Postby philstar on Fri 19/Dec/08 2:12pm

dhroadie wrote: Does health provide a "demonstrable economic benefit"?

Worth remembering that the annual operating budget for the Ministry of Health is less than 2% of the money set aside for health in the Budget.


thats cos they shifted it all the work to the DHB's :) there is still a lot of bureaucracy after the ministry are finished.
philstar
User avatar
"misanthropic"
Member for: 11 years 9 months

Postby dhroadie on Fri 19/Dec/08 3:13pm

philstar wrote:
dhroadie wrote: Does health provide a "demonstrable economic benefit"?

Worth remembering that the annual operating budget for the Ministry of Health is less than 2% of the money set aside for health in the Budget.


thats cos they shifted it all the work to the DHB's :) there is still a lot of bureaucracy after the ministry are finished.


Sure. But some would have you believe if a person isn't a doctor, nurse or midwife then they're a waste of money in the health sector.

It's easy to count "bureaucrats" in inflammatory ways as well. Bear in mind of the 39,000 or so public servants (bureaucrats) in NZ, included in that number are prison guards, hospital cleaning staff, administrative staff, caterers (for hospitals), accountants...the list goes on.
dhroadie
User avatar
Member for: 11 years 2 months

Postby way_downsouth on Fri 19/Dec/08 3:14pm

dhroadie wrote: accountants....


Waste of money.
way_downsouth
User avatar
"Average at best"
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Postby Scaredy_Cat on Fri 19/Dec/08 3:18pm

way_downsouth wrote:
dhroadie wrote: accountants....


Waste of money.


:lol:
Scaredy_Cat
User avatar
""RIDER!!!" :-D"
Member for: 11 years 2 months

Postby spg on Tue 30/Dec/08 3:50am

Tama wrote:If you move too much of the health services into the private arena you'll find out that the medical infrastructure becomes more focussed on profitable activities (proscribing anti-depressants and cosmetic surgery) rather than less profitable core health services (broken arms and the the like.)

There's also a whole lot of proactive fence-at-the-top-of-the-cliff stuff (which private institutions have no interest in) in the health services which lead to a healthier, happier and more productive society - and isn't that the aim?



:thumbsup:

Agreed, private vs public is not a "level playing field" at all. Case in point - Royal Mail are having enormous difficulty since mail was privatised as the profitable part of the business is sucked up by companies who don't have to provide service to all (which in RM was subsidised by the profitable part originally). As you can already get private insurance in NZ if you want to, perhaps all that is needed is the ability to negotiate a reduction in ACC levy if you can prove you have sufficient cover to warrant this - ie you remove any need for a claim under ACC. If ACC ends up acting as a backup for holes in insurance cover it is effectively subsidising the insurance company.


Some private companies do go proactive, there is one in the UK which takes your gym membership costs (with their partner gym of course) off your premium which seems to be a good way of promoting better health. I would imagine that the real driver is a reduction in claims allied with the financial benefits of pushing people onto your gym but there is still a benefit.
spg
Member for: 15 years 0 months

Economy | National Politics | Politics | Sifting - Latest Posts

Who is online

59 Users browsing this website: BlancheChristy, DotBot, EoinC, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], shmoodiver and 52 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles
  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit
  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle