Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

[ghostbat12]

Agreed we have a problem with spending but it's not really a 'billionaires' problem, it's the fact we are pretty much the most resource-rich country in the world, yet we seem to have no issue with big companies hoarding wealth/sending jobs offshore.

Now I'm not going to go full-blown communist, obviously, but the government should be a larger beneficiary of our country's natural resources and not try and follow the failed USA model of capitalism instead.

Reid was 10 minutes early BTW.

I am not sure about hoarding. How much is hoarding and how much isn’t? Who decides? People will never accept any amount as being enough. That’s how people are wired.

Reality is money for investment has to come from somewhere. You don’t get big projects without capital and that capital comes from overseas into this country. BHPs Woodside etc have to find it somewhere and barely hoard any when times are good. They generally return money to shareholders. Who are financial institutions but also mums and dads.

Now no doubt there is a bit of creative accounting that goes on every now and then but reality is that it’s all peanuts in comparison how much Australian government spends. You haven’t done creative accounting on your tax return? I bet people have and it’s always justified, right?

resources are a globalised. Companies like BHP will simply take their investment dollars elsewhere and plenty of countries want it. We can keep it in ground and feel good about it but it produces zilch.

Screwing around with resources and taxes has cost wa tens of billions in investment and tens of thousands of jobs (how much tax do they pay)? And for what?

I don’t want to defend them but I used to think the same until I got somewhat close to how investment decisions are made. There is idealism and there is reality.

Company profit is insignificant compared how much they spend in this country to make that profit.

As for communism, I would have thought 20th century had enough examples to show it doesn’t work. People don’t want to put effort in for others to benefit. So then no one does it.

Last thing I want is government to get money, so they can piss it up the wall and spend it on wokism. There are basics government should provide and that’s it.
God knows what adventures they would get up to if all of a sudden they got more cash. No thanks.

If anyone has watched Kerry packer grilling by parliament in 80s, they will have their eyes opened like it did mine. It’s on YouTube, it is an excellent takedown of how government operates. He was hated but boy, we need someone like him to take this country forward.

This government wins election, people struggling for cost of living and what is government priority? The voice, renewables and of course fostering anti semitism.

Liberals are not any better and as any swing voter (like me) will tell you, there is next to zero difference between them.

On sending jobs offshore - yeah that’s the manufacturing part I mentioned. Many projects would not happen if they had to be built here, with unions etc. costs too much to make projects viable and they would rather go elsewhere. It’s a reality that cannot be escaped. You either have a project or you don’t.

but to be honest, amount spent on maintenance which is all local is worth tens of billions of dollars still. Honestly, there is a lot for everyone. People need to focus on benefits, not just perceived losses.

Pfft that’s like getting there early for a doctors appointment. Schools are finished so traffic is better.

 

[Grahame]

I am not sure about hoarding. How much is hoarding and how much isn’t? Who decides? People will never accept any amount as being enough. That’s how people are wired.

Reality is money for investment has to come from somewhere. You don’t get big projects without capital and that capital comes from overseas into this country. BHPs Woodside etc have to find it somewhere and barely hoard any when times are good. They generally return money to shareholders. Who are financial institutions but also mums and dads.

Now no doubt there is a bit of creative accounting that goes on every now and then but reality is that it’s all peanuts in comparison how much Australian government spends. You haven’t done creative accounting on your tax return? I bet people have and it’s always justified, right?

resources are a globalised. Companies like BHP will simply take their investment dollars elsewhere and plenty of countries want it. We can keep it in ground and feel good about it but it produces zilch.

Screwing around with resources and taxes has cost wa tens of billions in investment and tens of thousands of jobs (how much tax do they pay)? And for what?

I don’t want to defend them but I used to think the same until I got somewhat close to how investment decisions are made. There is idealism and there is reality.

Company profit is insignificant compared how much they spend in this country to make that profit.

As for communism, I would have thought 20th century had enough examples to show it doesn’t work. People don’t want to put effort in for others to benefit. So then no one does it.

Last thing I want is government to get money, so they can piss it up the wall and spend it on wokism. There are basics government should provide and that’s it.
God knows what adventures they would get up to if all of a sudden they got more cash. No thanks.

