Cuts to health and education hurt the most. They hurt because they target the most vulnerable in our communities – the ill and elderly, the young and those trying to better themselves.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
There’s some debate over whether the latest revelations around federal government public hospital funding equates to a cut (if you believe Labor) or a spending increase (if you believe the Liberals).
It’s intriguing how politicians can make numbers dance like that and get figures to show whatever they like.
The Commonwealth government says a new deal will see “record spending” on public health and hospitals. NSW is one of the states that has signed this deal. Fantastic. Any funds injected into our health system is money well spent.
However, claiming “the Coalition is delivering nearly $2 billion more to NSW hospitals, compared to what Labor funded in their last year in government” is hardly a valid argument. A litre of milk costs more now than it did five years ago. We spend more now because we have to. Prices rise, wages grow, living costs increase, and spending has to match.
Incidentally, statements we received from both the office of Federal Minister for Health Greg Hunt and from Liberal Senator Jim Molan both had that phrase, among others, word-for-word the same.
Parroting the same argument over and over also does not make it any more valid.
We will leave it to bigger heads than us to work out whether the federal deal for public hospital funding through to 2020 is adequate for current and future needs. But according to Labor it equates to a “$715 million cut” – we can only assume that means $715 million less than what was otherwise expected.
Same numbers, different political arguments. It’s enough to make you need a trip to the doctor.
What’s of more importance here is what effects will we as a community, and potential patients, see under the new funding arrangement if these budget restrictions are indeed true?
Has the Local Health District been working to a forward budget on promised funding from 2017-2020 to now, in only year two of that agreement, have a couple of million less to factor in?
Be assured these are questions we are asking, and which we will report to readers once we know more than just the political tit-for-tat we’ve heard so far.