Thanks Jim
Jim Anderton released National’s draft health policy yesterday, and look at the headlines:
Nats plan spending spree on health
Surgery boost promised in Nats’ health policy
Seriously you can’t buy headlines that good.
The policy details, as leaked to date, are:
- over $100 million a year of taxpayers’ money on new health projects
- a spending spree on new operating theatres – building 20 operating theatres over three years. Capital cost $165 million over four years.
- Training an extra 750 health workers. Cost around $20 million a year.
- Giving a 30 per cent health insurance rebate, up to $500 a year, to those aged 65 or older. Cost $40 million a year at first.
- Gradually increasing medicines funding to match Australia’s per-head level. Initial boost of $20 million a year.
- Prostate cancer testing programme for men over 50 with a close family history of the disease. Not costed.
- Developing a dental assistance programme for over-65s. Not costed.
- Giving an extra $15 million to hospices.
- more state-funded use of private hospitals
- a star-rating system for district health boards
- the number of bureaucrats would be capped
- losses of health workers overseas would gradually reduce because of tax cuts
- voluntary bonding would be offered in return for student loan debt write-offs in hard-to-staff places and specialties
- will maintain the Government’s budgeted health spending projections – “not a dollar less than Labour”.
- maintain the current universal GP subsidy system, including the fees review process
- fund Plunketline
- funding 12 month access to breast cancer drug herceptin
This is only the draft policy of course, but I can’t wait until the final policy is released. More theatres, more medical staff, more medicines funding and a rebate for over 65s who have private health insurance – all going to be damn popular.
UPDATE: National has now released the official policy, or at least part one of it.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Election 2008, Health, Jim Anderton, National
September 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Did Jim Anderton leak this because Helen and Michael and Trevor DIDN’T want to?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Jim Anderton?… I thought he was dead.
(to quote Mike Moore)
September 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
It’s still a bit messy though isn’t it.
Just how many policies were printed off and left in a bundle in copperfields?
All of them?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Lets face it feeding the policies to the enemy to “reveal the leaks” is the only way to get media coverage. If National released them they’d die on the cutting room floor.
Thanks Jum.
BTW, you’re fired. Dumass zombie.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I sure hope they can afford all that…
Since when was ‘we really hope this thing will happen’ a policy?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Trevor Mallard has been trying to sow the idea that there is dissention within National’s ranks. Such an idea just does not make sense.
Now how is this for an interesting conspiracy theory – National deliberately leaked them because they were likely to get wider coverage than if National simply issued a press release.
Labour is in some difficulties over National’s health policy – there are some aspects of it that Labour would just not steal for idelofical or political reasons.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Now, isn’t this policy-speak sanitisation for hospital closures!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Yes I wonder how Labour will bash National over the head about this?
Helen: Voters a call to arms! National intend to give you the healthcare system you paid for, but I witheld! It’s an outrage!
Mallard: I Have never heard anything more preposterous! Giving the voters what they need?!
After group conference: umm, yeah ahhh… ANDERTON! Voters, remember it was Anderton! Everyone look at Anderton, he’s the traitor! Blame Him!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Yes, I figure there’s two options:
Option 1. National ballsed up by leaving policy papers lying around, but are happy to see the amount of media coverage they got. So they’re twits, but lucky twits.
Option 2. National deliberately left the policy papers lying around, because they figured that way there’d be more media coverage of their policies than if they just released them in the normal course of events. Clever, but Macchiavellian.
I’d like to believe Option 2. But on past form I’m leaning towards the “lucky twits” theory
September 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
When the f&*k is one of the MSM sleepwalkers going to put the spotlight on Labour and ask “So where’s your policy then?”.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
If National had any brains, they’d be going on about that about 3 times a day virtualmark.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Why are Labour continuing to show their underhanded nature by drip-feeding these ill-gotten releases to the public?
Surely it must just make the hole they find themselves standing in ever-deeper.
And surely copyright law would apply to any document created by the Nats. Why not sue the shit out of Mallard, Clark, Cullen and Anderton under copyright law (the unauthorised duplication/publication of a copyrighted work)??
And can someone please tell me why we take hard earned cash out of of the wallets of NZ’s lowest-income workers to provide these idiots with a fleet of BMW limmos and chauffeurs?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Quick question, where are Labours policies?
