In what has become tiresomely typical rhetoric of late, Helen Clark has accused National of a “blunder” revealing their “secret agenda” on health. Helen, Helen, Helen, no one but you, your communist cronies and the recipients of your $25 billion Bludge-scum bribe, see this as a “secret agenda”. However, by all means continue to jump up and down like excitable monkies, pointing fingers, screeching and flinging poo, it seems to be all your party is left capable of doing.

National have proposed, explicitly, to remove the cap on doctor's fees. They actually said it out loud! Good heavens, what is it with you Labour people? How is this a “secret agenda?”

Let's get down to business though; National are proposing to remove the cap on doctor's fees. This does not mean, comrades Clark and Hodgson please pay attention here, this does NOT mean that doctor's fees will necessarily rise. In fact a cap, is more likely to produce overall higher prices than no cap. Think about it, a price increase cap exists for a doctor's visit, nearly all doctors will charge at the cap. Why? Consider this, what would happen to the price of petrol tomorrow if you capped petrol at $2 a litre? What price do you think the stations would start charging? It might come down a little bit over time, but it will always be based around the cap and remain close to it. The reason for this is the imposition of the cap, in future when costs rise, inflation occurs but the cap remains in place, companies will have smaller profit margins, it's in their interest to stay as competitively close to that cap as they can, and maximise their profits now.

When no cap exists, the cost will reflect demand, it will be kept down by competing services. It will always remain fluid, without having to wait for caps to be adjusted to keep up with costs. So the dash to maximise profits now, in preparation for a future squeeze is not as urgent and less likely to occur. Doctors can reasonably afford to be more competitive price and service wise, when there are no caps in place.