Govt Health Care (split from state politics thread)

[Rosy]

Re: Re: State Government

Come on Rosy the was just a little on the snide side. As I said over 5 years later.

Take it as you like. You don't seem to think comparing situations gives a measure of the direction we're heading in but I do. OK?

Considering you seem to pigeon hole people as supporters of one party or another tell me are you a Liberal supporter? You sound like an offended parent whose kid has been questioned. :hihi

 

[Willo]

Re: Re: State Government

I disagree. If I'm about to have the opportunity to vote for a party I'd like to be as informed as possible about how they have performed.

"Can Health care be improved" seems like a rhetorical question to me. I doubt there's any area where a government can't improve our situation.

We weren't talking about an election. It was about Health care.
A rhetorical question? But you "doubt there's any area where a government can't improve our situation."
So is that a "yes" you agree Health care can be improved?

 

[Willo]

Re: Re: Re: State Government

What happened?

 

[Rosy]

Re: Re: Re: State Government

We weren't talking about an election. It was about Health care.
A rhetorical question? But you "doubt there's any area where a government can't improve our situation."
So is that a "yes" you agree Health care can be improved?

You are the weirdest poster on the politic board willo. Health care to me is a very important issue and one I'd like to be informed about when I have the opportunity to vote. Not sure why you take issues with that.

Of course it is a yes that health care can be improved. Do you seriously think anyone would consider it couldn't? It will never, ever be at a situation where it can't be improved. Very strange posting.

 

[Willo]

Re: Re: State Government

Take it as you like. You don't seem to think comparing situations gives a measure of the direction we're heading in but I do. OK?

Considering you seem to pigeon hole people as supporters of one party or another tell me are you a Liberal supporter? You sound like an offended parent whose kid has been questioned. :hihi

Good I will. You can also do as you like.
Comparing a situation from over 5 years ago to now when cuts in Health care, good luck. Better to see if current levels of funding are adequately serving the people who need treatment.

Geez and you accuse others of being condescending..
Show me where I pigeon hole people as supporters of one party or another....
What does it matter who I support? Depends whether it's State or Fed, I've voted Labour and CP at State level before as I believed the local candidate was a better choice, but at Fed level I generally take a look at the bigger picture. Depends on what's on offer. So, I'm a "swinging " voter. Maybe I'll join the T.E.A. Party.
But funny how you claim to not "support" any political party. But come out guns blazing anytime Gillard or Labour are mentioned. That's obvious to all by your posting (just in case I'm asked, I won't provide any links, people can use the "Search" function)

As to your last sentence... just another potshot.

You are the weirdest poster on the politic board willo. Health care to me is a very important issue and one I'd like to be informed about when I have the opportunity to vote. Not sure why you take issues with that.

Of course it is a yes that health care can be improved. Do you seriously think anyone would consider it couldn't? It will never, ever be at a situation where it can't be improved. Very strange posting.

Ease up, weird on the "political board". I find that offensive, I'm weird on more than that. ;D
Just for your information just about anyone who posts on the "political board" would have to be.

It took a while to answer, so you agree. Good. No cuts to funding, however they're spun, by State or Feds. Exactly what I was saying.

 

[poppa x]

We have 6 State Departments of Health, and 2 Territory Departments of Health.
And we have a Federal Department of Health.
Seems to me that's a lot of Departments with lots of staff, lots of dollars, lots of resources and lots of big expensive buildings all essentially doing the same thing; i.e. trying to fund our health care system.
I wonder how much of our total health care budget is spent on bureaucrats?
Isn't the solution obvious?
A single Department with total responsibility?

Ditto Education.

 

[Legends of 2017]

We have 6 State Departments of Health, and 2 Territory Departments of Health.
And we have a Federal Department of Health.
Seems to me that's a lot of Departments with lots of staff, lots of dollars, lots of resources and lots of big expensive buildings all essentially doing the same thing; i.e. trying to fund our health care system.
I wonder how much of our total health care budget is spent on bureaucrats?
Isn't the solution obvious?
A single Department with total responsibility?

Ditto Education.

Stop talking sense Poppa. This is politics/beauracracy we are talking about.

 

[Rosy]

A single Department with total responsibility?

Ditto Education.

Sounds good. Who would make up the department and who would fund it?

 

[poppa x]

The Federal Government Rosy in a sort of variation of KRudd's Health Plan.
I imagine an increase in Federal Bureacrats would be needed, but this woould be more than offset by closure of the State and Territory Departments.
Cost?
This is the big issue as no Government Department - State or Federal - wants to lose funding, or worse, be closed down. And the bureaucrats will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
The way I see it, the States "save" heaps by closing their Departments down, and this is offset by a reduction in the GST revenue they get from the Feds, which also allows the Feds to pay for their bigger Department.
It's alll very logical but will never happen because the Bureacrats and Politicians want to increase their power/funding - not reduce it. We the public have no say in whether we want it or not.