If anyone has watched Kerry packer grilling by parliament in 80s, they will have their eyes opened like it did mine. It’s on YouTube, it is an excellent takedown of how government operates. He was hated but boy, we need someone like him to take this country forward.

This government wins election, people struggling for cost of living and what is government priority? The voice, renewables and of course fostering anti semitism.

Liberals are not any better and as any swing voter (like me) will tell you, there is next to zero difference between them.

On sending jobs offshore - yeah that’s the manufacturing part I mentioned. Many projects would not happen if they had to be built here, with unions etc. costs too much to make projects viable and they would rather go elsewhere. It’s a reality that cannot be escaped. You either have a project or you don’t.

but to be honest, amount spent on maintenance which is all local is worth tens of billions of dollars still. Honestly, there is a lot for everyone. People need to focus on benefits, not just perceived losses.

Pfft that’s like getting there early for a doctors appointment. Schools are finished so traffic is better.

Scripted by Our Gina?

 

[bzparkes]

I am not sure about hoarding. How much is hoarding and how much isn’t? Who decides? People will never accept any amount as being enough. That’s how people are wired.

Reality is money for investment has to come from somewhere. You don’t get big projects without capital and that capital comes from overseas into this country. BHPs Woodside etc have to find it somewhere and barely hoard any when times are good. They generally return money to shareholders. Who are financial institutions but also mums and dads.

Now no doubt there is a bit of creative accounting that goes on every now and then but reality is that it’s all peanuts in comparison how much Australian government spends. You haven’t done creative accounting on your tax return? I bet people have and it’s always justified, right?

resources are a globalised. Companies like BHP will simply take their investment dollars elsewhere and plenty of countries want it. We can keep it in ground and feel good about it but it produces zilch.

Screwing around with resources and taxes has cost wa tens of billions in investment and tens of thousands of jobs (how much tax do they pay)? And for what?

I don’t want to defend them but I used to think the same until I got somewhat close to how investment decisions are made. There is idealism and there is reality.

Company profit is insignificant compared how much they spend in this country to make that profit.

As for communism, I would have thought 20th century had enough examples to show it doesn’t work. People don’t want to put effort in for others to benefit. So then no one does it.

Last thing I want is government to get money, so they can piss it up the wall and spend it on wokism. There are basics government should provide and that’s it.
God knows what adventures they would get up to if all of a sudden they got more cash. No thanks.

If anyone has watched Kerry packer grilling by parliament in 80s, they will have their eyes opened like it did mine. It’s on YouTube, it is an excellent takedown of how government operates. He was hated but boy, we need someone like him to take this country forward.

This government wins election, people struggling for cost of living and what is government priority? The voice, renewables and of course fostering anti semitism.

Liberals are not any better and as any swing voter (like me) will tell you, there is next to zero difference between them.

On sending jobs offshore - yeah that’s the manufacturing part I mentioned. Many projects would not happen if they had to be built here, with unions etc. costs too much to make projects viable and they would rather go elsewhere. It’s a reality that cannot be escaped. You either have a project or you don’t.

but to be honest, amount spent on maintenance which is all local is worth tens of billions of dollars still. Honestly, there is a lot for everyone. People need to focus on benefits, not just perceived losses.

Pfft that’s like getting there early for a doctors appointment. Schools are finished so traffic is better.

In my opinion, if a country's wealth predominantly comes from its natural resources, then that sector should be majority controlled by the government and they should run those industries.

Not saying private sector can't have a part but private sector only cares about profit.

These private miners aren't doing anyone favours by employing people, because if the government ran the mines instead of them, they'd be employed anyway. Hell, they'd probably get more money and better conditions, because governments love bloat, for some reason.

Now I'm not saying government is perfect, far from it in fact, but a country's natural resources shouldn't be predominantly privatised not only for financial reasons, but environmental ones.

Look at the Adani debacle, for instance.

It's the same reason utilities and health services shouldn't be privatised either. Government should be managing all essential services, otherwise you end up with a shitfight like the USA.

 

[ghostbat12]

In my opinion, if a country's wealth predominantly comes from its natural resources, then that sector should be majority controlled by the government and they should run those industries.

