Health/Hospital changes/cuts

Forums › Health and fitness › Health/Hospital changes/cuts

gzt

16821 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#191830 17-Feb-2016 20:13

I saw an item on the news last night about changes to the health budget expected to result in staff cuts particularly nursing staff.

Over the last couple of years I have visited several times at Auckland City, North Shore, and Waitakere hospitals. All round my impression was that the standard of care and the standard of the facilities was very good.

However, there were a couple of issues with one person where urgent pain relief was prescribed and required to be administered on patient request and the process of delivery could take up to an hour.

So personally I would not like to see any ward staff reduction. It seemed they were only just keeping up with the needful and now and then through no fault getting a bit behind.

The news item was a bit confusing and did not give me any idea of the how's and why's so I'm wondering if there is any insight about what it is all about.

Signature goes here.

1 | 2 | 3

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1494261 17-Feb-2016 20:16

People want tax cuts so changes need to happen, Personally I would opt not to have tax cuts

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1494294 17-Feb-2016 20:23

It also does not help that the babyboomers and grey power types want more and more care and ever more expensive elective procedures.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1494417 17-Feb-2016 21:44

dejadeadnz:

It also does not help that the babyboomers and grey power types want more and more care and ever more expensive elective procedures.

People don't get care or operations because they want them. Especially not in the Public Health system. They get them because they need them.

Disclaimer: I'm neither a babyboomer nor grey power type.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1494447 17-Feb-2016 22:25

As medical technologies advance and people's perception of what is necessary for a good quality of life changes, along with things like people simply living longer, we are just going to spend an increasing percentage of government money on health care for two groups of people. To be frank, this is unsustainable. I fully support full, free, and high quality public health care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. However (by way of a concrete example), I am uncomfortable with asset rich people believing that they should have a permanently enshrined entitlement to full, free public health care.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1494459 17-Feb-2016 22:47

If you know anyone who is thinking of becoming a nurse, tell them to do something else!!!

That profession is being destroyed (for the most part).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1494468 17-Feb-2016 22:52

I use healthcare a lot due to disability, we are asset rich, we got there buy earning well and so paid considerable tax. I also have medical insurance and go to private hospitals where I can but not all my care can be private.

My wife is still working and earning a very high salary but I took medical retirement. I get no other benefits etc and too young for a pension.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1496020 20-Feb-2016 00:13

Maybe they should allow medical insurance to be tax deductible to encourage those who can afford it to use it.

mattwnz

20003 posts

Uber Geek

#1496021 20-Feb-2016 00:18

dejadeadnz:

It also does not help that the babyboomers and grey power types want more and more care and ever more expensive elective procedures.

You sound like they have a choice in getting old. It is more a case of when you get old, you want to continue to function as a human. Elective surgery isn't cosmetic, it is about retaining things like sight, movement etc. SOme people also work into their 70's , 80's, and if they can't walk, then that effects their earnings.

mattwnz

20003 posts

Uber Geek

#1496022 20-Feb-2016 00:26

dejadeadnz:

As medical technologies advance and people's perception of what is necessary for a good quality of life changes, along with things like people simply living longer, we are just going to spend an increasing percentage of government money on health care for two groups of people. To be frank, this is unsustainable. I fully support full, free, and high quality public health care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. However (by way of a concrete example), I am uncomfortable with asset rich people believing that they should have a permanently enshrined entitlement to full, free public health care.

The thing is that people who saved for their retirement, which is essentially what asset rich is, would have paid the most in tax. Likewise, there are people who have earned very little over their life, and have received more in benefits, than the tax they have paid, and they will get the same pension, and the same health coverage, as someone who has pay millions in tax. But that is why people like our current welfare system, it looks after everyone.I think NZ would become a nastier place to live in, if it was changed. But there are certainly people who want it changed.