I'm reminded of an episode of "Yes Minister" when the Minister queried Sir Humphrey on the cost/benefit of a new hospital that had been built.
The Minister pointed out that the hospital had no (ZERO) patients and he could get political browny points by saving the taxpayer money.
Sir Humphrey was outraged because naturally he saw less funding for his precious public service if the hospital were to be closed.
Sir Humphrey however seized the moment to ask the Minister how he would explain to the public he'd be closing a hospital with (1) the best staff to patient ratios in the UK, (2) the hospital with the lowest patient complaint ratio in the UK and (3) the best equipped hospital in the UK.
The Minister was mortified and the hospital was allowed to continue with zero patients.

Although a comedy series, I see parallels in the current Federal V State battle over Health Funding.

On a similar note, but different topic, I remember the Cain/Kirner/Bracks/Brumby Governments promise to never build another Freeway in Melbourne.
However, the then South Eastern Freeway ended at Burwood Hwy, and resumed at Warrigal Rd.
In peak hour traffic motorists trying to get from Burwood Hwy to Warrigal Rd had to negotiate overcrowded side streets and main roads. There was an urgent need to connect the two freeways.
Solution? And I've no doubt a bureacrat came up with the idea - connect the two with traffic lights at each end, and have a 60km/h curfew at night. Then call it an "Arterial" not a Freeway.
Brilliant piece of illogical thinking that actually got passed into law, and was only undone in later years by Kennett.
My response was to drive my very noisy Renault 12 at night in first gear at 60km/h along the 5km length of the freeway arterial. Just to p*ss the neighbours off. 8000rpm with valve bounce, engine threatening to explode and it was every one of those 5km's every time I did it.

I'll give you more examples of how our politicians and bureaucrats want to spend our money without consultation.
1. Every second election or so we get the "promise" of a rail link from Sydney to Darwin. Why? When we can't even link Melnourne's emerging Western and South Eastern Suburbs with public transport.
2. Then we get the "promise" of a very fast train costing Billions $'s from Melbourne to Sydney. Why? When you can now buy a one way air fare for around $80.
3. Sydney's second airport is another old chestnut. It'll never happen because the residents won't allow it but that doesn't prevent hundreds of millions being spent on numerous feasability studies.
4. Closer to home, we spend millions on speed cameras, advertising of police booze and drug buses, yet ZERO on driver education.

I could go on but my blood pressure requires constant monitoring.

 

[Baloo]

The problem in Australia is that anytime the the government propose something there will be affected people, plant life, animals, migration paths that manage to stop what's being planned. This is the same for all governments.

It's very hard to put in a major rail link if your going to take out people's houses. The tabloid media and current affairs shows will run with it until they stop the plans. The opposition will also defend the people being affected in the hope of being elected.

Unless the government has the balls to make the tough but correct decision for the state or country, not much will happen. Until both sides of the government could agree to major infra and both support it in the name of doing the right thing by the country / state, not much will change.

 

[Willo]

Some common sense shown finally

 

[brigadiertiger]

Some common sense shown finally

Why would you want to put valuable art items on display in a hospital. A hospital is supposed to heal people and they get crowded enough doing that without the added problems of people coming to look at artworks. Plus there would also need to be security to protect said valuable pieces of art who pays for that the hospital at the cost of life saving equipment.

Good idea to not buy any makes sense if you are going to have to have art in a hospital to use what you have but really having art in a hospital is not needed and pointless.

 

[Willo]

Why would you want to put valuable art items on display in a hospital. A hospital is supposed to heal people and they get crowded enough doing that without the added problems of people coming to look at artworks. Plus there would also need to be security to protect said valuable pieces of art who pays for that the hospital at the cost of life saving equipment.

Good idea to not buy any makes sense if you are going to have to have art in a hospital to use what you have but really having art in a hospital is not needed and pointless.

The article was about not spending $2million on artwork but using artwork they already have stored away.
As to the part of actual artwork in hospitals, it did mention the reason in the article..

There is mounting clinical evidence suggesting better design can improve patients' health and morale.

Research has shown calming images can ease patients' stress but chaotic abstract art can increase anxiety.

An SA Health paper titled Model of Care for Major Hospitals notes nature images, colour and visual art can all create a "healing environment".

Previously the state's Treasurer, Mr Snelling said he would be looking for more ways to claw back money not being spent on health services.

I'm not sure of what style they'll be using.