Not saying private sector can't have a part but private sector only cares about profit.

These private miners aren't doing anyone favours by employing people, because if the government ran the mines instead of them, they'd be employed anyway. Hell, they'd probably get more money and better conditions, because governments love bloat, for some reason.

Now I'm not saying government is perfect, far from it in fact, but a country's natural resources shouldn't be predominantly privatised not only for financial reasons, but environmental ones.

Look at the Adani debacle, for instance.

It's the same reason utilities and health services shouldn't be privatised either. Government should be managing all essential services, otherwise you end up with a shitfight like the USA.

Government can’t run shit. If they ran the resources, government would make a grand total of zero dollars.

Government does not run anything efficiently. It’s amazing that people think that. As an example, in hard times for resources - companies cut hard. Government won’t do that. They would rather lose tens of billions than be seen as a bad nasty government.

Oh environmental reasons. More reasons to do nothing.

 

[eaglevision]

It's the same reason utilities and health services shouldn't be privatised either. Government should be managing all essential services, otherwise you end up with a shitfight like the USA.

The Australian health care system would collapse if there wasn’t a private sector. The inefficiencies in public health primarily due to the fact that it’s not profit driven would lead to issues like ballooned wait lists and delays to urgent care thus increasing mortality and morbidity. It would implode.

 

[Boohemian]

The Australian health care system would collapse if there wasn’t a private sector. The inefficiencies in public health primarily due to the fact that it’s not profit driven would lead to issues like ballooned wait lists and delays to urgent care thus increasing mortality and morbidity. It would implode.

Where’s the source to support this assertion?

My wife is a nurse that had worked initially in the private sector, and now in the public sector.

Working conditions - such as nurse to patient ratios are far better in the public sector than they are in the private sector. You know what the driver for that is? Turning a profit, because hiring more nurses for patient care means less profit.

There are certain services that should absolutely not be left to the private sector, because the drive for profitability leads to poor outcomes.

Want a source for that? Check out the Royal Commission into aged care.

Private sector is more efficient because profit is a tired and worn out cliche.

 

[Forward Press]

There are some things I'd rather are not run for profit because of the broader social, aesthetic, cultural, environmental etc benefits of keeping it in public hands.

I don't want to become like the US, thanks, where people are denied health care, public transport is either decrepit or non-existent and developers raze wetlands because of the almighty dollar. Call me a communist.

 

[eaglevision]

Where’s the source to support this assertion?

My wife is a nurse that had worked initially in the private sector, and now in the public sector.

Working conditions - such as nurse to patient ratios are far better in the public sector than they are in the private sector. You know what the driver for that is? Turning a profit, because hiring more nurses for patient care means less profit.

There are certain services that should absolutely not be left to the private sector, because the drive for profitability leads to poor outcomes.

Want a source for that? Check out the Royal Commission into aged care.

Private sector is more efficient because profit is a tired and worn out cliche.

My source is an entire career in public and private hospitals. Why do you think the public and private wait list times are so different?

Go have a look at the 4 operations that get done in an entire day in public vs a dozen in private, or the half a dozen staff members staff members sitting in a public clinic doing SFA because they know they will get paid and keep their jobs regardless of how hard they work.

There are some aspects to public nursing that are better for nurses, but same with private. One reason private runs far more efficiently it because staff have more motivation to work hard. It’s not the only reason, but it’s a big reason. You can have 9 out of 10 people who are wonderful at their job but the rate limiting step will be the 10th person that CBF because the other 9 can’t do the next part of their job until the 10th has done theirs.

The one thing I do agree with you on is that profit should not come at the expense of patient care.

 

[briztoon]

Where’s the source to support this assertion?

My wife is a nurse that had worked initially in the private sector, and now in the public sector.

Working conditions - such as nurse to patient ratios are far better in the public sector than they are in the private sector. You know what the driver for that is? Turning a profit, because hiring more nurses for patient care means less profit.

There are certain services that should absolutely not be left to the private sector, because the drive for profitability leads to poor outcomes.

Want a source for that? Check out the Royal Commission into aged care.

Private sector is more efficient because profit is a tired and worn out cliche.