Untied Futureless?
Winston Last?
The Greens we know already, ban everything.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Remember how in 1999 Labour said if we gave them a wee bit more tax they’d fix health? They’ve taken a lot mroe tax and made health worse because they expensively changed the system instead of extensively improving services.
National’s policy is taking a much better approach with its focus on improving services.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Why would you pay any attention to what Anderton, the old Stalinist, have to say?
Neanderton, the old communist bugger, is a non-entity,a write-off, a waste of space, Helen’s mouthpiece at infinitum, so he should be completely ignored.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Absolutely, “homepaddock”. Remember the way the MSM thumped the Nats over “Health” 1996-1999? Only to lose interest since, hmmmmm, wonder why?
I have a recollection that Mikhael Kullensky actually said in about 1999, something to this effect: that they’d actually like to ban Private hospitals, but that wouldn’t be necessary because labour was going to make the public system so good that Private hospitals would become superfluous and disappear anyway.
Does anybody else remember that and can it be found and thrown back at Mikhael and his media allies now?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
By the way, I like the suggestions that the Nats might be allowing these leaks as they will get better media coverage of their policies as a result! If the media tumbles to it, watch out!
September 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Toad @ 1.39
“To overcome these challenges, DHBs need to work more closely together. Sharing clinical services across boundaries can sustain patient access without centralising services, and provide safer workloads.
Now, isn’t this policy-speak sanitisation for hospital closures!”
Well no Toad. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest BEFORE rushing into print would be my advice. Do the words “…. without centralising services, ……” give you a clue?
September 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
PhilBest … in New Zealand you could paint simple words on a 4×2 and hit the MSM over the head with it, and they still wouldn’t tumble to it. Unfortunately our media aren’t as probing as you suggest, it’s much easier just to regurgitate press releases. So I think the Nats are quite safe.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
God, what an awful set of policies. I can’t believe I’m still even a member of this party. They’ve completely giving up trying to be a good steward of our money and have subscribed to the decades old bullshit that, if we just spend a bit more money on Health, this system will work. WELL IT WON’T FUCKING WORK!
The worst thing is that I am sure they realise it too, they just think they have to do this to get elected. What a joke our democracy has become. If we don’t get ACT in government this time around, we’re fucked.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
So the socialists ( Im using lowercase now the bastards dont deserve uppercase) have been banging on about the Nats having no policy And so know we have policy for Africa Not from the socialists but from the NATS.
Mallard You twat You fell for it hook line and sinker. Mind you there aint much brain between those ears
September 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I am surprised nobody has really picked up on this very important issue regarding Herceptin and alternative CHEAPER less damaging treatments. It is on line in greater detail at http://www.dailymail.co.uk 14th august for anyone who cares to look.
Daily Mail August 14 2008
A woman checks herself for breast cancer: Now scientists are hailing a ‘breakthrough’ drug that could cheaply stop tumours from growing
A cheap drug used to treat brittle bones helps halt breast cancer in its tracks, scientists report today.
When used with a common chemotherapy drug, the tumours all but stopped growing – and the cancer remained at bay even after treatment had finished.
The results were so dramatic that researchers believe the combination could be better at fighting the disease than any drug cocktail already in use.
And with the bone drug, zoledronic acid, costing under £1,000 per year of treatment – less than one-twentieth of the breast cancer ‘wonder drug’ Herceptin – price should not be a problem for the NHS.
It is thought the chemotherapy drug doxorubicin ‘primes’ the tumour, making it sensitive to the bone-strengthening zoledronic acid.
The treatment causes cancer cells to self-destruct and blocks the growth of the blood vessels needed to fuel tumours with oxygen and nutrients.
With both drugs relatively cheap and already in widespread use, the treatment could be approved for patients in as little as two years, providing doctors with a much-needed new weapon for a disease which kills more than 1,000 women a month in Britain alone.
The drug combination is now being tested on 3,000 women with the results due in six months.
Sheffield University researcher Professor Robert Coleman said: ‘It would be a very substantial breakthrough.’ And he added: ‘It is a completely new approach to treatment. It is relatively simple. It is not particularly unpleasant and it could also be applied to other cancers.’
