Cosgrove Clayton: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): It is very interesting that both the health Minister and the junior whip for the Government quoted as Tracey Martin said figures on the cost. The health Minister was wont to tell us that he has all the figures—he has examined this policy has a complete set of figures and he knows it all. What he failed to tell us and one of those geniuses on the opposite side I am sure will get up and tell us is yes there may be a cost—whether it is $150 million we do not know because the Minister did not provide any verification—but he failed to make any reference to the savings that would occur if many of these folks elderly folks and others moved to have their operations in the private sector and the pressure in monetary terms that would come off the public sector for every one of those surgeries.So I ask the Minister or the genius who spoke last Jami-Lee Ross: what are the savings? What has the Ministry of Health or the spin unit in the National Party in its research unit or Mr Bishop or both come up with in terms of that? We did not hear one piece of evidence in respect of that—not one.So I say to the Minister—I am quite happy to yield to him—what are the savings? He has done the research for this bill. He has noted costs. What are the savings?Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Sorry?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No not sorry. What are the savings?Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: From what?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh well there you go: “For what?”! So there is the Minister of Health who says that he is command of his portfolio—in utter command the maestro in political and health terms the man who is in command of his portfolio—to the point where he comes down to the House having made up a whole lot of figures plucked the figures from somewhere—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: That’s not true.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh yes it is. And then we ask him: on the flip side what is the offset? What are the savings? And what do we get? “Sorry don’t know—what?”. Hello—hello! Stage 101.The other point I want to make which Mrs King made reference to was the immigration side of this but I want to make reference to when I was immigration Minister. I recall getting a lot of applications particularly from the UK from elderly folk. Their sons and daughters had moved here the family had established themselves and they wished to come here.The argument that was always—and we actually changed the category to give more weighting to skilled migrants rather than extended family because we had to do that at the time—put forward by these migrants was: “Look we have a UK pension. We’re self-sufficient. We have enough means. We don’t need the social services. We’ll look after ourselves.” The difficulty of course was that if you gave those folks residence they were automatically entitled to those social services and thereby would likely use them.So what I did in some of the appeals to me was I had the department go back and say: “OK here’s the deal. If you want to come to New Zealand you will probably never get residence but we will give you a guarantee that you won’t be booted out as long as you are of good character. However you’ve got to maintain your medical insurance. What do you think about that deal?”. Those who were genuine and took it up were quite happy to come here with a guarantee that they would maintain their own medical insurance. They were quite happy to do it—a win for all.It was a win for the migrant families who had a lot of skills and often these migrant families would say: “Look if I can’t bring mum and dad over here even though I’m skilled even though I have got a job I’m going to go elsewhere to Australia or wherever so that mum and dad can come with me.” But we wanted to ensure that there was not a burden on the system. If these folks were genuine and most of them were and they said they had means they were very very happy to ensure that their medical insurance was maintained so that they would not be a burden on the New Zealand health system. Mrs King made a point. This is a gem of an idea.I know many many elderly constituents and many folks who as Mrs King and Mr Peters said throughout their life—health insurance is an interesting thing. Throughout your life when you are at the top of your earning capacity but you are at your fittest normally apart from one or two over there the premiums are pretty low and you are actually building up if you like credits with the health insurance company because you are not claiming.Then your age goes up your health goes down and your income certainly goes down normally to a fixed income but you have built up maybe 20 or 30 years’ worth of credits in the bank and they slug you and double the premiums. I say this is a gem of an idea. It should be looked at.The Minister of Health tonight has bared it all in that he cannot even tell us what the offset savings would be in this. He has made it up. He has plucked a figure out of the spin unit of the National Party to come down and make a political statement but when his feet are put to the fire and we ask him what the savings are from even one elderly person taking up the private medical insurance option for their operation that Minister cannot give us a figure. He is condemned by his own ignorance and his own arrogance and his own stupidity.We support this bill to the select committee. It should be looked at.