[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[adam73837]

A post.

[Norman]

They could be cut without building it.

Due to this flu I've got, I'm a little slow at the moment. What you're saying is...

What I'm saying is that the Government could decide to reduce spending for regional hospitals even if they were not going to build the RAH. They could claim it under efficiency reasons.

And what do you think Talkback stations are made for, for people speaking positively about something? No, they're here for one's expression of complaint and anger, or whinging if you must.

Unless you're being sarcastic and I'm failing to pick it up; you'll find that that's what I said:

just all the talkback on radio stations where I listen to people expressing their frustration about the issue and the Government being unwilling to discuss this with the public.

Yes, but it's still often a minority that speaks out on talkback stations. It's not a viewpoint of what the city or state thinks about an issue as a whole.

[Wayno]

I wonder if Rudd's push for Fed Govt ownership of health will impact Rann's plan for a new RAH?

From AdelaideNow:

Health by stealth - Federal health reform on the way

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd will move to seize control of hospital funding from the states in a provocative shake-up of the nation's health system, to be announced this week.

The states will no longer be given federal money to run their public hospital systems.

Instead, Mr Rudd will directly fund regional health authorities, who will be in charge of running public hospitals in their regions.

The states currently manage about 60 per cent of hospital funding. They will be forced to hand over this money to a new central national health funding pool so it can be distributed direct to hospitals.

States who refuse to do this will be penalised by having their GST revenue withdrawn.

The Federal Government will then redirect this GST funding to the hospitals.

If the states refuse to agree to the reform program, Mr Rudd has threatened to hold a referendum at the next election to seek a mandate to assume full funding responsibility for the health system.

The plan to set up a single national funding system allows Mr Rudd to effectively honour his 2007 election promise to take over hospitals. He will control funding but the management will be carried out locally by regional health authorities.

Mr Rudd has poured billions of extra dollars into hospitals since 2007 but, despite this, waiting lists for elective surgery and emergency care have steadily increased.

This is because the NSW government slashed its own funding to the hospital system by $700 million.

The plan to remove state governments from a direct role in funding hospitals is expected to be bitterly opposed by most states because it strips them of one of their core functions and removes their ability to cream off federal hospital funding to other programs.

State premiers will get to debate Mr Rudd's controversial hospital plan at a Council of Australian Governments meeting next month.

The Rudd Government will try to win over the states by showing them figures which reveal that the ageing population and growing health technology costs mean the states will be unable to fund their health services from their own tax base within 20 years. The only solution will be a shift to a national system of funding.

Doctors have been arguing for a single national funding system and are expected to welcome the plan.

The plan meets a key requirement of the Australian Medical Association, which has been calling for a single body to fund hospitals.

The Rudd Government wants to try to limit any new bureaucracy associated with the changes and may use existing state-based area health authorities to run the new system.

The hospital funding announcement is the first stage of Mr Rudd's response to his National Health and Hospital Reform Commission report.

He has decided to break up his response to health reform into five stages. The first stage, dealing with funding, will be unveiled this week.

The other stages, dealing with issues such as primary care, preventative care, dental care and nurses, will be announced later in the year.

Large amounts of extra money will be required if Mr Rudd's initiatives are to be successful.

A plan to establish a publicly funded dental care subsidy scheme would require a 0.75 per cent rise in the Medicare levy. This would have to be included in the Budget.

Before he announces new spending in these areas, Mr Rudd first wants to secure the agreement of the premiers to his new funding authority.

[RayRichards]

Whats the latest of this White Elephant? Cant wait till they really check the contamination of the railyards.

Ray.

[Mants]

Whats the latest of this White Elephant? Cant wait till they really check the contamination of the railyards.

Ray.

I'm not a fan of the proposed location, but how exactly is a hospital a white elephant??

[Waewick]

yeah thats what I was thinking

where the hell are all the sick people going to go if its a white elephant

[RayRichards]

Whats the latest of this White Elephant? Cant wait till they really check the contamination of the railyards.

Ray.

I'm not a fan of the proposed location, but how exactly is a hospital a white elephant??

If the cost is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. Like $1.7 billion. I would call it a White Elephant. I shouldn't be too hasty. It hasn't be built (if ever) yet!

Ray.

[Aidan]

The cost is certainly out of proportion to its usefulness, but it will still be useful. A white elephant is something that's no use whatsoever.

White elephants were regarded as sacred, so weren't allowed to be put to work, but still had to be fed...

[ChillyPhilly]

Don't forget the high likeliness of a cost blowout with the new RAH, too...

I'm still utterly convinced it was one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of South Australia.

[dsriggs]

Don't forget the high likeliness of a cost blowout with the new RAH, too...

I'm still utterly convinced it was one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of South Australia.

...yeah, no.

[mattblack]

Don't forget the high likeliness of a cost blowout with the new RAH, too...

I'm still utterly convinced it was one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of South Australia.

...yeah, no.

If your already putting this hospital in with the state bank fiasco you really have no idea.

[Aidan]

Don't forget the high likeliness of a cost blowout with the new RAH, too...

I'm still utterly convinced it was one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of South Australia.

...yeah, no.

If your already putting this hospital in with the state bank fiasco you really have no idea.

But how much idea do you have? What was the net loss from the State Bank?

[Prince George]

If your already putting this hospital in with the state bank fiasco you really have no idea.

But how much idea do you have? What was the net loss from the State Bank?

What are you driving at, Aidan? The Bannon government's initial bailout alone was $970M - adjusted for inflation that's about $1.5B at present value. Ultimately the state was guarantor for debts that totalled about $7B and drew loans of around $3.5B, or about $5B in present value, to keep the bank solvent.

[activ8ed]

The RAH could end up costing more; as I understand it, the $1.7b is the capital cost of constructing the hospital, but because it is a PPP venture, some of the services (cleaning, cooking, etc.) would be outsourced to the private sector, therefore adding to the operational cost (unfactored in the $1.7b figure) whiccoke to be paid for by the taxpayer as private firms seek profitability, rather than the Government subsidizing for these services through the public sector.

[Aidan]

If your already putting this hospital in with the state bank fiasco you really have no idea.

But how much idea do you have? What was the net loss from the State Bank?

What are you driving at, Aidan? The Bannon government's initial bailout alone was $970M - adjusted for inflation that's about $1.5B at present value. Ultimately the state was guarantor for debts that totalled about $7B and drew loans of around $3.5B, or about $5B in present value, to keep the bank solvent.

What loans the state guaranteed is really a distraction issue. I asked how much they lost because everyone seems to be assuming the State Bank collapse eclipses all other financial disasters, but the actual figures seem to be elusive and when the Liberals were in power they did exaggerate the scale of the disaster for political purposes.

Remember also that the State Bank was paying dividends in the '80s.

With the forecast cost blowout, the new RAH could easily cost well over a billion dollars more than upgrading the existing one to the same standard. I'm certainly not claiming it would be worse than the State Bank collapse, but nor did ChillyPhilly. I'm merely pointing out that it could well be in the same order of magnitude.