug company or sixty to help us claw our way back into surplus??

    Reply
  3. 3

    Jane Salmon

    It seems impossible that any serious debate or policy on health can overlook concepts like quality, research, unions and indigenous IMRs. The vague intention to improve hospitals by avoiding duplication, granting self-determination and yet centralising spending has the average punter flummoxed. It clearly has Rudd in a bit of blur too. On the other hand sow-your-wild-oats but-lock-up-your-daughters Abbott would just send us to private hospitals, cut spending on public health and tell us to wait in the gutter.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey