Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | ... | 268

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1923616 22-Dec-2017 11:22

tdgeek:

What the issue is , is how do we manage all this poorness?

The answer is - we grow the economy.

Once that growth is established (has it has been so successfully over the past 8 years) we can start to make decisions about how we want to prioritise our spending. That might be by paying down debt, by increasing spending on infrastructure and social initiatives, or by reducing the tax burden on NZ workers.

(Ideally, it would involve all three of those, and we would just be debating over the appropriate percentages :-)

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1923618 22-Dec-2017 11:24

tdgeek:

Why do commentators in NZ frequently refer to under funding? Have you looked at health funding? year after year its underfunded, the medical people have complained for years. Last budget it was a good increase as Bill correctly said, but it wasnt, as he omitted to tel, you that most of that went to the one off catch up of aged care workers pay. Roading. Apart from the election based project. Housing, sold off, crisis, oh no there is no crisis. But if you fee; that not paying the bills is how to save money, that's fine. It actually doesnt work.

Explain to me why deferred spending is so often mentioned in NZ?

Possibly "deffered spending" is mentioned a lot because you read the news: a journalist's perspective. Occasionally they report the truth, but mostly just their perspective.

Whoever reports on under funding reports on it because it matters to them, or they think it matters to their audience. But it is still an opinion, not a fact. The fact is the statistcs: waiting lists, etc. perhaps more funding would improve that, or perhaps a revolutionized approach could solve the problem without just throwing cash at it...? I don't have the anwsers. Medical professionals complain about under funding because THEY as individuals don't have the necessary resources for themselves or their teams, but this doesn't necessarily mean the government is not providing the ministry with enough money, it could be that the money is not flowing through to the right place. My personal opinion is that the health system is massively inefficient and no amount of money (within reason) will achieve the results we all want without a huge change of the system.

Legalising euthanasia would probably help free up capacity within the health system, but that raises a question of morality. Once again, getting results s a matter of personal perspective.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923622 22-Dec-2017 11:29

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Why do commentators in NZ frequently refer to under funding? Have you looked at health funding? year after year its underfunded, the medical people have complained for years.

Why do you keep referring to health funding? It is demonstrably true that its funding increased under the National government. (from 11.9bn in 2008 to 16.7bn in 2017) This represents more than a 10% increase per capita in real terms.

Yes - medical people have complained for years... There is significant dysfunction in the DHB's (Example) (And you can argue that the Health Minister ought to have done a much better job of whipping them into line) but it is really not an example of governmental underfunding. Particularly when contrasted with the Labour party's funding history in this portfolio.

It's just not a good example to use if you're trying to make a point that National deferred spending to achieve a "fake" surplus.

I am going by what I read every day as regards health underfunding. So, that is all fake news? Every year, the funding has been enough to cater for the health needs in NZ? Increasing funding isn't the same as funding it correctly. The issue I now have is not that I disbelieve you, its that everyone else says the opposite. Should DHB's be inefficient, I cant really see that the amount of money they could waste will be huge, not huge enough to impact healthcare and operations, at least not a lot. The fundamental is that its been under resourced for a long time. If they get an increase that merely holds that under resourced level in place, isnt a great help. Im also surprised that neither Labour or National has proposed a wholesale shakeup of the DHB system based on the fact that funding is more than adequate and its all being wasted.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923626 22-Dec-2017 11:37

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

What the issue is , is how do we manage all this poorness?

The answer is - we grow the economy.

Once that growth is established (has it has been so successfully over the past 8 years) we can start to make decisions about how we want to prioritise our spending. That might be by paying down debt, by increasing spending on infrastructure and social initiatives, or by reducing the tax burden on NZ workers.

