#3 - Andrew Atkin said:
2009-11-25 20:31 - (Reply)

Hello again, Relating to my earlier comment, I though I would include this interesting activist video-link if anybody is interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZA0qNsf4m0&feature=player_embedded It's interesting that they point out that health costs have actually reduced in America; that is, in response to both more technology and a lack of government intervention. But it has only reduced in cost (and imporved in service) in the non-subsidised areas of medical services. Is New Zealand killing innovation in its health sector? I have long thought that improved service sophistication should not, necessarily, have to lead to a major increase in costs. There are ways to boost the productivity from highly expensive equipment. I really like the idea of reducing NZ-owned hopistals to SOE's, and giving subsidies to the public directly [when and as required, and only then] . Why on earth don't we do this? In any area where there is a lot of room to adapt and evolve and innovate, it is a bad idea to allow the government to prescribe and control how things must be done. It can and will lead to serious inefficiences compared to what otherwise can be achieved. Health is one of those areas. Education is an even more extreme example.