Working with Finnish colleagues, the British researchers examined the effect of using the doxorubicin, one of the most common breast cancer treatments, in combination with zoledronic acid, a member of the bisphosphonate family used to treat osteoporosis and ease bone pain in cancer patients.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Amazing what you can do once you break the chains of socialist dogma. Greater use of the private sector – brilliant, but BlairM opposes it; giving an additional $15m to the hospice movement – great, but BlairM opposes it; tax deductions for the >65 with medical insurance – superb, but BlairM opposes it; funding Plunketline – good dividends from that, but BlairM opposes it …. and the list goes on.
I am prepared to give kudos to ACT for their good policies (and you do have some) but you have to ask yourself why bother when there is no reciprocation. Guys, you don’t have a monopoly on ideas and vision and with people like BlairM promoting you we can be forgiven for wondering if you can be relied on to be stable coalition partner.
BlairM, if you represent the progressive side of ACT then their wierdo side is really scary
September 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Specifics! Beautiful!
$Xm for Y number of Z.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Oh, come ON Ross Miller, don’t be a semanticist. Anyone can see that the Nats policy doesn’t go FAR enough for the likes of BlairM, and me too. Blair is right, throwing money at the “public health” status quo never works, the only bits of the Nats Policy that WILL work are the bits that you insinuate Blair is opposed to, like using the Private Sector, and incentivising Health Insurance (albeit a toe-in-the-water incentive). THOSE things should be the WHOLE policy……
September 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ross, good policy introduced later rather than sooner is better than not at all.
But the opportunity cost of not doing what’s right when it’s right (ie when it’s first obvious that it needs doing) is huge.
ACT = get well sooner
National = get well later
Labour = get sick later
Green = get sick sooner
That’s all voters need to know about health.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
So I read the policy – I haven’t read any of the detailed ones before. It is a well written document, and very clear. I wonder whether this is part of what John Key brings to National – I suspect he would be reviewing a lot of these personally and making sure they are right.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Ross, you are making no sense. For starters:
Amazing what you can do once you break the chains of socialist dogma.
How do you break the chains of socialist dogma by increasing government spending? How does that work, Ross? What twisted logic brought you to that conclusion?
Then there’s:
Greater use of the private sector – brilliant, but BlairM opposes it
Huh? The only way to eliminate waiting lists and fix healthcare is through the private sector! If they just made healthcare cover transferrable to private clinics and hospitals, as has been ACT policy for years, it would solve most of the problems.
Giving an additional $15m to the hospice movement – great, but BlairM opposes it
I have donated to hospices in the past. But that doesn’t seem good enough for National, who want to steal from me so that they can be “generous”. Hell, even if they had a better tax rebate system for donations I’d be relatively happy, but using the public purse is disgraceful.
tax deductions for the >65 with medical insurance – superb, but BlairM opposes it
We have the most generous superannuation scheme in the world – why do the over 65 need even more perks? Why can’t they give tax deductions to all of us? In fact, why don’t they just cut the taxes apportioned to health, let everyone buy their own insurance, and have a system of grants for poor people who can’t get cover or can’t pay? No, far too sensible.
funding Plunketline – good dividends from that, but BlairM opposes it
Learning how to take care of babies is what mothers, sisters and aunties are for. That’s all I have to say about Plunket.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I’m with Ross.
Whilst I think the points you make Blair may be valid, I do believe the Health system is such a large machine that it would be difficult to make wholesale changes without firstly having the support of the practitioners. I cannot help think you maybe working along theoretical lines
rather than workable ones.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I’m more concerned with the leaks and stuff ups than the policy at this stage. You have to get elected to implement any policy, and the only policy responsible for the polls drop over the last month seems to be the “scoring own goal policy”
I see John Key was quoted “He was absolutely convinced it was an innocent but stupid mistake.” Well John, after the loose lips/secret tapes, Maurice Williamson and draft policy leaks I’m completely with you on that.
Trouble is there are far too many stupid mistakes being made at this time!
Sort your shit out!!!!!!!!!
September 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Blair says The only way to eliminate waiting lists and fix healthcare is through the private sector!
Clearly, not. Australia and Canada both have public health care systems that are considerably more efficient than our own.
Hospice and Plunket have plenty of demonstrable medical benefit. And aunties are not the best way to learn Mothercraft – they are often the worst.
