The man with no spine

Morris Iemma announces “we’ve assumed that the people are not ready for drinking recycled water“. So rather than take a position himself, he’s assumed that the people of Sydney won’t do it and gone on his merry way with out having to take a position or make a stand of his own. Heaven forbid a referendum where you might actually have to stand for some side of the issue.

If there is a gutless way to weasel out of a making any hard choice you can guarantee that Morris Iemma will be there, sneaking away.


8 Responses to The man with no spine

  1. Rod Clarke says:

    No Spine?

    what do you expect from a lefty?

  2. Rod Clarke says:

    Afterall – does anything? anything? that the state labour government is responsible for in NSW actually WORK?

    they cant run schools, hospitals, public transport etc etc

    why would a labour run shit bottling factory be any different?

  3. Steve says:

    My recent experiences with the public hospital system have been great. Sure there are some problems particularly regional ones but by and large it delivers a great service at a low cost.

  4. Rod Clarke says:

    Steve –

    If private hospitals, and transport did not exist at all the government would not provide public hospitals and schools at a subsidised rate.

    If there were no alteratives (subsitutes in the market place) for transport why would the govt provide a 70% subsidy to train travellers?

    It would charge them full marginal cost.

  5. Steve says:

    This point is wrong. Especially for hospitals. I’m pretty sure communist countries had both no private system and 100% subsidies on health care. The reason why you do it is because of the skew of costs for health care. a tiny fraction of the population needs to spend a great deal most need to spend virtually nil and a private insurance market works very badly for health care.

    I agree there would be less reason for public transport because this skew is not nearly so pronounced. The largest user is going to use have to pay maybe five times the cost of the minimal user. Thus we might as well let people keep the tax money to pay for what they use.

  6. yobbo says:

    “a tiny fraction of the population needs to spend a great deal most need to spend virtually nil and a private insurance market works very badly for health care.”

    Why is this so? A tiny percentage of people need to spend a lot of money on their house when it burns down too, but the home insurance industry seems to work perfectly ok.

  7. Steve says:

    Private insurance works great to cover against radom but fairly predictable risks – getting in an accident or having your house burnt down. Moral hazard exists but not that big for most people.

    As I see it there are two main differences one being asymetric information, people know much more about how ill they are than the insurance company does this means its difficult to offer fair policies to people. The people who want to take them are sicker than you realise and if you bump up premiums then the people its a fair price for don’t want to get involved.

    The other is the fact that its possible to predict for a another group of people that they are definitely going to have big expenses that may well exceed their income over a considerable period of time because of say chronic illness, potentially even their life time. about 1% of the population costs around 20% ofthe hospital bills. Insurance doesn’t work well for them either.

  8. john c says:

    The problem with the recycled sewage plant proposed for Toowoomba is that it just would not work.

    It is not possible to produce 11,000 ML of recycled water from 8,000 ML of sewage. Toowoomba City Council also had nowhere for the RO waste stream to go. Acland Coal did not want it. Singapore pumps its RO waste stream into the sea.

    The plant could never have been built for $68 million – closer to $150-200 million would be more accurate when you take into account the hundreds of acres of evaporation ponds required which were not included in the budget.

    Regardless of your view on recycled water use, the no vote in Toowoomba was correct because the proposal was a dud.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: