Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
Howard Stinks
Post
by Howard Stinks » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:40 pm
IQSRLOW wrote:Krudd will end up throwing a bucket of money at the states because he will want to walk out of COAG looking like he is the supreme negotiator. He's been throwing crumbs up until now to make it look like a positive outcome will be difficult but at COAG he will fold like a cheap suit.
Nothing positive for health will come from it, just another layer of bureaucracy and Krudd will trumpet that he is so fucking wonderful.
Only fuckwits believe that this govt is capable of doing anything except throwing money around for fuck all
If you think the Health System is fuck all, you are a true Lieberal.
Anyhow enjoy Barnsey.
Jimmy Barnes sings Working Class Man
Proud to be one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65M9jzUB ... re=related
-
donniedarko
Post
by donniedarko » Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:51 pm
And so the Liberal state is the only one not to sign up to the biggest health reform since Medicare.
Part of me wishes Rudd would just say 'OK WA you're on your own.....don't come crying to me (Labor) in 15 years when all your state revenue is consumed by health costs'.
But there really can't be two funding systems in Australia, so it's really a given that WA will cave - just a matter of what they will accept during their additional talks this week.
-
donniedarko
Post
by donniedarko » Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm
A while ago I wrote about the hospitals reform agenda, and said it wasn't all that clear what the overall benefits were going to be.
This has changed, as the Commonwealth has outlined the clear targets that must be met in order to receive the federal $$ windfall:
- clear targets for Emergency Dept waits
- clear targets for waiting times for Elective surgery
- semi-clear targets for medical training (ie you can't pump out more doctors unless the training system also expands, and the hospitals just can't accommodate any more medical students on placements)
These targets make good sense, but as always, tend to concentrate on the acute hospital system rather than primary care. Unfortunately, it's the acute hospitals that create the most media attention (in Qld, you can substitute 'Courier Mail' frenzy), so that's the main downer of the reform. But, time will tell. This is a great first step towards at least making sure we can afford public health in 15 years time. Hopefully the next steps will be towards making the public healthier for longer.
-
Ned Kelly
Post
by Ned Kelly » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:07 pm
Darth, how does the proposed Rudd programme impact on the current State management infrastructure?
-
donniedarko
Post
by donniedarko » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:13 pm
Ned Kelly wrote:Darth, how does the proposed Rudd programme impact on the current State management infrastructure?
No-one really knows.
The Commonwealth has stated that the responsibility for service planning lies solely on the states. What remains to be seen is just how much autonomy the Local Hospitals Networks have in terms of monitoring their progress against Commonwealth targets and the role of the 'independent' pricing body that keeps being mentioned with respect to setting efficient prices for treatments.
But, it's all too early to say. Rest assured, state tax-payer, that the state health bureaucracy will not be shrinking any time soon.
-
Aussie
Post
by Aussie » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:20 pm
Darth Revan wrote:Ned Kelly wrote:Darth, how does the proposed Rudd programme impact on the current State management infrastructure?
No-one really knows.
The Commonwealth has stated that the responsibility for service planning lies solely on the states. What remains to be seen is just how much autonomy the Local Hospitals Networks have in terms of monitoring their progress against Commonwealth targets and the role of the 'independent' pricing body that keeps being mentioned with respect to setting efficient prices for treatments.
But, it's all too early to say. Rest assured, state tax-payer, that the state health bureaucracy will not be shrinking any time soon.
So, which bureaucracy will shrink?
-
donniedarko
Post
by donniedarko » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:23 pm
Neither.
The Commonwealth Dept of Health and Ageing will have to grow, but their won't be any redundancies in state health depts. They will probably need more people at local level to manage the new budgets and any new reporting requirements to the Commonwealth.
Aussie - they will always need someone to count your A+E waiting times
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fb05b/fb05bc028ecaa72784dbeb01e5bda46b11cdd345" alt="Smile :)"
-
TomB
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:04 pm
Post
by TomB » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:39 pm
You vote, you lose!
-
J.W. Frogen
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:11 pm
Post
by J.W. Frogen » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:16 am
You know given that we really are the only state in Australia that if left alone would not run a trade deficit there is some merit in the proposition that the the rest of you just openly steal from us for a change.
-
J.W. Frogen
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:11 pm
Post
by J.W. Frogen » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:19 am
Mind you we are not smart, we just got lucky. WA is truly the lucky country, we have every rock the Middle Kingdom wants and talking dolphins too.
You can swim with them but be careful not to get your balls too close to their blow holes, it turns them on.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 64 guests