I have worked at a private hospital in Brisbane for over a decade.

There are only two positives to the sector.

Having a private room.

And almost zero wait time for surgery.

I even had a doctor from the hospital I work at, tell me (as a patient in the public sector at the time), stay in the public hospital as I will get better care.

Every time a new ceo comes in, the first thing they want to do is make their mark on the hospital by cutting wages.

They can’t very well cut doctors wages, so it’s every other service in the hospital that gets cut. Nursing, allied health (physio’s, patient transport, etc) house keeping, catering, etc.

And it’s mainly the patient facing staff where the cuts are made.

Not the back of house management and administration departments or roles.

 

[We_The_West]

There are some things I'd rather are not run for profit because of the broader social, aesthetic, cultural, environmental etc benefits of keeping it in public hands.

I don't want to become like the US, thanks, where people are denied health care, public transport is either decrepit or non-existent and developers raze wetlands because of the almighty dollar. Call me a communist.

The grass is definitely not greener, Australia has the best grass.... keep the bloody sprinklers on!

 

[Dylan82]

Government can’t run shit. If they ran the resources, government would make a grand total of zero dollars.

Government does not run anything efficiently. It’s amazing that people think that. As an example, in hard times for resources - companies cut hard. Government won’t do that. They would rather lose tens of billions than be seen as a bad nasty government.

Oh environmental reasons. More reasons to do nothing.

It can, and it does.

Contrary to the mass-privatisation dogma that has existed since the 1970s, when it comes to providing services to the public, government owned and operated institutions keep outdoing private entities for the level of service output.

Much of the inflationary pressure currently being felt by households is a product of unfettered market deregulation and privatisation, resulting in monopolistic and cartel-like profit-incentivised behaviour, charging more whilst providing less.


Countries with greater government involvement in health, education and primary industry attain higher standards of education and longevity, with more robust and diversified economies.


That governments are incapable of doing things is a myth peddled by robber barons and carpet baggers.

The Australian health care system would collapse if there wasn’t a private sector. The inefficiencies in public health primarily due to the fact that it’s not profit driven would lead to issues like ballooned wait lists and delays to urgent care thus increasing mortality and morbidity. It would implode.

If there were no private health sector in Australia, the money that is inefficiency spent there would be reinvested back into Medicare, closing gap costs and improving provision timelines to the public rather than just the wealthy.

Despite an ongoing campaign from the Liberals and oligarchy press in this country for the past 50 years to denigrate healthcare in this country until it resembles a completely deregulated American-style outcome, the Australian government-funded healthcare system is the best on the planet when compared internationally.

Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System Comparing Performance in 10 Nations

 

[eaglevision]

If there were no private health sector in Australia, the money that is inefficiency spent there would be reinvested back into Medicare, closing gap costs and improving provision timelines to the public rather than just the wealthy.

Sorry mate, this doesn’t make sense. Money spent inefficiently in the private sector would then be spent in public? The private system is by far more efficient than the public system.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Last thing I want is government to get money, so they can piss it up the wall and spend it on wokism.

lol

 

[bzparkes]

The Australian health care system would collapse if there wasn’t a private sector. The inefficiencies in public health primarily due to the fact that it’s not profit driven would lead to issues like ballooned wait lists and delays to urgent care thus increasing mortality and morbidity. It would implode.

It's likely they're inefficient because there's a private sector.

Why would the government waste money making something better, when they can simply 'encourage' people to take up private health?

We've seen for decades that governments will cut funding from the health system to fund non-essential projects, such as building stadiums, or to simply bring budgets under control.

If the government realised their job is to provide high quality services to their citizens, such as health, policing, fire and rescue, etc, then public health wouldn't have the problems you've described.

It's bad because they simply don't want to make it better.

Politicians spend half their career being 'lobbied' to ensure benefit the private sector and the other half trying to get re-elected.

There's no personal incentive for them to actually go against current establishment expectations and ruin their own career doing so.

 

[Rowan18]

My thoughts.

Net wealth of ALL Australian billionaires is $202b. Debt of Australia is $923b. And by 2026/27 interest alone will be $53b.

Steal everything (100% tax) they have and you are left with $720b of debt or will pay interest for 4 years.

