This talk about how the abolition of DHBs will lead to the elimination of "postcode lotteries" is so naive it makes me want to cry.
Our neoliberal bureaucracy& #39;s idea of reducing inequity is not to ensure everyone gets what they need: it& #39;s to ensure everyone comes up equally short of what they need.
Targeted funding for disabled students in school is a real-world example of how that works under a centralised model. It& #39;s based on a competition system that is supposed to identify the 1% of & #39;neediest& #39; students. Then it undergoes something called & #39;moderation& #39;.
Moderation is based on the presumption that every area of the country should have the same relative number of disabled students. So if a particular region identified more of them, their funding per student gets reduced.
So: without social guarantees that needs will be met, as opposed to approximated, people will still experience the same kind of health care, just on a more uniform basis. Call it homogeneised inequity.
Centralise, by all means, I& #39;m all for it. But unless you also commit to aggressively increase funding and establish stricter duties of care, you& #39;re just shuffling chairs.
You can follow @gtiso.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: