Onus of responsibility in health
ACCORDING to Anna Fitzpatrick (The Examiner, April 25), in turn for being allowed to resume elective surgery which was banned during the pandemic, the private hospitals have an obligation to repay for the "largesse that taxpayers have so generously provided".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Private hospitals exist only because of those who have accepted responsibility for the cost of most of their healthcare costs and occupy beds funded by their healthcare provider, those not insured occupy beds provided by the taxpayer. During the pandemic, when it was anticipated that demand for public beds would exceed supply the government banned the so-called "elective surgery" and commandeered the beds in private hospitals for use in the public system.
To now argue that by being allowed to resume "elective surgery" in private hospitals and allow insured patients to again utilise services for which they have paid is some form of largesse for which the private system is indebted to the taxpayer is simply absurd.
In reality, the onus of responsibility is the direct opposite to that wanted by Ms Fitzpatrick privately insured patients should be compensated for the fact that they have been unable to access medical services for which they have paid, and there should be some form of appreciation for the fact that, thanks to people with health insurance, extra hospital beds become available during an unanticipated emergency.
M Chugg, Prospect.
Achievable political reform
SOME elected federal politicians had to forfeit their seats due to problems associated with dual nationality. Perhaps, understandably, those who drafted the Australian Constitution did not want parliamentarians, as elected representatives, to have split allegiances or potential conflicts of interest.
The irony of the situation is that federal politicians and Tasmanian politicians swear an oath of allegiance (or make an affirmation of allegiance) to the Queen of Australia who is also the Queen of England and however many other countries of which she is simultaneously the monarch.
I submit that the oath (or affirmation) be changed for Tasmanian politicians to something more appropriate such as "to well and truly serve the Tasmanian people" rather than pledging allegiance to the oldest child of a family in England enjoying a privileged and pampered lifestyle. This suggestion should be feasible legislatively in Tasmania given the statute involved even though Australia is not a republic. Just like corporate governance standards matter, so do political governance standards.
We don't necessarily have the best people in Parliament currently and requiring a person of principle with republican political beliefs to make an affirmation of allegiance to a hereditary monarchy (not a merit-based system) can create an unnecessary and undesirable discriminatory barrier to candidature potentially denying the people a top quality representative.
In times of crisis, having the best people available to serve matters. Reform is necessary and achievable with political will. It could pass through parliament in minutes with multi-party and upper house agreement.
Mark Webb, Launceston.
Spirit's terminal move bluff
I FIND myself hopeful that what looks like the ultimate game of bluff with the Port of Melbourne is actually just that. Everybody agrees that no business can sustain cost increases of 30-plus per cent. However, there has to be some reality about the discussion to move out of docking smack bang in the middle of the second largest city in Australia, to docking in Geelong. No doubt it would deter a significant percentage of travellers.
Geelong to Melbourne is a 55 minute drive with no traffic and up to double that peak-hour. In the mornings when the Spirit would typically dock, it is peak hour all the way to Melbourne, it is horrible. Anybody who has tried to take the freeway into Melbourne from Geelong would know that from around Werribee onwards it is walking pace from about 6.30am till 9am.
I love the Spirit of Tasmania and want it to succeed. This however, simply seems like a terrible business model if you are looking at building capacity and increasing passenger numbers. I appreciate that there will be a small and vocal group who live out towards Geelong or West Victoria who love the idea. But unless they can sustain the business by their custom alone it will not work. Then what happens when we have to go back on our knees to the Port of Melbourne? Let's hope it truly is a game of bluff.
Joe Rogers, Windermere.