Health Referendum

[Sygate666]

Not sure if there's already a topic about this, had a quick look but couldn't spot anything relevant...

What's your take on it? Are you happy with what's being done? Are you happy with the decision your state government has made?

I'm not 100% on the exact particulars but I'd like to know some of the ups and downs of Rudd's plan which Abbott is opposing.

A federally funded health system would be great but will anything change, or is the only change going to be where the money comes from?

I'm happy that Colin Barnett has declined to give up a third of the annual GST revenue as that's a lot of money the local governments could put back into their states without the worry of health funding.

Where exactly is the government sourcing this money from to fund the entire health system? Running Australia into further debt/higher taxes?

Discuss!

[Sathias]

I don't think anyone really knows, its the sort of thing only really detailed policy wonks would be able to give a solid argument for or against. Likely people would just argue along their established voting tendencies regardless of the details.

The only comments I could really make is that

- It was an election promise so it's good that Rudd is at least acting on it.
- State-run health is not all that popular but I think the problems are overstated compared to other countries
- Whether this change will fix anything is unknown

Where exactly is the government sourcing this money from to fund the entire health system? Running Australia into further debt/higher taxes?

AFAIK the increased money spent would reduce the amount that the states get in GST revenue, it would just mean that the Feds are holding the purse strings, rather than state governments determining what goes where.

[Mekon]

What's your take on it? Are you happy with what's being done? Are you happy with the decision your state government has made?

More than happy for heath to be federalised. The NSW State Government is incompetent (and almost broke). Things like health, education, etc should be managed at the federal level, IMO.

I'm happy that Colin Barnett has declined to give up a third of the annual GST revenue as that's a lot of money the local governments could put back into their states without the worry of health funding.

Where exactly is the government sourcing this money from to fund the entire health system? Running Australia into further debt/higher taxes?

The reason the GST funding is being reduced is because the states will no longer have a health budget - that's where the funding is coming from, same place as it was before (GST income).

[Wyld]

If a mum gives her kids money for lunch .. and they screw up buying lunch .. and the mum then makes lunches for the kids .. and there's one spoilt kid left saying "No, it's MY lunch money" .. AND wants the better lunch as well ..

/me looks at the WA Premier.

[Spl@!]

You'd need all states to either agree or disagree together, before it even got to a referendum.

Why should WA suffer because QLD wants something different etc etc.

Besides, referrendums are generally NO results anyway, barring unusual circumstances.

[Yurtles]

Sometimes I wonder if some people in WA aren't a little bitter about not being successful in seceding from the rest of Australia and do things like this just to get back at Canberra.
I'm no great political genius but if every state and territory can agree to this deal excluding one you'd have to assume it was in their favour to do so and by extending that it should be better for us as well.
I have faith in my elected leaders

[Mythor]

My main concern is that NSW may end up subsidising all the other deadbeat states at the cost of NSW's hospitals, which are already in an awful mess.
But it puts us a step closer to eliminating some politician's reason for existence, which can only be a good thing!

I'm no great political genius

Redundant as we could deduce that from the rest of the sentence.
Different states have different needs. The people in charge of WA aren't going to turn the deal down just to be petty ****. They obviously don't think they'd be getting a good deal.
Maybe they're wrong. Maybe some of the Ruddy money could just pay for tinhats, would probably also work.

[Yurtles]

My main concern is that NSW may end up subsidising all the other deadbeat states at the cost of NSW's hospitals, which are already in an awful mess.
But it puts us a step closer to eliminating some politician's reason for existence, which can only be a good thing!

I'm no great political genius

Redundant as we could deduce that from the rest of the sentence.
Different states have different needs. The people in charge of WA aren't going to turn the deal down just to be petty ****. They obviously don't think they'd be getting a good deal.
Maybe they're wrong. Maybe some of the Ruddy money could just pay for tinhats, would probably also work.

I don't understand. You're saying my extrapolation of it being a better deal for individuals than what we currently have because the states have agreed to it is wrong?

[MaddMoose]

My main concern is that NSW may end up subsidising all the other deadbeat states at the cost of NSW's hospitals, which are already in an awful mess.

NSW has a lower GSP per capita than WA and the ACT. So they'd actually be "subsidising" your deadbeat state

[Mythor]

My main concern is that NSW may end up subsidising all the other deadbeat states at the cost of NSW's hospitals, which are already in an awful mess.

NSW has a lower GSP per capita than WA and the ACT. So they'd actually be "subsidising" your deadbeat state

Gross State Product? I'm sure that has nothing to do with WA's resource rich, much larger countryside and smaller population.
Or the ACT's snow, porn and fireworks industries.

Actually it's a reference to the way taxes such as the GST are collected and then distributed disproportionately to where they were generated.

NSW has been promised a slightly bigger slice of the GST pie next financial year, but will still only get back about 80 cents for every GST dollar it pays.

My concern is that the same thinking would apply when it comes to healthcare and NSW would have a disproportionate cut in funding versus what the Federal Government would then be spending on Healthcare within the state.

[MaddMoose]

Gross State Product? I'm sure that has nothing to do with WA's resource rich, much larger countryside and smaller population.

Thats the reason, which means they pay more tax as well. Therefore they are contributing more overall than NSW.

Actually it's a reference to the way taxes such as the GST are collected and then distributed disproportionately to where they were generated.

This is the sort of thinking which has Australia being arse end backwards in so many ways.

[Mythor]

Gross State Product? I'm sure that has nothing to do with WA's resource rich, much larger countryside and smaller population.

Thats the reason, which means they pay more tax as well. Therefore they are contributing more overall than NSW.

Errr, no, they're producing more per person. As WA's population is markedly smaller (less than one third) they actually produce, as a whole, less than half what NSW produces, as a whole.

The three highest GSP's per capita in Australia are WA, NT and the ACT.
The top three total GSP's belong to NSW, Victoria and Queensland.

But if only it were so simple as looking at a couple of numbers on a piece of paper...

[MaddMoose]

Errr, no, they're producing more per person. As WA's population is markedly smaller (less than one third) they actually produce, as a whole, less than half what NSW produces, as a whole.

and how do you think funding for hospitals is going to be allocated? All things being equal, the number of people is going to determine the amount of money required for the health system. So each state gets the same amount per person, but not all states contribute equally.

[Mekon]

and how do you think funding for hospitals is going to be allocated? All things being equal, the number of people is going to determine the amount of money required for the health system. So each state gets the same amount per person, but not all states contribute equally.

Did you miss the point whereby currently NSW is going to get less back than what they pay out? Currently NSW and Victoria are subsidising the rest of the nation with their GST earnings and will continue to do so under the health plan...

Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania will all receive a smaller proportion of total GST revenue than this year, although each will get back more GST than they pay.

Last month the governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, said the system of allocating GST was "not logical" because revenue flowed from struggling states such as NSW to boom states such as Western Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/win ... 32199.html

From the link in Myth's post, which you obviously didn't read.

[Mythor]

Errr, no, they're producing more per person. As WA's population is markedly smaller (less than one third) they actually produce, as a whole, less than half what NSW produces, as a whole.

and how do you think funding for hospitals is going to be allocated? All things being equal, the number of people is going to determine the amount of money required for the health system. So each state gets the same amount per person, but not all states contribute equally.

You don't improve states that are worse off by taking money from them and giving it to the states who're more well off.
Maybe it was unfair of me to label the other states as "deadbeats", but you need to understand the frustration involved in having your tax money being siphoned off to other states instead of being used to solve issues like chronic emergency room waiting times in most public hospitals here.