The cost of National’s health care cuts

Written By: - Date published: 3:35 pm, August 6th, 2010 - 15 comments
Categories: health, public services, Social issues - Tags:

What’s going on in our health care system when the well respected head of a DHB resigns, saying he cannot cut costs any further without undermining patient care. The Dom Post is reporting:

Ken Whelan (chief executive of Capital & Coast District Health Board) announced his resignation yesterday as chief executive of Capital & Coast District Health Board, which he has led since April 2008…He said there was no more room to cut the district health board’s costs, despite Government pressure to do so. “I cannot see where any more major efficiency can come from without negatively impacting on services.”

Board members, including chairman Sir John Anderson, backed his statements, saying any further savings would “cut into muscle”.

In case anyone has forgotten what a mess National made of health in the 1990s, this is a handy summary from Brian Easton here. The growth in hospital deficits was just part of it.

15 comments on “The cost of National’s health care cuts ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rex Widerstrom 1
    6 August 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Hard to evaluate Whelan’s comments in the absence of facts and figures (though instinct leads me to feel he’s right, that’s no basis for policy).

    What’s needed now isn’t a stinging and fact-less rebuttal from the Health Minister but some investigative reporting.

    I’ll just settle down to wait for the msm to undertake it…

    …I could be gone for some time.

  2. tc 2
    6 August 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Wanted: Member of the old boy network seeking a new challenge or more of the same.
    Ability to lead without question, a thick skin and blind eye essential.
    Health sector experience not essential.
    Competitive package and relocation lifestyle benefits including Frequent liar points.
    Apply to T Ryall c/- Bellamys. Lefties and do gooders not considered.

  3. BLiP 3
    6 August 2010 at 4:49 pm

    For a government that doesn’t believe the supply of fresh water is a human right, why would health be any different?

  4. Gooner 4
    6 August 2010 at 6:06 pm

    BliP, to exercise that right someone or somebody has to have a duty to supply fresh water. Who has a duty to supply fresh water?

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1
      6 August 2010 at 7:32 pm

      Any right that we actually have is socially constructed. So it depends on how we construct the right. Obviously.

      We’ll skip the next step, and I’ll ask you to name a right that we have, that is not socially constructed.

      And then we’ll talk about my natural right to do whatever the fuck I want with my arse kicking skillz, and how that relates to your alleged property rights, vis a vis the priority we give to natural rights over legal ones,

      That will lead to a discussion about whether socially constructed rights, like legal or moral rights, are the ones that actually can be said to exist, given their obvious primacy over the natural rights in the instances where they restrict, or to some extent extinguish, a natural right.

      And we’ll finish up by saying that a right to fresh water would therefore put an obligation on society via some mechanism, to provide water.

      And then you’ll tell me there was fuck all fighting in Baghdad and go to bed or something.

      • Rosy 4.2.1
        6 August 2010 at 8:54 pm

        I read somwhere that is why we pay taxes/and rates – for the provision of public goods *sarcasm* and this public good is fundemental to survival. So I suggest the state has some obligation to provide it, especially if that state is a member of the UN
        http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=1764

      • Gooner 4.2.2
        7 August 2010 at 7:01 pm

        Then go and sue society for failing to provide it.

        Let us know how your case goes.

        • Luxated 4.2.2.1
          7 August 2010 at 11:44 pm

          That would be the government (local or central) then as they act on behalf of society.

        • McFlock 4.2.2.2
          8 August 2010 at 12:54 am

          Actually, the ability to take the government to court for not meeting its obligations has been around since King John.

          It’s actually another basic right.

    • Armchair Critic 4.3
      6 August 2010 at 9:35 pm

      Everyone.

    • B 4.4
      7 August 2010 at 6:41 pm

      The Govt or Council i would have thought!

  5. Ed 5
    6 August 2010 at 9:49 pm

    The referenced article by Brian Easton is great reading – and has remarkable parallels to some of what we are hearing from National now. Thank you

Links to post