Yesterday on Insiders Chris Uhlmann suggested that the Howard government had cut hospital spending. Joe Hockey denied that allegation saying that the States had increased spending over and above the Commonwealth spend, leaving Uhlmann mumbling something about spending share.
Today Paul Sheehan has this comment.
The big lie, repeated again and again, is that the Howard government stripped a billion dollars out of the health system. This claim cannot withstand scrutiny. Any government minister who repeats this mantra is lying.
Them’s fighting words. So I had a look at some ABS data I collected last year on government spending and pulled out the Health spend data.
Overall the Commonwealth spent more on Health than did the States. What about acute care institutions (I assume these are hospitals)?
It looks like the States massively increased spending on hospitals after the GST came in – the same GST that the Commonwealth now proposes to cut.
(I haven’t updated my spreadsheet to take into account the latest year of data to become available (2007-08). It is very unlikely that the result would change if I did include that year. In any event most of that year would be the first year of the Rudd government.)
Update: I was wondering where Uhlmann got his stats from. It looks like he was quoting from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Sinclair,
The argument I saw was that the “ripping” was as a proportion of the budget or in real terms – I can’t remember which. Can you adjust for that?
Andrew Reynolds
8 Mar 10 at 12:25 pm
As a percentage of the Commonwealth budget health increased from 14.64 percent in 98-99 to 15.45 percent in 06-07.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Mar 10 at 12:34 pm
Andrew Norton has done a real term adjustment for health and education and from memory it went up.
Sinclair Davidson
8 Mar 10 at 12:35 pm
Thanks, that is what I thought.
Andrew Reynolds
8 Mar 10 at 2:14 pm
you would have to compare like with like.
from memory it is now in Budget paper no.3 however I believe it was different was back then in the ‘dark ‘years.
The GST is not being cut at all. A certain % is being proposed to be ONLY spent on hospitals
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
8 Mar 10 at 3:09 pm
I find it quite laughable that the Rudd government continues to push the mantra that taxation as a proportion of GDP went up under the Howard government. They do this by including the GST as a Federal Tax.
Now if the Rudd government wishes to include the level of taxation under the GST as a Federal Tax, then surely the increase in health spending at the state level as a direct result of the GST revenue is to be attributed to the Howard government.
Scott
9 Mar 10 at 9:02 am
Hockey is such a disappointing performer. When Uhlmann asked the question he correctly pointed out that the lie is based on the reduction in the proportions. I thought at the time he should have pointed out the impact of the GST on state finances. Given that this is a big and repeated lie a senior guy like Hockey should be ready to slap it down hard.
pedro
9 Mar 10 at 9:22 am
What a disappointment Joe Hockey has turned out to be. I suggest that he is most probably the most in-effectual minister on the Oppositions Front Bench. He has turned out to be a total disaster as opposition Treasurer. He needs to be a Tiger but has turned out to be less than a Pussy Cat. I suggest he would be positioned as the Opposition to P Garret. How anyone ever thought he would make a good leader of the Opposition or alternative PM is beyond my comprehension.
John Metzner
9 Mar 10 at 9:39 am
U&nfortunately, it’s not the amount of money available to Health Departments, it’s the amount of money wasted that is the problem. For example, in Canberra the Secretary of the Department Of Health and Ageing has 5000 administrative staff and hundreds of consultants(Ref: Paul Sheenan, 9/3/10). The alone is a wage bill of more than $500 million pa and not one of these people provide front line health care. This problem is repeated over and over again in the various State health systems. So much money is siphoned off by bureaucrats that actual health service is starved of funds. Ironically, it is often noted that clerks have government issue boxes of tissues on their desks, while patients don’t have tissues on their bedside lockers; clerks wander around looking for things to amuse themselves while doctors and nurses scurry around trying to meet patient needs. How is this right?
Sammi Arthur
9 Mar 10 at 10:10 am
People have short memories.
Can some-one name the last Shadow Treasurer who ‘made an impression’?
They rarely do.
journalists ( and bloggers) are more interested in the parliamentary performances of the Treasurer such as Keating and Costello than in the substance.
Both at their peak made elementary mistakes when performing in Parliament but no-one noticed because no-one understood.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 10:16 am
The billion dollar lie has been repeated many times of late. It was on Q&A recently.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
9 Mar 10 at 10:19 am
Terje,
It may well be a lie but as yet it has not been shown to be a lie.
Paul Sheehan is incapable of knowing and certainly Sinkers has yet to show it.
you would have to wade through budget documents in minute detail to actualy find out.
Paul Sheehan certainly knows nothing of how the Victorian system allocated funds to Hospitals either
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 10:24 am
It may well be a lie but as yet it has not been shown to be a lie.
.
um, this post?
daddy dave
9 Mar 10 at 11:41 am
um you haven’t read it then
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 11:53 am
It may well be a lie but as yet it has not been shown to be a lie.
Wikihomer: Entry 12,341
Filed under examples of idiocy.
JC
9 Mar 10 at 12:38 pm
um you haven’t read it then
.
Labor/media claim: Howard government reduced health spending.
Sinclair: Here’s a chart showing that health spending increased during Howard government tenure.
.
Now explain to me, BBB, how those the second doesn’t disprove the first, because it looks pretty clear-cut to me. Tell me what I didn’t read.
daddy dave
9 Mar 10 at 12:41 pm
Dads:
Know the routine. Once you ask Homer curly questions like that he hides behind the garage in garden slippers waiting until the coast is clear.
JC
9 Mar 10 at 12:51 pm
Perhaps Homer will claim that the coalition govt reduced hospital spending compared to the forward estimates of the previous ALP govt.
Pedro
9 Mar 10 at 2:20 pm
um health spending is NOT hospital spending.
It would help if you hapless water buffaloes actualy read something.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 2:46 pm
um health spending is NOT hospital spending.
That’s right Homes, it’s taken under the parks and gardens budget line.
Wikihomer : entry 12,342.
Filed under idiocy.
JC
9 Mar 10 at 2:50 pm
um health spending is NOT hospital spending
.
Yeah, one’s a subset of the other. So?
daddy dave
9 Mar 10 at 3:14 pm
First the US deficit denialism, now this.
Shame on you, Homer.
C.L.
9 Mar 10 at 3:29 pm
umm if the Feds used to fund hospitals 50/50 and then it is changed 40/60 then tell me what is happening.
Research isn’t really a skill here at catallaxy is it!
go away CL. you confuse 1890 with 950/60 and then say half of the deficit which is due to the economy is all Obama’s fault.
you are a first class dolt.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 3:57 pm
“you confuse 1890 with 950/60″
???
Semi Regular Libertarian
9 Mar 10 at 4:00 pm
1890 with 1950/60
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 4:27 pm
We’ve already dealt with that, Homer, but as you continue to lie about it, here we go again:
Rafe:
Homer:
I found the transcript of McFarlane’s Boyer lecture. He said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Homer attributed to him. He did not say economic growth dropped with population growth but, rather, that the only reason it was as high as it was must be attributed to an unusually high rate of population growth.
Caught quote-doctoring and verballing Ian McFarlane.
No recovery is possible.
C.L.
9 Mar 10 at 5:47 pm
yawn,
Cl does not know the difference between 1890 and the 1950/6-s. Supermac called us the Kuwait of the 1890s.
Stop it you are simply embarrassing yourself.
However it is entirely appropriate given everyone here has yet to get any actual data on hospital expenditure by States and Federal Governments.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 5:52 pm
Nobody has mentioned 1890, Homer. Rafe mentioned “circa 1900.” There was a depression in the 1890s – which apparently you’re unaware of. Australia was wealthier in real terms circa 1900 than it was after the dirigiste Settlement got fully underway. This was Rafe’s point. You claimed McFarlane scotched that idea by saying population was the only factor swinging prosperity our way circa 1900. McFarlane made no such claim in the Boyer lecture. He said the EXACT OPPOSITE about the role of population vis-a-vis prosperity – using the two periods comparatively. You bungled the whole subject from start to finish and verballed McFarlane.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
C.L.
9 Mar 10 at 6:19 pm
I said no such thing.
I said what Supermac said the major reason why we had a high income per capita was a low population.
what in the hell do you think Kuwait of the 1890s meant you clueless idiot.
his Boyer lectures weren’t about why we had the highest income per capita during the 19th Century!
I would have thought 1950 /60 would have said something to you about that but apparently not.
This is just another subject in which you show profound ignorance and keep on despite all the data showing you are wrong.
funny about that!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
9 Mar 10 at 7:30 pm
Homer:
Again you were found doctoring quotes and cheating. It really is offensive.
JC
9 Mar 10 at 7:32 pm
‘There were some longstanding and quite
deep-seated reasons for the predominantly
pessimistic outlook, and others which were
based mainly on the experience of the mid
1980s. I will start with the former.
The long-run decline argument
A feeling that we have declined relative to
other countries has pervaded a lot of our
thinking. The most common form of this
argument is based on long-run comparisons
of income per head among developed
countries, which showed Australia at number
one at the turn of the century, but now back
in the middle of the field. There is a feeling of
disappointment that ‘we used to be number
one, but look how far we have slipped’.
The immediate response to this line of
argument is to ask whether we were really that
good, or was there a large element of luck. It
does not take a great deal of historical
knowledge to realise that there is more
substance in the latter explanation than the
former. In a sense, we were the Kuwait of the
1890s in that we had a lot of land and a small
number of people, and we were able to
produce commodities that were relatively
highly valued.’
go back to school and do the ESL classes.
you have have knocked out of the ring.
At present you are arguing black is white.
you are merely confirming you are both ignorant and idiots
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
10 Mar 10 at 9:14 am