|
September 30, 2004
I saw most of Mark Latham's ALP campaign launch in Brisbane on ABC television last night. The visuals were very good: they were minimalist, mostly Conservative blue, with the emphasis clearly on the message of 'Taking the Pressure off Families.' Stunning and effective imagery.
It did the job for tipping the balance of the campaign towards the ALP. It now looks as if the question is: just how many seats will the Coalition lose? To what extent can Howard limit the damage? Can they hang on? Or has the rot set in?
The Canberra Press Galley are saying Medicare Gold is a part of an ALP strike into John Howard's heartland, and an admission that Latham must penetrate the grey vote to win. Will Medicare Gold shift the older Australians in the marginals who are rusted onto Howard towards the ALP? I don't think so. Neither does Ken Parish. Will the older Australians give up their private health insurance, leave the private health insurance pool, and cause a reduction private health insurance premiums? I reckon they will keep private their health insurance.
Though I was impressed with visuals I was not impressed with the rhetoric of Latham's speech around the "Howard is waging war on Medicare. I want to build a fortress around it" meme. Consider this part of the speech:
"When he first led the Liberal Party [John Howard] said that he wanted to "take a scalpel to Medicare"...Well, that's what this election is all about. It's a referendum on the future of Medicare.
Do we want the Coalition to take us further down the American road of privatised health - a two tier system? Do we want to give John Howard another chance to put his scalpel into Medicare? Or do we want a Labor Government with a plan to save Medicare? Just one tier. One world-class health care system for all Australians.
We set up this system, we're proud of it and we're going to bring it back to its full health. Labor believes in Medicare. It's good public policy. But it also says something special about who we are, about the things that make us uniquely Australian. It says that in our country, if you get sick then someone will care for you. It says that the Australian people look out for each other. That we help our mates and those in need."
John Howard is wandering around inside Medicare with buckets cash. That is hardly taking a scalpel to it. John Quiggin is not impressed by that. He says that Howard is:
"...hampered by the fact that, for all but the last six months or so of his 30 years in public life, he's opposed Medicare and done his best to destroy it. He was Treasurer in the Fraser government which actually did destroy the first version, introduced by Whitlam".
Historically accurate. But no credence is given to Howard judging that it is politically necessary for him to accept Medicare and not destroy it.
Latham's rhetoric is very misleading. He says that Medicare has been one of the great ding-dong battles of Australian public life---a battle of principle on health policy. Presumably he means public v private. Labor is investing in public health care whilst the Coalition pursues the privatisation of health - a system based on private insurance and private care.
Oh? does not the ALP supports the 30% rebate for private health insurance, private hospitals and private doctors who are not bulkbilling.
I realize that speeches are for the party faithful who want to celebrate, feel proud, adore their heroes, and get misty eyed about their future together. But what a conservative understanding of Medicare the ALP has: it is all about hospitals, tick and flick bulkbilling and doctors. Nothing about primary health care, or the services provided by allied health, or keeping people from needing to go to the hospitals in the first place.
What was innovative was the Commonwealth picking up the tab (hospital costs) of Australians over 75, plus guarantee them immediate access to hospital treatment. Historic healthcare reform says Chris Sheil over at Back Pages, without saying why. He goes onto predict an ALP victory, barring an unforseeen left of field event.
But Latham doesn't care whether the hospital is privately owned or state run. So he is providing support to private health care. Ssh. Don't let on that the party faithful has sold its principles on public health long ago.
But that doesn't matter cos it's the images on television that matter.
|
I spelled out some of the reasons why it is a historic change in the thread Gary - but surely blind Freddie can see that one level of government taking complete responsibility for aged care is somewhat new in Australian history!
As for public versus private, what difference does it make? Where's your head? Soviet Union? We're not all as last-century ideologically driven at Back Pages as you rusted-on true believers over here at Public Opinion.
(and while I'm here, my name is not 'Sheils')