ACC privatisation costs National support?

18 comments on “ACC privatisation costs National support? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Matthew Pilott 1

   4 September 2008 at 12:39 pm

   That and the NZ Sucks campaign. I’d be getting pretty sick of National bagging my profession day in and day out, without offering any decent solutions.

   I know they’re attacking ‘the system’, and not the individuals within, but there’s a point where it becomes difficult to differentiate between the two, and when the mantra is “New Zealand’s public healthcare system sucks, New Zealand’s public healthcare system sucks, New Zealand’s public healthcare system sucks, New Zealand’s public healthcare system sucks, New Zealand’s public healthcare system sucks…” Well, if I worked in it I’d really feel like my contribution was worth 5/8 of FA in National’s eyes.
2. Roflcopter 2

   4 September 2008 at 12:42 pm

   Concern to who?

   Only 105 people responded, and it has a margin of error of +/- 9.6%.

   Hardly significant.
3. Dancer 3

   4 September 2008 at 12:50 pm

   I agree that any one poll is not impt – but trends are. This appears to confirm other polls where the race is tightening – but to me it’s esp interesting that a group National have worked hard to attract (esp given the number of doctors they have in their caucus)has some serious reservations about National’s policies. This is hardly a vote of confidence in their ability to deliver what the sector wants.
4. deemac 4

   4 September 2008 at 12:53 pm

   meanwhile the media continue to give Key an easy ride – his inability to tell the truth about meeting Ashcroft was pathetic. People expect a potential PM to give a straight answer to a simple question but having exposed his shiftiness, the media let it go
5. Stephen 5

   4 September 2008 at 1:08 pm

   Interesting to get the trend views of certain groups like that, so good post. Obviously [what Roflcopter said], but like Dancer said, trends are important. Would be useful to know if they’re the same doctors who responded to the 2007 poll, but they look more self-selecting than anything.
6. MikeE 6

   4 September 2008 at 1:21 pm

   So essentially 83% of GPs are better doctors than they are economists.. which isn’t suprising now is it?
7. Matthew Pilott 7

   4 September 2008 at 1:38 pm

   So essentially the ACT guy thinks the only thing to consider when voting is money… which isn’t surprising now is it?

   The ACT Hippocratic oath:

   I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

   I will respect the hard-won financial gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such financial knowledge as is mine with those who are to be equally worthy.

   I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are paid for, avoiding those twin traps of free treatment and therapeutic free-riding.

   I will remember that there is money to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may never outweigh the dollar or the cent.
8. Scribe 8

   4 September 2008 at 1:39 pm

   Stephen,

   Would be useful to know if they’re the same doctors who responded to the 2007 poll, but they look more self-selecting than anything.

   That’s my concern, too.
9. Stephen 9

   4 September 2008 at 1:44 pm

   Scribe, it’s not so much a concern in the sense that it totally invalidates any trend, but the small-ish number gets it close to doing so I think.
10. Jeeves 10

    4 September 2008 at 1:51 pm

    “People expect the PM to give a straight answer”? Oh good gracious me! You might wish to consider what other events involving dodgy potential (current) PMs have obscured the media attention from John’s shifty answer?

    I guess shifty Key is fortunate to be running against dodgy Helen.
11. Felix 11

    4 September 2008 at 1:52 pm

    105 people? With a sample that small why do they express the results in percentage?

    They may as well say “38 doctors think”.
12. Phil 12

    4 September 2008 at 2:03 pm

    More interesting in this small sample is the number of people who “don’t know” – its exploded!
13. Greg 13

    4 September 2008 at 3:32 pm

    “People expect a potential PM to give a straight answer to a simple question but having exposed his shiftiness, the media let it go”

    Maybe but, how is “I assumed there was some innocent explanation” any better?

    It also seems a little suspect that this blog constantly critisises the polls while National is way out in front, yet when the gap tightens they are suddenly worthy of our consideration.

    Also as for the gap tightening – it is not the National v Labour gap that is tight but the National and Act v Labour, the Greens, NZF, United Future and Maori that is tightening. It would be interesting to see if there is any public backlash if National wins say 10% more of the vote than Labour, yet Labour forms the government. Sounds a bit like the 1981 FPP election to me.
14. Tim Ellis 14

    4 September 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Dancer, from what I understand the poll was an opt-in response. It is as credible as the phone-in “polls” that TVNZ occasionally uses: that is to say, nil. Calling it a poll is an insult to all polls. There is no trend here. Even the margin for error, at 9.6%, is misleading, if not downright wrong.

    I am quite interested in poll responses. This one doesn’t seem to meet any measure of adequate polling.
15. Matthew Pilott 15

    4 September 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Greg, I was discussing that possibility recently. The only way it would be like the 1981 FPP election would be that people still have an FPP mindset. Despite NZF promising to go with the biggest party last time around, there is no imperative. If your scenario came to pass, what it would mean is that over 50% of the population voted for parties that were more likely to work together in a left-leaning coalition.

    That, say, 42% of the population voted for a single party is immaterial – more people voted against them than for them…

    No doubt there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, though.
16. MikeE 16

    4 September 2008 at 4:27 pm

    The point being, I don’t expect doctors to understadn economics or funding, just like doctors shouldn’t expect me to know anything about surgery.

    So, the doctors opinion on how surgery is funded, is pretty much irrelavent. Also, what was the weighting of private vs publci sector doctors in the sample, I’m sure that public sector doctors are likely to be biased against anything that takes their monopoly on funding away.
17. Matthew Pilott 17

    4 September 2008 at 4:38 pm

    Ttalking about ACC, MikeE, doctors would be in a perfect position to see, first-hand, the results of a privatisation experiment. I think their experience in 1999 wasn’t a happy one.

    They may also instictively prefer a cooperative approach over a competitive one, given the nature of the business, but that’s a guess on my behalf.
18. randal 18

    4 September 2008 at 4:41 pm

    deemac the meedia are giving keys an easy ride because they are manques just like him.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS