Cheaper Healthcare for Young NZers
Improvements to primary healthcare have been one of the governments biggest achievements IMHO.
Todays rollout of cheaper healthcare for 18-24 year olds enrolled in a Primary Health Organisation (PHO) is another step towards delivering affordable, accessible, and integrated healthcare for all New Zealanders.
Already, all people in low socio economic areas as well as under 18s and over 65s (anywhere)enrolled in a PHO, benefit from increased funding which has reduced doctors fees and prescription charges. The next step will be to deliver increased funding to 45-64 year olds, and then finally to 25-44 year olds (apparently we're the healthiest of the lot).
The figures in the above link show that 12636 18-24 year olds will benefit in the Counties Manukau DHB which covers Pakuranga. Given that most other parts of Counties Manukau will already be covered by increased funding due to their lowere socio-economic status, my guess is that a very large portion of that 12636 probably reside in Pakuranga. That's good news for locals.
What is National's commitment to maintaining PHO's and cheaper primary healthcare? Seriously, does anyone know - their Health spokesperson is basically invisible.
16 comments:
Cheaper for who, they paid for this healthcare with the tax money stolen rom us in great excess. it isn't cheaper at all, the focus is changed.
"the focus is changed"
It's called redistribution!, and it's a good thing.
And, New Zealand is not highly taxed at all by OECD standards, and to boot we're about the freest economy in the OECD bar Hong Kong and Singapore.
So clearly you agree the health care is not cheaper....and pray tell how is redistribution better, in order to redistribute you need bureaucracy which sucks up money, better to leave it in the punters pocket.
And another thing, since you like to use the OECD, if you compare the take home pay after being "not highly taxed" you will see a massive difference. Especially if you compare us to the top half of the OECD.
New Zealanders are highly taxed as percentage of GDP.
well, the figures dispute that last claim - you might want to check purchasing power parities....
Primary health care is getting cheaper, and by the time the policy is rolled out in full it will cover everyone in the population whose general practitioner belongs to a PHO (virtually all, and the distinction between interim and access PHOs will fall away over time)
You're probably right to the extent that a number of individual higher income earners would do better out of tax cuts, even they then had to pay the higher doctor's fees. But few high-earning individuals are an island -with the apparent exception of a few rightist free-marketeers - and even that advantage would decline once the lower fees for the primary health care of their children, sick and elderly relatives, etc, etc is taken into account.
The policy has been well planned and staged and is affordable, should produce long-run health benefits - and cost savings - and is most at threat from a change to a government of the mad-cap right. But in this as in many areas, National has no apparent policy to overturn what Labour has done. It either agrees with it, or has no idea what to replace it with, or is deceiving the public.
What is National's health policy?
Is that specific enough?
Tell us how you arrive at that $5 000 figure spooks, and what is meant by the 'average family' in that instance...bearing in mind that the middle 60% of households have seen after tax and after inflation incomes rise by nearly 6% since 2001.
Statistics New Zealand's latest Household Economic Survey will provide that detail - it's their survey: my understanding is that it is the middle 60% of households by after tax and after inflation income, which would seem logical.....
the lack of an election date is the lamest excuse for no policy yet devised by humankind.
It's even lamer than the oldest bad excuse for no policy - "we can do it all by cutting red tape and waste..."
"It is National's responsibility to present policy to National SUPPORTERS in sufficient time for those supporters to DECIDE on how to make their vote".
So are they National supporters or are they undecided? If the latter they'd want some policy, wouldn't they?
The Conservative Party didn't have a manifesto to speak of in their recent election - just six or seven slogans in a large font 12 page glossy - is National heading for the same? I suspect so. These techniques are shared. Didn't do them much good.
Is there a full programme for government - or not? If not, they are not ready for government. If there is one, will they tell us, or hide it? If there is one, is there a duty for National to tell us? I think so.
I think most people would agree that a party that wants to dominate a government should present a comprehensive policy programme before the election.
Yep.
COmprehensive policy programme....like what?....mmmm.. a pledge card? Oh would that someone revisits that little handful of fibs.
ah but the manifesto the pledge card was based on was about an inch or so thick, the type of thing a responsible major party of government goes to the work and thought of producing....
If I had have known you were missing my posts so much Spooks I may have made more of an effort - I have unfortunately just had a very busy week!
And for the final time, I don't post anonymously on this or any other blog.
It's all very well to call Labour "negative", but all that you have actually done in above postings is to negatively criticise Labour's policies. What is your alternative?
Post a Comment