An interesting and challenging concept: that it is quite possible that the government is not best positioned to decide where our money should be spent.

Imagine that.

Reading between the lines, the research fund was probably a last-minute addition to the budget, to give it a slightly less punitive image. It is an entirely "safe" and cost-free commitment, because a) it is planned to happen sometime in the future and b) few would notice if it simply dropped off the radar, or morphed into something else entirely.

The other aspect, that Mr Leyonhjelm alludes to, is that such a large pot of money will require a similarly extensive bureaucracy to support it. Which might have the mandarins of Canberra salivating at the number of new "executive" posts that will be needed, but means diddly-squat to the rest of us.

I'm beginning to like this guy. His latest contribution to our political debate is also worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/crossbencher-david-leyonhjelm-warns-on-terror-law-moral-panic/story-fn59niix-1227036977631

Sadly, independence of thought is vastly undervalued in our two-party hegemony.

<In an ideal world we would shop for health services based on quality and price, protected from unaffordable costs by insurance.>

This is a real furphy,

The main reason for privatising health care in Australia, is that it will make a small select group of people very very wealthy.

The insurance system has not worked in the USA except to make a small number of people wealthy.

If you compare a common indicator used 'Life expectancy', Americans have a lower life expectancy rate than Australians.

<Market Arguments and the Consumer:- The unchallenged assumption behind arguments for
<a market based health care system is that market principles can be successfully applied to
<health care. Basic to this is the idea that the patient, a word which implies disempowerment
<and dependency is renamed a consumer or customer.

http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/health/health_works.html

The only real effect of having a market driven health care system is that the poorest people will have their life expectancy rate fall.

This author is either delusional or totally devoid of thinking matter!

The author and Pericles needs to read Professor Mariana Mazzucato's book, The Entrepreneurial State, or watch her talk at the London School of Economics.

Most of the most important medical drugs of the recent era have been achieved by medical laboratories financed by the USA Government, not by private sources. Mazzucato's book covers that subject very comprehensively. One drug company was reported as charging $20,000 for a years supply of a cancer treating drug. The drug was developed by a government laboratory, costs $1,000 to manufacture a years supply, and the drug company pays a miserable royalty to the government.

Mazzucato's book has a chapter titled, The State Behind the iPhone. It describes how mainly what Apple did was put publicly funded ideas (miniaturisation recording devices and of phones and touch screen technology etc.) into fancy marketing packages and move all its financial operations offshore so that it avoids paying USA tax.

Even the Google search engine algorism is based on earlier publicly financed research.

I agree the doctors, particularly the specialists are the ones doing well from medical insurance as instituted in Australia first by that paragon of the right, Pig Iron Bob. At least he had enough gumption to regulate the banks after defeating Chifley over bank nationalisation and petrol rationing.

We can and should fund it and the research conducted inside our best universities.
Other nations do just that, and seriously beats us on Government funded R+D!
And we would have no problem funding either, if we were only just wise enough to embrace REAL tax reform!
Tax reform which simply prevented the most wealthy corporations in the world, escaping a fair share of a common liability.
The answer is not more private research and or the inevitable price gouging by big Pharma; that surely follows that as night follows day?
But rather, tax reform that also forces those very same entities, to cough up tax, relevant to the amount of business or enterprise done/profit earned here!
Learning how to commercialize our own discoveries, would more than create enough new enterprises, and with them, vastly increased tax receipts to pay for even more research!
Which is then commercialized right here!
[Economic, rolled downhill snowballing!} And, well you get the picture.
What we need to assist just that very outcome, is real tax reform, that really does lower the common burden, to as low as just 5%!
And very doable, if we but jettison what we have now, in favor of a completely unavoidable, stand alone expenditure tax; which by its very unavoidable nature, completely negates tax compliance costs!
Which then completely negated, hands back to the averaged bottom line, some 7% averaged.
Now you don't have to be Einstein, to work out that a 5% expenditure tax impost, is still lower than the 7% returned compliance costs!
Why is it so hard for politicians to grasp super simple concepts!
And real genius is solving super complex problems, with very simple, and therefore superbly fail-safe systems!
Rhrosty.

It is my understanding that health care costs are the leading cause of individual bankruptcy in the PRIVATE Health care Insurance system of the United States.

So in reality, Insurance does not protect against price rises, or gold platting medical bills.