Nadine Higgins has realised Labour have prioritised rich kids’ education over health care

Nadine Higgins points out the bizarre situation where Labour have spent billions on rich kids to give them free education but can’t commit to their health-spending promises because of the favouritism to rich kids: Quote:

I had a chest x-ray this week and the technician asked me to take a deep breath and hold it for each image.

Each time I did, I then coughed, hacked and gasped for breath ? and felt more pissed with the kids of Remuera, Khandallah and Fendalton.

Well, not them specifically. At least, not just them. We’d better back it up a bit.

I ended up spluttering away in that sexy white medical gown after struggling with my health for a month.

Three visits to my GP had set me back $180. I dropped another $200 on two courses of antibiotics, probiotics, Codral, cough syrups, cough drops, health shop lung elixirs, and an array of strong pain killers after I coughed so hard I injured my ribs?(which is a real treat if you can’t stop coughing). The x-ray, thankfully, was being covered by my health insurance, which I pay fortnightly.

So, as I hacked and coughed and wondered why I’d put off that last doctor visit so long when I was clearly getting worse instead of better, my thoughts turned to the kids heading off to university this year, their fees fully funded.

It’s not an entirely illogical leap given this week the Government admitted its pledge to reduce the cost of going to the doctor by $10 by July 1 going to take longer to implement, basically because they don’t have the money.

I didn’t feel too strongly about the free first-year university fees policy until that moment in the x-ray room, but then I felt outraged.?End quote.

As anyone should. Education was already heavily subsidised and statistics prove that people with degrees earn much more than those without. Now they are even more heavily subsidised, while poor people struggle with health care costs.?Quote:

Why are we helping people who can afford to upskill themselves and?who will reap the benefits of upskilling themselves, when we don’t have enough money left over to make sure people can afford to look after themselves?

If a DINKY (double income no kids) household like mine is wincing at the cost ? and delaying seeing the doctor ??how many people aren’t going at all?

Visiting the doctor is free for kids up to the age of 13, which is great. Those who have a community services card get cheaper fees ? but parents of two kids earning more than $50,000 a year would undoubtedly still struggle to afford to see the doctor.?

Ensuring the well-to-do kids who headed off to university this year were safe in the knowledge the ride was paid for doesn’t seem like a priority in that context.

I’m all for helping people better themselves?but first we must make sure they can look after themselves, and getting to your GP is the first line of defence. Right now, it looks like primary healthcare has come in second place to tertiary education. End quote.

She is spot on and its incongruent that Labour did a mini-budget to ram this through rather than prioritising health care.

In topsy-turvy land of the Labour party this all makes perfect sense. Sycophancy that took six years for National to develop is well and truly alive in the Labour party.

One thing is good though: it seems child poverty is solved now, because we can blow billions on free education for rich kids.

 

41%
×