The issue is not how much the super rich people take despite what people like to think. It’s a spending problem.

A company like bhp employs 30,000 people and pays billions in tax. Is that not enough? And if not, how much is then enough? When will we know it’s enough?

If people want to turn Australia into Venezuela, then so be it. Squeezing resource companies certainly didn’t make them richer (biggest oil reserves in world).

Now real issue is pushing out of manufacturing out of Australia, forcing people into service jobs and then of course needing two incomes to buy a house.

Stop the housing rort, helps families. Unfortunately we are a housing economy so if you give people more money, all they will do is pay more for same house.

Now, did Reid train extra after official training?

Housing is fixed if we slow down the increasing demand caused from having too high a rate of migration. That would give supply a chance to catch up.

 

[eaglevision]

It's likely they're inefficient because there's a private sector.

Why would the government waste money making something better, when they can simply 'encourage' people to take up private health?

Sorry mate but this is an awful take, anyone that had spent considerable time in both systems would see why efficiency is so much greater in the private system. There are some factors such as training junior staff (particularly in procedural tasks) that take time and that’s fair enough, but like the example I gave systems often take one person not to GAF and the whole process shuts down. You can get away with it in public but if take an attitude like that to private and you’ll be on your way. The private sector is all that is stopping the public system from being overwhelmed, if it isn’t already.

I do agree with your point of self interest, big government waste billions of healthcare dollars. They have no boots on the ground and frankly don’t give a shit about health outcomes as long as they are re-elected. It’s a disgrace. Look at both Abbott and Gillard promising millions of dollars (a billion in Abbott’s case) for the Royal Hobart Hospital after neglecting it for years because all of a sudden an independent MP won the electorate and held the balance of power. Self interest, they didn’t give a shit about Hobart as long as they formed government. Again in the private sector if you are wasting money you’ll be held accountable by share and stakeholders and given your marching orders and certainly won’t be re-elected or equivalent.

 

[ioppolo]

There are some things I'd rather are not run for profit because of the broader social, aesthetic, cultural, environmental etc benefits of keeping it in public hands.

I don't want to become like the US, thanks, where people are denied health care, public transport is either decrepit or non-existent and developers raze wetlands because of the almighty dollar. Call me a communist.

100% on the first two but wetlands and bush areas are being developed at an alarming rate the last decade.

 

[eaglevision]

I have worked at a private hospital in Brisbane for over a decade.

There are only two positives to the sector.

Having a private room.

And almost zero wait time for surgery.

I even had a doctor from the hospital I work at, tell me (as a patient in the public sector at the time), stay in the public hospital as I will get better care.

Every time a new ceo comes in, the first thing they want to do is make their mark on the hospital by cutting wages.

They can’t very well cut doctors wages, so it’s every other service in the hospital that gets cut. Nursing, allied health (physio’s, patient transport, etc) house keeping, catering, etc.

And it’s mainly the patient facing staff where the cuts are made.

Not the back of house management and administration departments or roles.

A private room is nice yes but the wait time to surgery is literally life and death for some people. Even something like an ACL reconstruction the outcomes are far better if treated early, or symptom resolution by taking a gall bladder out.

I’ve worked in over 50 hospitals in four states and I’ve never seen pay decreased for staff. Redundancies, less wage increase than desired sure, but not reducing wages.

I do agree there are far too many non clinical staff collecting pay checks in a non patient facing role that is there purely due to bureaucracy.

 

[We_The_West]

Sorry mate but this is an awful take, anyone that had spent considerable time in both systems would see why efficiency is so much greater in the private system. There are some factors such as training junior staff (particularly in procedural tasks) that take time and that’s fair enough, but like the example I gave systems often take one person not to GAF and the whole process shuts down. You can get away with it in public but if take an attitude like that to private and you’ll be on your way. The private sector is all that is stopping the public system from being overwhelmed, if it isn’t already.

