Sensational-Adelaide.com

rhino wrote:Adam, I love your comment that MHS's vision is "what most of Adelaide wants"

Where did you get that? Adelaide Now? High Schools?

People in Adelaide who have families and responsibilities are quite happy to see money being spent on a brand new hospital, and don't have a problem with the site either. Thankfully, these people, while not making up the bulk of posters on Adelaide Now's stupid polls, do make up the bulk of voters.

Perhaps he got his figures from Sensational Adelaide, where the poll on the home page has only 20% of ~2000 votes in support of a railyards hospital. Its true that this poll is also probably not a true cross section of society but when you say most people are in favour of the new hospital site you've pull that statement out of thin air also.

ozisnowman wrote:Only problems with the new hospital is that the government has no idea as to the level of
contamination at the site or how much the clean up will cost, not to mention the problem
of having helicopters crossing the flight path of jets coming into Adelaide Airport.

So when we want to build skyscrapers the flight paths are a nuisance that needs to go away, but when we don't want to build a building the flight paths are a problem? How about when we want to build the skyscrapers like MHS's vision has illustrated along North Tce and the Riverside?

The site needs to be decontaminated in any case, unless you're in favour of leaving it how it is. The railway caused the contamination, the State will need to pay for it no matter what happens on the site, again unless you want to leave it how it is.

We can't have arguments both ways, it just makes us look hypocritical.

Why not argue on points that cant be countered with a moment's thought?

Not just picking on you, but pretty much the entire debate from both sides. I would like some clear and informed debate on this, but unfortunately it's become a team sport with people rallying without reason in all camps. Everything is dis-information instead of information.

I'm really quite sick of it.

monotonehell wrote:

ozisnowman wrote:Only problems with the new hospital is that the government has no idea as to the level of
contamination at the site or how much the clean up will cost, not to mention the problem
of having helicopters crossing the flight path of jets coming into Adelaide Airport.

So when we want to build skyscrapers the flight paths are a nuisance that needs to go away, but when we don't want to build a building the flight paths are a problem? How about when we want to build the skyscrapers like MHS's vision has illustrated along North Tce and the Riverside?

The site needs to be decontaminated in any case, unless you're in favour of leaving it how it is. The railway caused the contamination, the State will need to pay for it no matter what happens on the site, again unless you want to leave it how it is.

We can't have arguments both ways, it just makes us look hypocritical.

Why not argue on points that cant be countered with a moment's thought?

Not just picking on you, but pretty much the entire debate from both sides. I would like some clear and informed debate on this, but unfortunately it's become a team sport with people rallying without reason in all camps. Everything is dis-information instead of information.

I'm really quite sick of it.

Fair call. Here are some points i've ripped off the http://saverah.com.au/ website as they have much better knowledge of the health system than I, having their core made up predominately by those who will have to work in the new rah where ever it is.

"Colocation:
RAH is part of a major health, teaching & research centre. Its positioned together with the medical school and other dept. of Uni Adel, world-renowned Hanson Research Centre and Institute of Medical and Vet Science. Doctors, scientists, professors, medical students & others move easily between these buildings. These things are the seeds of new treatment ideas which benefit patients directly. The first-class international reputation of the RAH has been attributed by many experts to this clustering of resources, which is envied by other institutions interstate and overseas. SA Gov has agreed to make space available in the proposed new hospital for research and teaching facilities. It is also proposing to build a new research institute at the western end of North terrace. But it will not replicate the entire precinct.

More For Less:
With all the high cost areas of the Royal Adelaide Hospital now upgraded, new wards can be built on the existing site at a cost of approximately $700m (Rawlinson 2009).
Save $1 BILLION: By building new wards on the existing site, we can save $1 billion over the cost of building a brand new hospital, have a state of the art hospital and still enjoyall the benefits of the current site. In the current economic climate is it really wise to spent $1 billion we don't have to? This leaves $1.028 billion for QEH, Flinders, Lyell McEwin, Mod, Glenside, Country Health and Women’s and Children’s Hospital.

Existing Value:
$1 bill of existing assets: According to the independent estimate of Mark Hamilton, commercial lawyer of Grope Hamilton Lawyers Adelaide, the replacement value of the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital assets is $1 billion. EVERY high cost area of the hospital has been refurbished. Over the past 10 years, $130 million has been spent upgrading the RAH. This includes the building of the new Robert Gerard Wing (P Wing). This wing was funded by a public fundraising appeal which raised $4 million. The refurbished central block was also made earthquake compliant in the course of this refurbishment.

Other areas of refurbishment include: Intensive Care Unit, Emergency Department, Burns Unit, Cardiothorasic Intensive Care Unit, Radiology Department, including new MRI scanner and multi-million dollar PET scanner, Renal Transplant Unit, currently undergoing a $15 million upgrade, Cafeteria, Day Surgery, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Suite,
Now all we need is NEW WARDS!
This was part of the government's plans for the continued redevelopment of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, before they were shelved in favour of the new hospital."

There is also a slide show with pictures of all the renovations that have already taken place, and you can see how many of the wards are brand new, http://saverah.com.au/why/more-for-less. Have a look no matter what side of the debate your on so at least you are better informed, although i realise the group is hardly impartial.

Well you heard it first on S-A.

New hospital job warning
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)
RENATO CASTELLO

June 20, 2009 11:30pm

STAFF at Royal Adelaide Hospital have been warned their jobs could be privatised once the new $1.7 billion hospital is built on Adelaide's railyards site.

SA Health chief executive Dr Tony Sherbon told catering and maintenance crews in separate meetings on Monday they may be removed from the public sector under the proposed public-private partnership model for the new RAH.

The decision has raised concerns among some employees about job security if their positions were outsourced to a private firm.

A source within the catering department, which employs 200 staff, said it was the first time employees knew the service would be outsourced.

"The whole hospital is going to be outsourced except for doctors, nurses and clinical staff . . . all support services like ours are going to be privatised," he said.

"They said it's happening, all maintenance and building services, catering . . . it's always been under the public service and I can't believe they want to (privatise)."

The Sunday Mail understands the staff will have to re-apply for their positions with the successful private operator. The State Government called for expressions of interest for the construction and management of the hospital last week.

Under a proposed private-public partnership, SA Health would maintain core medical services but non-core services, including cleaning and catering, would be outsourced over a 35-year contract.

Dr Sherbon said he and Central Northern Adelaide Health Service chief executive Dr Karleen Edwards had met with affected RAH staff to provide them with an opportunity to ask questions about the plan.

"While the exact terms of the provision of catering services and building and engineering services are yet to be decided for the new RAH, it is possible that the management and staff of the new hospital's catering and building and engineering services may not be employed by the SA Public Sector when the building opens in 2016," he said in a statement.

Okay, something else on the grape vine is.. the entire hospital will be operated privately.

Of course if the government wants to make cuts to the public service then they have to make cuts somewhere. How many of those staff were hired after the current government came in and added more public servant fat? If we want more services for a smaller fee, privatisation of the support services is essential. As long as the nurses and doctors and the core staff of the hospital remain public I will stay happy. Has Marty promised that he will keep the support services of the current RAH under the public sector? He's pledged to reduce the public sector himself, so where will he make the cuts? Many times he has refused to answer that question.

The Save The RAH rally was on in the East Parklands today & will likely get some airplay on channel 7 & 9 for those interested.

Norman, privatisation is not the answer to everything... sure it will cost less to run in private hands, but private industry has an entirely different agenda to public. And I think eventually, it will cost patients alot more than money.

On your point about core staff. Nurses and doctors are core staff, yes. But what of the others? Would you consider the people who maintain medical equipment and facilities core staff? How the people who manage your sensitive medical records? How about the researchers bringing you vaccines and scientific breakthroughs? How about trial coordinators and all the people who support them. I'm not sure you're fully aware of what actually goes on in a hospital Norman. A hospital is not just about doctors and nurses, it is a multi-disciplinary environment. In my opinion "everyone" at the RAH is core to it's success, from the catering staff through to the senior medical officers.

You should see what it's like working or being a patient in a privately run public hospital. Goto Modbury Hospital and tell me you support privatisation then.

I have to admit that I haven't been to a private hospital before so I can't compare.

In relation to what is outsourced, I'm going to wait until I see some clear documentation on what will be outsourced. I'm not going to base my opinion on other opinions, hearsay or even The Advertiser. Who knows, this could just be based on one tenders' reply, others might not have conditions like that.