I have made a number of comments on the health policy on my blog. Too numerous to reiterate here.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
First Time Caller – sure, my ideas represent an ideal. My point really is that these policies represent more government involvement, not less. I would be delighted if National made even half hearted attempts to stick to its principles and scale down government spending, but what they have done here is just more socialism.
MacDoctor – Australia has a better public healthcare system than us because… um… they have more private healthcare and a proper system of medical cover:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Australia)
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if National did this here?! But no, they’re just tax and spend like the last lot.
You fuckin’ Wet Tories will defend anything wearing a blue rosette. Wake up!
September 11th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
If you can get your opposition to release all your policies, does it still count against your election spend?
September 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
They should leave several pages of labour (as in working) policy lying around at the EPMU cafe so Little can use the union funds to announce it for them. Actually quite a stunning idea. Feed your policy to the others and get them to publicize it for you.
Saves having to turn up to press conferences etc which must be quite boring and with any sort of luck will use up the funds allocated by the other parties. Also keeps the others busy and off thewir lines.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
BlairM – You lose credibility when you quote from Wikipedia…
September 11th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
You lose credibility when you make ad hominem arguments like that. What’s wrong with the article I linked to? Tell us what the errors are and how that might disprove what I had to say!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
there are a couple of points in there that weren’t mentioned.
Putting a cap on bureaucracy.
There are more than 2:1 managers to docs at Waikato and probably most other hospitals. Go down there. Take a look at the building that houses the doctors and patients, and then take a look at the humungous building that houses all the squillions of paper-pushing managers. It’s like central government.
As for plunket, pulling its funding was obscene, they provide a great service. See how you feel about them after you have some kids.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:03 am
adc – I think when I have kids I will feel that caring for them is my responsibility, not yours. A pity you don’t do me the same courtesy with your own children.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Blair … you loose total credibility when you indulge in foul mouth rhetoric … Ooooops sorry, you already lost it when you said in your 2.12 post that you were a member of the National Party – surely if you feel the way you do you should have had the integrity to resign.
If you are the face of ACT then why in hells name would National want you as a coalition partner. You would be just as toxic as Winston First.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Blair
until you have kids, you will remain ignorant about many related facts. This isn’t personal – it applies to everyone. One can’t truly know what it is to have kids until one does.
I don’t make my kids anyone else’s responsibility. However, there are many decent parents who don’t have a clue, and plunket provides an invaluable service. And not everyone has an auntie or sister or mother close by.
Having plunket isn’t about making kids the state’s responsibility. Look what the state tried to replace it with. Free 20hrs a week daycare so your kids can be brainwashed, spoiled, not taught basic morals, and come home with some new lurgy every week so that the parents have to constantly take time off work. The Labour government wants to make all kids the state responsibility, and rear them and brainwash them into becoming little labour voters. Plunket was seen as being in the way of that, which is why they axed funding for it – they couldn’t control it.
Plunket is about helping new parents develop important skills. This is for the good of the baby and the family as a unit. If you’d ever had a visit (as an adult) from a plunket nurse you’d know what I mean. Maybe you should go down to the plunket centre and see what they actually do. Talk to some of the mothers there. I think you might soon become embarrassed by your current position on it.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
adc
“There are more than 2:1 managers to docs at Waikato and probably most other hospitals. Go down there. Take a look at the building that houses the doctors and patients, and then take a look at the humongous building that houses all the squillions of paper-pushing managers. ”
While not for one minute thinking there aren’t too many administrators in the Health Service, I do have to point out that the ‘humongous building’ on the Waikato Hospital campus is, in fact, the offices of the District Health Board, not the DHB, and that they have something like seven hospitals and gazumption doctors etc., that they “administer” from there, not just the hospital.
On the other front, read a document (any document) they produce, and see how they always write in the third person, so as to ensure that no “I” or “we” can be held responsible for anything. I once suggested to the (now ex-) chief executive that changing the business plan being developed to be a personal commitment from the management and board would make it a little more convincing; her answer was that that would mean an element of personal responsibility, which couldn’t be sustained as the people might change, and it was better as an “It”. Making a change to 1st person mandatory would probably have an immediate impact on the productivity and engagement of non-clinical managers and staff that would be a revelation – perhaps the next, National led, government will mandate it.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:40 am
MacDoctor, it happens that an awful lot of Canadians would be stuffed if they couldn’t cross the border to the USA and pay for their own treatment there; which they do in droves…….