In the Mercury of 19/10/14 it stated that there were “fears for rural nursing” then proceeded to discuss the loss of rural facilities, doctors, nurses and management positions.
For example it stated that “Nubeena on the Tasman Peninsula is set to lose a general practitioner, emergency room and after-hours medical services, following a breakdown between Lauderdale Health Support Services, which provides the doctors, and the Hobart District Nursing Service, which administers the service on behalf of the Government. From next month, the region would be serviced by one GP working just three days a week.”
In that example the reason for the loss was ‘explained’ as a breakdown between two service organisations, one representing government.
This leads to some very serious questions.
Why isn’t the job of health administrators to find ways to assure that taxpayers receive essential health services?
What protections will exist for the people who cannot travel substantial distances to remaining services? What ambulance coverage will be provided?
Is the taxpaying public entitled to any level of basic health protection and services or not?
Is this all part of the plan to deal with ebola and if so, how? If not, what is the plan?
Michael Ferguson appears to be trying to do a sensible job however this kind of threat of sudden withdrawal of services cuts property values, reduces the practicality of living outside the major centres and puts people’s lives at risk and deters business investment.
It is hard to see how the Liberals can increase attract a larger population if reductions of services in the face of growing need is their policy.
Are those outcomes really government policy?
Given all of the risks created by this kind of reduction, why do we need to pay administrators to increase the risks to our health? Why do we need them at all?