(Ideally, it would involve all three of those, and we would just be debating over the appropriate percentages :-)

Oh no, not that old chestnut!! :-) Grow the economy. I fully agree, but we cant pass a Bill to grow the economy. NZ economy is very dependent on global conditions, the exchange rate and export prices for our key exports. There isnt a huge amount we can do to help that, whatever Govt was in play in good times shouldnt get the credit, or the bagging in bad times. All we can do here is be efficient and look after the people and the businesses, (or mine the coal we have)

We are just poor. If we continue to minimise spending so we can spend on the initiatives later, I assume you feel that is the best option now?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923628 22-Dec-2017 11:41

rjt123:

tdgeek:

Why do commentators in NZ frequently refer to under funding? Have you looked at health funding? year after year its underfunded, the medical people have complained for years. Last budget it was a good increase as Bill correctly said, but it wasnt, as he omitted to tel, you that most of that went to the one off catch up of aged care workers pay. Roading. Apart from the election based project. Housing, sold off, crisis, oh no there is no crisis. But if you fee; that not paying the bills is how to save money, that's fine. It actually doesnt work.

Explain to me why deferred spending is so often mentioned in NZ?

Possibly "deffered spending" is mentioned a lot because you read the news: a journalist's perspective. Occasionally they report the truth, but mostly just their perspective.

Whoever reports on under funding reports on it because it matters to them, or they think it matters to their audience. But it is still an opinion, not a fact. The fact is the statistcs: waiting lists, etc. perhaps more funding would improve that, or perhaps a revolutionized approach could solve the problem without just throwing cash at it...? I don't have the anwsers. Medical professionals complain about under funding because THEY as individuals don't have the necessary resources for themselves or their teams, but this doesn't necessarily mean the government is not providing the ministry with enough money, it could be that the money is not flowing through to the right place. My personal opinion is that the health system is massively inefficient and no amount of money (within reason) will achieve the results we all want without a huge change of the system.

Legalising euthanasia would probably help free up capacity within the health system, but that raises a question of morality. Once again, getting results s a matter of personal perspective.

Ill take all that as fair, as like you, I don't have the answers. Its a slight stretch to feel that the health system is that badly efficient though. How to manage health in NZ is probably an interesting topic in itself. But as I mentioned, I would have thought a wholesale shakeup from both parties would be on the table if it was that bad based on at least satisfactory funding

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1923635 22-Dec-2017 11:56

tdgeek:

I am going by what I read every day as regards health underfunding. So, that is all fake news?

Make your own mind up :-)

Elective surgeries:

In Labour’s last seven years they increased elective surgery by just 10% which was a 0.8% increase adjusted for population. So basically no increase at all.

In National’s first seven years they increased elective surgeries by 34% which is a 23% increase adjusted for population.

National also introduced the "Zero Fees" for Children under 13 to see a doctor.

Also, A&E waiting times - see Dominion Post from Dec 2008

Just 67.5 per cent of category 2 patients including those suffering serious head injury, moderately severe trauma and suspected heart attacks were treated within the recommended 10 minutes.

Fewer than half of patients categorised as triage 3 those with fractures, breathlessness, bleeding or other conditions requiring urgent treatment but not considered life-threatening were seen within the recommended time of 30 minutes.

This result was “the worst performance bar one since they started recording data in 2001”, Mr Ryall said.

Compare with: NZHerald - May 2017

nearly 94 per cent of patients across the country weren't waiting any longer than the target time...

But the most dramatic finding was the significant fall in mortality among ED patients, equating to 700 fewer deaths in 2012 alone, Ardagh said. “This is an extraordinary finding.”

He labelled the reduced waiting times an “important and useful intervention in New Zealand health care”.

In my opinion, there is certainly a narrative that has been spun about National's performance in Health that appears to be at odds with the measurable facts and outcomes.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923643 22-Dec-2017 12:14

6FIEND:

In my opinion, there is certainly a narrative that has been spun about National's performance in Health that appears to be at odds with the measurable facts and outcomes.

Good data, tks for the effort there. Much of the narrative is within the health system. I take a pinch of salt view from journo's and poltico's

These are doctors, nurses, administrators. I'm still surprised that no one wants to venture into a full on, major review. Seems like a [insert number here] $B hole!

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1923670 22-Dec-2017 13:17

tdgeek:

Much of the narrative is within the health system. I take a pinch of salt view from journo's and poltico's

These are doctors, nurses, administrators. I'm still surprised that no one wants to venture into a full on, major review. Seems like a [insert number here] $B hole!

