Rudd bids for public hospitals while voters know only clear and responsible federalism will heal the sick.

posted by David Collyer on Monday, July 27th 2009

Quality health care is a bargain - just ask the sick and dying

Kevin Rudd wants to run the public hospitals and is willing to conduct a referendum to gain the power.  Why?

What can the federal government bring to our public hospital system that state governments cannot?

Do they possess superior management skills?  A lower cost base?  Or unique insights into patient care?

I don’t think so.

The federal government does have the money, courtesy of the takeover of income tax from the states in the Second World War.  And we owe a debt of gratitude to Gough Whitlam for the introduction of universal health care in the early 1970’s.

However, both of these key changes undermined the clear lines of responsibility voters need to inform their choices.  State governments blame the feds for rationing the funds they need.  Canberra accuses state administrators of ‘inefficiency’.

No government is clearly responsible; no government can be punished for its failures.   One taxes, another spends.

Many people think state governments are redundant – relics of our colonial past.  But the end of the states is not the shift Rudd is threatening a referendum on.  He merely wants to control their activities.

Universal health care is a public good of enormous value.  It is more use to the poor and sick than superannuation or transport or even social welfare.  It is the gift of life itself.

We can congratulate ourselves on being born in a country that provides quality care for everyone at a cost of only 8.8 per cent of GDP.  This is an absolute bargain!

The USA is currently debating the introduction of a system like ours – theirs currently costs 15.2 per cent of GDP and leaves over 30 million people without health care and higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.  That comparison makes a mockery of allegations of ‘inefficiency’.

Why does Rudd want to run the hospitals?  This is a second order answer to the problem.  A better one would be to match state taxes to their responsibilities.  Then we could vote them out for just cause, not just because.