But my opinion on building a new hospital still stands, it should be done and a new or upgraded stadium can be put somewhere else.

Howie wrote:Okay, something else on the grape vine is.. the entire hospital will be operated privately.

This is something that I've been concerned about since the first announcement of (what was then) the Marj. But having said that, the Liberals traditionally are the ones who sell everything off to the public sector while Labor traditionally were the ones who favoured nationalised services.

Don't know what to think these days. There's certainly a LOT more to this whole discussion that simply building a new hospital, or not, and where it should be built. It would be nice if everyone would put their cards on the table about each point separately instead of all the muddied waters we have to contend with now.

Building a hospital and the labour arrangements that occur in that new hospital are two separate topics that need to be addressed separately. First HOW the hospital is to be run, and then whether it needs to be relocated, and then the facilities required to fulfil the first point, and finally how that hospital should be built to accommodate that.


I've decided that the Liberals are a complete basket case now. Even if they manage to contest the next election, they are not organised, or united, or have any real vision or guiding principles. What first enthused me regarding them was MHS's vision and his website with the initial announcements he made. Since then however it's proven that all those announcements were just a veneer over a still befuddled and disorganised rabble.

They don't need a leadership change, they need an everyone else change. MHS is an eagle trying to soar amongst turkeys.


So now we're down to the abhorrent situation of better the devil you know.

*sigh*

I'm of the opinion that the new hospital probably won't happen, not because of the massive opposition but more on the ability to raise the capital required to get it off the ground. So this argument could be pointless a year from now.

Don't disagree with you there mono. We definately need all cards on table.


Btw, I thought the last round of major sell-offs of public infrastructure was to retire debt left over from the state bank collapse?

Howie wrote:I'm of the opinion that the new hospital probably won't happen, not because of the massive opposition but more on the ability to raise the capital required to get it off the ground. So this argument could be pointless a year from now.

I'll be very surprised if they can find a PPP commercial partner to fund it, yeah with you on that point, Howie.

Howie wrote:Btw, I thought the last round of major sell-offs of public infrastructure was to retire debt left over from the state bank collapse?

I wasn't referring to historic specifics, just generally what's supposed to be the fundamental differences between the two parties.

monotonehell wrote:

Howie wrote:Btw, I thought the last round of major sell-offs of public infrastructure was to retire debt left over from the state bank collapse?

I wasn't referring to historic specifics, just generally what's supposed to be the fundamental differences between the two parties.

In that case, if the Liberals are known for privatising everything, then sure its fair to say that Labor is known for putting the state into debt... there, thats fair!

BTW, i'm getting a little bit sick of all this Liberal/Labour bashing on this board, it seems every thread is being tainted by certain people sticking the boot in at every opportunity, but rather than further contaminate this thread, i will take my rant to the pub...

Howie wrote:Norman, privatisation is not the answer to everything... sure it will cost less to run in private hands, but private industry has an entirely different agenda to public. And I think eventually, it will cost patients alot more than money.

On your point about core staff. Nurses and doctors are core staff, yes. But what of the others? Would you consider the people who maintain medical equipment and facilities core staff? How the people who manage your sensitive medical records? How about the researchers bringing you vaccines and scientific breakthroughs? How about trial coordinators and all the people who support them. I'm not sure you're fully aware of what actually goes on in a hospital Norman. A hospital is not just about doctors and nurses, it is a multi-disciplinary environment. In my opinion "everyone" at the RAH is core to it's success, from the catering staff through to the senior medical officers.

You should see what it's like working or being a patient in a privately run public hospital. Goto Modbury Hospital and tell me you support privatisation then.

Well said Howie. Privatisation has no place in a public hospital. A hospital should be a place where the interests of patients not the interests of share-holders are placed first.

The privatisation of the Modbury Hospital was an extreme ideological disaster that has rightfully been undone. I am amazed that the governemnt would now attempt the very same thing with aspects of the RAH.

By the way didn't Mike Rann sign a giant novelty cheque at the last eelction promising 'no more privatisations'.

His opposition to more privatisations was a big influence in my vote....

However I do not want this post to be interpreted as a pro-liberal stance, because it definately isn't.