I am far more getting the oversea companies turning over hundreds of millions, if not billions in NZ, but paying nearly no tax, due to the way they structure their business. that would make up a huge shortfall. It doesn't make sense that they are participating in the economy, and getting all the benefits, but hardly paying any tax. Also there are high wage people who structure their earnings so they hardly pay any tax. Many years ago I knew a family who were rich farmers with millions in assets, but structured their earnings so on paper they hardly earnt anything, and their children got all the various accommodation supplements and grants for uni. There are people who work the system for their benefit. I don't know if it is as easy to do it these days,

Batman

Mad Scientist
29675 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1496069 20-Feb-2016 07:52

top 3 reasons why health care costs is way above healthcare budget

1. the companies selling new technology to healthcare providers at astronomical prices. a new and better treatment vs old ok treatment [now here I am indeed making it up, guessing] between 10-100x the cost. that's one person. anyone remember Herceptin and how much it costs for one? and "the most hated guy in the US" recently?

2. more people need treatment nowadays - people getting older, fatter, smokier, things that in the past you just leave and live with it but now people "try" to do something about [may or may not work]

3. inflation is growing faster than increase in health budget

I don't believe taxation income has anything to do with it [not talking about tax avoidance, that's real and true, but not the reason]. ANd we are not the only ones with this problem, it's a worldwide problem.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1496145 20-Feb-2016 11:16

It's also worth noting that contrary to what seems to have been the theme in the media, the overall health budget isn't being cut. I went to the Treasury website and looked, and it is increasing and forecast to keep increasing.

Sure, it may not be increasing as much as would be desirable, and individual health boards still make decisions about whether the scale back one service in order to put more into another one, but the government funding isn't actually being cut.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1496167 20-Feb-2016 12:09

mattwnz:

The thing is that people who saved for their retirement, which is essentially what asset rich is, would have paid the most in tax. Likewise, there are people who have earned very little over their life, and have received more in benefits, than the tax they have paid, and they will get the same pension, and the same health coverage, as someone who has pay millions in tax. But that is why people like our current welfare system, it looks after everyone.I think NZ would become a nastier place to live in, if it was changed. But there are certainly people who want it changed.

As someone who is high-earning and likely to have pretty good earning potential for the rest of my working life, I am tired of seeing my tax dollars being spread thin and supporting people who choose to have no medical insurance and continuing to live in large homes whilst claiming health care off others. This sort of pattern is unsustainable. If we were really genuinely about compassion, rather than "Hey I paid X tax, I better get back Y in direct benefits", I would like to think people would want the poor bugger who genuinely cannot get any help elsewhere getting his/her operation more quickly, rather than some boomer living in a 1 million dollar plus home lining up for his hernia operation in the public queue.

To be clear, I have no problem with our tax rate or subsidising others' essential needs. I have a problem with WHOM I am having to subsidise and the ever increasing proportion of government spending which is going towards health care of older people, whilst the likes of students and children and their needs are put on the back burner.

Just look at what the Treasury has had to say on health care funding:

Government spending on healthcare is projected to grow from 6.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 to 10.8% in 2060, an increase of 4 percentage points.

gzt

16821 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1496204 20-Feb-2016 12:54

JimmyH:
It's also worth noting that contrary to what seems to have been the theme in the media, the overall health budget isn't being cut. I went to the Treasury website and looked, and it is increasing and forecast to keep increasing.

Sure, it may not be increasing as much as would be desirable, and individual health boards still make decisions about whether the scale back one service in order to put more into another one, but the government funding isn't actually being cut.

This is one perspective I heard on the news item, and I think it was the government point of view. The other thing I picked up from that item was the government giving different health boards various reduction targets between 1%-4% of current spending. I googled a bit but could not find any details. I'm not much closer to understanding the moves and motives behind it.

gzt

16821 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1496279 20-Feb-2016 14:59

Ok found a better story with some numbers:

"Documents obtained through the Official Information Act revealed the government's call to District Health Boards for $138 million in savings from hospitals for the current financial year. The documents showed the Waikato DHB to have the highest expected saving: More than $43 million, and plans to save nearly $7 million “through holding of vacancies”. Other DHBs have also signalled they plan to cut costs through hiring freezes - operating on smaller staff numbers."

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/health/jobs-first-to-go-as-govt-demands-health-cuts/

I also checked the health ministry site no luck there. There is an interview with the health minister linked in the article above I can listen later.

MadEngineer

4208 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1496300 20-Feb-2016 15:40

youll see more and more wards closed with drops in bed numbers. One ward in palmy for example has been closed and squeezed in with paediatrics.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

1 | 2 | 3