Did we just have a budget?

Forums › Off topic › Did we just have a budget?

1 | 2 | 3

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1561393 28-May-2016 19:47

Most people with a clue know that funding health care through tax will be cheaper for everyone overall.

Americans and the neo-Liberal crazy wing of the National Party don't get it, but the rest of the developed world gets it.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1561410 28-May-2016 20:29

clod:

DaveB:

gzt: A current question I have is: Are these two people going to get hip replacement any faster?

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/medicine/news/article.cfm?c_id=255&objectid=11641485

Both of these people are actively contributing in some level of pain and I think there is really no excuse for inaction.

Working lives are longer and the government is just transparently shooting itself in the foot with other potential costs if they ignore this kind of situation.

This has been a problem for years now. The very simple fact is - if you do not have adequate private health insurance, you may be exposed to public service waiting lists for various procedures. It is not just your health (pain) that is exposed it is your earning ability - a "self employed" business consultant really should know this.

It is also not a political party issue as I can recall arriving in this country in 1978 and quickly becoming aware of the various waiting lists for hospital procedures, regardless of which party is in power.

Anybody want to pay more tax in order to provide a fully funded and 100% responsive Public Health system? Nope? I thought not.

Actually I'd be quite happy to forgo the bribe of tax cuts if the money was put into health. Unfortunately tho it seems that we seem to have a me me attitude. Which is fine until a personal disaster happens and your good life disappears.

I tend to agree with you, but suspect it would take a lot more of a subsidy than just sacrificing tax cuts. And where does the healthcare stop? Should full healthcare be available until death (and by that I mean should full healthcare include free rest home care when a person is unable to look after themselves?). And how do you get a Government to ring-fence that money?

As the reply above suggests - "funding health care through tax will be cheaper for everyone overall" and there is an element of truth there. I suspect the tax increase necessary to do that however would shock a lot of people.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1561411 28-May-2016 20:37

DaveB:

I tend to agree with you, but suspect it would take a lot more of a subsidy than just sacrificing tax cuts. And where does the healthcare stop? Should full healthcare be available until death (and by that I mean should full healthcare include free rest home care when a person is unable to look after themselves?). And how do you get a Government to ring-fence that money?

As the reply above suggests - "funding health care through tax will be cheaper for everyone overall" and there is an element of truth there. I suspect the tax increase necessary to do that however would shock a lot of people.

Rest home care needn't be free. The govt could take a large portion of the superannuation to cover the cost. In my experience, people stay in their own homes as long as possible.....and the main reasons they don't are physical or mental inability to do so. The majority in that group tend to not live very long. A handful of years or less.

It's just not that expensive.

As for other health care....if people need it and can't afford it and can't get it any other way then that's the American model and we all know how dreadful that it. Why should the assets of the elderly ill be transferred to private health providers instead of their children?

I've known Americans who moved to NZ precisely to avoid their assets being hollowed out by health care costs as they headed toward death....as happened to their own parents.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1561424 28-May-2016 21:11

Linuxluver:

DaveB:

I tend to agree with you, but suspect it would take a lot more of a subsidy than just sacrificing tax cuts. And where does the healthcare stop? Should full healthcare be available until death (and by that I mean should full healthcare include free rest home care when a person is unable to look after themselves?). And how do you get a Government to ring-fence that money?

As the reply above suggests - "funding health care through tax will be cheaper for everyone overall" and there is an element of truth there. I suspect the tax increase necessary to do that however would shock a lot of people.

Rest home care needn't be free. The govt could take a large portion of the superannuation to cover the cost.

It's just not that expensive.

As for other health care....if people need it and can't afford it and can't get it any other way then that's the American model and we all know how dreadful that it.

Why should the assets of the elderly ill be transferred to private health providers instead of their children?

Govt Super = $18,000 per annum

Rest Home care = $58,000 per annum (thats over and above the additional government subsidies that already go to the facility, per person). So even taking Super away, which the government does when the patients assets come down to $218,000 (then and only then the government fully subsidise ongoing costs) that is quite a funding shortfall per person, per annum.

Add into this an ageing population.

Yes, the american system is dreadful. Driven by escalating technology costs, indemnity insurance costs and legal costs, it has a lot more to deal with than just the cost of true healthcare.

As mentioned above, assets of $218,000 cannot be touched and govt super stops at that threshold. The only way to avoid this is to set up a Trust at least 5 years before a persons health problems arise. Very few people do, as they do not realise what can happen.

In NZ we often use the word "free healthcare", but there is no such thing. We have subsidised healthcare through taxation. The million dollar question however remains ...... can voters be sold on the idea of paying significantly more tax in return for free healthcare that is available to all, 24 hours a day? I doubt it, or it would have already happened.

1 | 2 | 3