Some Coalition MPs have suggested that this plan came about so suddenly because Abbott had become privy to private party polling.

I strongly suspect that the Labor Party might have had a bit of a turnaround – perhaps related to the National Curriculum and health, and Abbott might be responding to that. It could also explain why he felt he had to release some ‘positive policy’. It could well be that his negativism has had an impact; I note that Labor Ministers have been reiterating the ‘Senate obstructionism’ line again this morning.

In short, on where the parties actually stand, one shouldn’t believe what one reads in The Australian.

Meanwhile, whether or not Abbott makes health a focus of his parliamentary attack, the Premiers continue to ponder the National Health and Hospitals Network. Kevin Rudd has wrought his own ambush, confident that there’s no political skin to be lost picking a fight with the states on this battleground. But that doesn’t mean that some of the Premiers haven’t been posing some good questions – interestingly, probably more from Kristina Kenneally than John Brumby.

And while the headline politics might have been the primary focus of media attention, some good work continues to be done on analysing the policy itself. I’ve posted some salient links over the fold.

Health academic James Gillespie authored a comprehensive piece for Inside Story, while the Centre for Policy Development has a veritable plethora of analysis: John Menadue on governance, Ian McAuley on what the PM still needs to tell us, Fiona Armstrong on the meaning or meanings of ‘local’, and Jennifer Doggett on out of pocket expenses.

There’s more than enough fodder for a very healthy debate on Rudd’s initiative.

What should be of most concern to the Opposition is the very large number of their own voters who support such a policy. It might, of course, be objected that support is soft, but that ignores the fact that this plan was launched on the basis of reinforcing well entrenched public attitudes about the failures of the states in hospital management; attitudes Tony Abbott would have been well aware of when he frequently proposed a Commonwealth takeover as Health Minister.

No doubt it will also be claimed that support will ebb, as with the ETS (though it still has majority approval). But the introduction and selling of this plan has been very different – a high profile announcement, followed by a media blitz – much more akin to a budget. And interest groups which will resonate positively with public opinion – doctors, nurses, have reacted supportively.

Essentially, it encompasses a phased takeover of responsibility for activity based hospital funding by the Commonwealth, with 30% of GST revenue to be diverted directly to hospitals. Funding would flow to individual hospitals, with local authorities being funded to treat individual patients, and the establishment of national standards of care.

Primary health care will become the sole responsibility of the Commonwealth.

Politically, it buys the Commonwealth a possible fight with the largely unpopular state governments, and appears to short circuit the state health departments, leaving them with residual functions for the less glamorous administrative functions of hospital systems. It also incorporates the local focus Tony Abbott has championed, with flexibility for clincal and funding decisions to be made at hospital or regional level. The Commonwealth would become, in effect, a regulatory and activity based funding body, rather than ‘taking over’ hospitals, but the threat of a referendum remains.

Subsequent announcements between now and the election will focus on extra beds, doctor and nurse training, support for GPs, and the introduction of electronic patient record monitoring.

The AMA is supportive; the Coalition opposed.

Detail of the National Health and Hospitals Network Plan can be found here.

Update: Bernard Keane observes at The Stump that the plan comes with a snappy slogan – “funded nationally, run locally”.

Update: Melissa Sweet analyses the announcement at Croakey.

Update: The transcript of Kevin Rudd’s Q&A at the Press Club is now available here.

The questions facing mankind are, essentially, the same as they have always been: the age-old questions about what is good, true and beautiful. How do we identify those characteristics in our own and others’ behaviour? How do we achieve them in our lives?

Inevitably, we will never answer them validly if – confusing the medium with the message, to put it in Marshall McLuhan’s discredited formula – we confuse the garments for the person, the cover for the book.

Apparently, the ABC’s remit is to pose (or answer?) eternal questions, and any management decision about Radio National demonstrates “relativism” and that “they hate religion”.

I’m actually not a huge fan of Stephen Crittenden’s, but there can be no doubt that discussing programming decisions in this fashion is, well, just demented. The ABC’s decision making is driven by twin (and overlapping) logics – the decline in funding for content created inhouse by specialists, and an attempt to be a leader in interactive content. It has nothing much to do with “relativism” and “postmodernism” except in the fevered imaginings of crazed columnists. There are legitimate questions to ask about all this – but the culture wars frame makes it literally impossible to debate them sensibly. A lot is changing in public broadcasting in this country, and we really haven’t begun to discuss it because the overhang of the culture wars mindset seems to persist. Probably this sort of craziness is best ignored, and its hyperbolic nature itself a sign that its time is past, but it’s worth noting if only to call for a much better informed and contemporary discussion on public broadcasting.