I do agree with your point of self interest, big government waste billions of healthcare dollars. They have no boots on the ground and frankly don’t give a shit about health outcomes as long as they are re-elected. It’s a disgrace. Look at both Abbott and Gillard promising millions of dollars (a billion in Abbott’s case) for the Royal Hobart Hospital after neglecting it for years because all of a sudden an independent MP won the electorate and held the balance of power. Self interest, they didn’t give a shit about Hobart as long as they formed government. Again in the private sector if you are wasting money you’ll be held accountable by share and stakeholders and given your marching orders and certainly won’t be re-elected or equivalent.

You’re spot on.

The priority needs to be keeping private health care affordable. In Canada, insurance companies control the industries and health insurance is much less affordable so the public health care system gets completely overloaded.

I’ve had the same operation done using public healthcare in both Australia and Canada and my wait time in Australia was 10 weeks (during Covid), compared to 10 months pre covid in Canada.

The Australian system is much better.

 

[PremiershipNo4]

Health and education are basket cases because of privatisation, I’ve got no doubt!

 

[Bender_]

When can we get back to making fun of Essendon and Freo?

 

[bzparkes]

Sorry mate but this is an awful take, anyone that had spent considerable time in both systems would see why efficiency is so much greater in the private system. There are some factors such as training junior staff (particularly in procedural tasks) that take time and that’s fair enough, but like the example I gave systems often take one person not to GAF and the whole process shuts down. You can get away with it in public but if take an attitude like that to private and you’ll be on your way. The private sector is all that is stopping the public system from being overwhelmed, if it isn’t already.

Because there's no incentive for those people in public.

Making public sector workers more accountable would go al long way to improving things, at a minimum. As would rewarding them for good work.

There's certainly good elements of the private sector that could be utilised in public, I'm certainly not advocating for a case of shut private down and throw money at public, that solves nothing.

People should be able to pay for elective surgery, private rooms, etc but instead of that money going to shareholders, it gets put back into improving the public system.

Essential surgery should be triaged out on a needs basis but with massive improvement to the health system/more resources/etc, it can be massively sped up.

Containing it's not possible because it's government is only because we've been conditioned to believe and accept governments are inefficient by default.

That's the issue right there, IMO.

Totally different scenarios but look at how El Salvador cleaned up the gangs, for instance. Once the murder capital of the world, it took a few short years to become the safest nation in Latin America, when we were all told it was impossible.

It's not impossible, it just takes someone with want and desire to actually change it, instead of paying lip service to issues and saying it's all too hard.

I do agree with your point of self interest, big government waste billions of healthcare dollars. They have no boots on the ground and frankly don’t give a shit about health outcomes as long as they are re-elected. It’s a disgrace. Look at both Abbott and Gillard promising millions of dollars (a billion in Abbott’s case) for the Royal Hobart Hospital after neglecting it for years because all of a sudden an independent MP won the electorate and held the balance of power. Self interest, they didn’t give a shit about Hobart as long as they formed government. Again in the private sector if you are wasting money you’ll be held accountable by share and stakeholders and given your marching orders and certainly won’t be re-elected or equivalent.

Governments absolutely need to be more accountable with their spending, it just seems they don't want to because it's not in their best interests, unfortunately.

 

[eaglevision]

Because there's no incentive for those people in public.

Making public sector workers more accountable would go al long way to improving things, at a minimum. As would rewarding them for good work.

There's certainly good elements of the private sector that could be utilised in public, I'm certainly not advocating for a case of shut private down and throw money at public, that solves nothing.

People should be able to pay for elective surgery, private rooms, etc but instead of that money going to shareholders, it gets put back into improving the public system.

Essential surgery should be triaged out on a needs basis but with massive improvement to the health system/more resources/etc, it can be massively sped up.

Containing it's not possible because it's government is only because we've been conditioned to believe and accept governments are inefficient by default.

That's the issue right there, IMO.

Totally different scenarios but look at how El Salvador cleaned up the gangs, for instance. Once the murder capital of the world, it took a few short years to become the safest nation in Latin America, when we were all told it was impossible.

It's not impossible, it just takes someone with want and desire to actually change it, instead of paying lip service to issues and saying it's all too hard.

Governments absolutely need to be more accountable with their spending, it just seems they don't want to because it's not in their best interests, unfortunately.

Largely a good post. So how do you incentivise public staff and what are the KPIs? It’s hard when you’re relying on many other people to do their job so that you can do yours.

You can pay for private elective surgery, even if you’re not insured. It’s expensive, but you can do it.

HBF states it’s NFP, St John of God states it’s NFP but are they really? An organisation could use excess funds to purchase assets such as land which in turn will not show up as a profit, yet gain an asset making them more valuable.

The federal health policy makers are the Australian hospitals equivalent of El Salvador. They could start by assigning someone whose job it is to ensure productivity in each hospital. Rewarding productive departments, making it easier to let go of staff that have the CBF attitude, determining the rate limiting steps and eliminating/altering them would be a good start.

 

[bzparkes]

Largely a good post. So how do you incentivise public staff and what are the KPIs? It’s hard when you’re relying on many other people to do their job so that you can do yours.

Not sure what the KPIs would be and I won't pretend to know what they should but incentives should simply be financial. We can pretend that people enter the health industry because they solely care about looking after people but that would be disingenuous. Healthcare workers are people too, just like everyone else, and they should be financially incentivised to do a good job, like other industries.

KPIs would have to not be profit/cost-driven whatsoever though, otherwise it'd be no different than what it is currently. Obviously management would be required to work within a budget but as it's a public service, the aim isn't to save money, or make profit, like the private sector, but to provide the best outcomes for patients. If that requires a bigger budget from the government, so be it, although there still needs to be accountability obviously. That can be handled by an independent audit every 12 months to ensure hospitals aren't being wasteful with their spending.

You can pay for private elective surgery, even if you’re not insured. It’s expensive, but you can do it.

I guess to put it in simple terms my view on this, is that private health should be a luxury for those who can afford it(private rooms, better meals, entertainment, bells and whistles such as spa treatments and shit while in hospital, etc) but not feel like a necessity for those who cannot. Public health should be able to get people through efficiently and provide timely care when required.

I empathise with health workers in both public and private of course, 1 of my friends is a doctor(pediatrics) in the public system while she's studying, so I get a general idea of what it entails from a work and financial standpoint. yeah, they earn a lot but man, the fees... then there's the money they have to fork out for study & exams every year before fully-specialised.

HBF states it’s NFP, St John of God states it’s NFP but are they really? An organisation could use excess funds to purchase assets such as land which in turn will not show up as a profit, yet gain an asset making them more valuable.

Yeah, this is what gets me. These NFPs need to be more transparent if this is how they operate, especially if they receive public funding.

I have the same opinion on private schooling as the health system by the way. Neither should receive any form of government funding, especially if backed by a large religious organisation. Public education in Australia should be at a high level, especially with how resource-rich our country is. There's no excuse to let it lapse.

The federal health policy makers are the Australian hospitals equivalent of El Salvador. They could start by assigning someone whose job it is to ensure productivity in each hospital. Rewarding productive departments, making it easier to let go of staff that have the CBF attitude, determining the rate limiting steps and eliminating/altering them would be a good start.

Yep. There'd be a large pushback at first but if you can clear the deadwood, replace them with people who want to make a meaningful, positive difference and incentivise those people to do so, then there's no reason the system can't be massively improved.

People would rather fight over other's genitalia than push for an improvement to public systems though, which is a real shame.

 

[Forward Press]

You’re spot on.

The priority needs to be keeping private health care affordable. In Canada, insurance companies control the industries and health insurance is much less affordable so the public health care system gets completely overloaded.

I’ve had the same operation done using public healthcare in both Australia and Canada and my wait time in Australia was 10 weeks (during Covid), compared to 10 months pre covid in Canada.

The Australian system is much better.

At the risk of brickbats from both sides, I think our system in Australia is exceptional and is the best system that balances social and economic priorities.

If you have something truly urgent, you will get attended to, you will get the best health care, and you can do it without paying a cent. You will not die simply because you cannot afford the insurance or the hospital bed or the drugs.

You can pay to skip the queue, you can pay to get a better quality hospital stay, and you can pay to get non-urgent stuff done. But there are systems in place that give all Australians a minimum quality of life within a reasonable enough time frame for effectively no payment on your end. Can you imagine Medicare or the PBS or NDIS in the US?

Could we do things better? Of course. I'd still prefer to be sick here than in the UK or US, though.