I hope you're not of the opinion that *only* Alcohol, Tobacco, Oil, and Fast Food companies have political lobbyists on their payroll? ;-)

Best we don't get started again on imagined financial holes!

Have a Merry Christmas man - I'm finishing up shortly.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923675 22-Dec-2017 13:23

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Much of the narrative is within the health system. I take a pinch of salt view from journo's and poltico's

These are doctors, nurses, administrators. I'm still surprised that no one wants to venture into a full on, major review. Seems like a [insert number here] $B hole!

I hope you're not of the opinion that *only* Alcohol, Tobacco, Oil, and Fast Food companies have political lobbyists on their payroll? ;-)

Best we don't get started again on imagined financial holes!

Have a Merry Christmas man - I'm finishing up shortly.

You too mate, have a good BBQ/pub/ drinks this avo if your doing that

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1923809 22-Dec-2017 23:29

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

Geektastic:

To whit that if the government is putting aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect putting aside cash you previously gave it.

More specifically, the government is borrowing money to put aside cash for your retirement, it is in effect signing you and your children up to pay for one final layer at the base of the great pyramid scheme that is NZ's Superannuation.

Aside - It does amuse me how some commentators here are able to criticise National for running up debt in a period of Financial Crisis and Natural Disaster, yet are completely silent on the new coalition's plans to borrow more, and repay it later.

Thats a fair comment. However, there are many sectors that have been underfunded by National over the 9 years, thats a lot of catch up. If the current Govt caught up that deferred spending over another 9 years, that becomes equally as crazy. As has been stated, much of the disaster was funded by existing reserves built up over many decades by EQWDC, renamed to EQC. GFC, we were affected, but our banking system is far less reliant on global banking than most other countries. While its unfair for me and others to use those points as a cop out, its also inaccurate to use those points as the cause of everything now. Underfunding to create surpluses is bad enough, then to use that to give tax cuts to everyone??

As regards Superannuation, I dont believe in the Govt funding that. Kiwisaver is doing a fine job in allowing individuals to fund it. But there needed to be a transition so that some age groups are not advantaged or disadvantaged. And some form of guide as to breaking into it for home loans. Perhaps a lengthy repayment of the home loan grant over and above the % contributed, but thats another story in itself. Threadworthy in fact

Underfunding implies that there is some magical funding amount which 'has' to be paid.

There isn't. The government of the day will allocate resources that are available as they see fit. It's no use creating expectations of service that cannot be delivered without excessive expenditure in relation to income. I have never yet worked in or with a government department that says at budget time "Nah mate - we're fine this year." Civil servants can always invent ways to spend the money that they manage to get.

There is a logical argument to be made that if a government is borrowing to pay for what it regards as BAU then their definition of BAU needs scaling down to match the available funds. Borrowing should really only be used to fund huge unforeseen circumstances such as earthquakes etc or to pay for large projects where the money can be recouped or actual, real and quantifiable long term savings can be demonstrated.

wsnz

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 204

#1925017 25-Dec-2017 17:24

Geektastic:

There is a logical argument to be made that if a government is borrowing to pay for what it regards as BAU then their definition of BAU needs scaling down to match the available funds. Borrowing should really only be used to fund huge unforeseen circumstances such as earthquakes etc or to pay for large projects where the money can be recouped or actual, real and quantifiable long term savings can be demonstrated.

Borrowing can also be used as a tool to spread costs for infrastructure or other critical assets across generations of tax payers, rather than saddling the just current generation with the total cost.

There is an unfortunate view in NZ that debt is always bad. This unfortunate perspective appears to be rooted in a lack of basic understanding of economics.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

wsnz

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 204

#1925018 25-Dec-2017 17:31

tdgeek:

Why do commentators in NZ frequently refer to under funding? Have you looked at health funding? year after year its underfunded, the medical people have complained for years. Last budget it was a good increase as Bill correctly said, but it wasnt, as he omitted to tel, you that most of that went to the one off catch up of aged care workers pay. Roading. Apart from the election based project. Housing, sold off, crisis, oh no there is no crisis. But if you fee; that not paying the bills is how to save money, that's fine. It actually doesnt work.

Explain to me why deferred spending is so often mentioned in NZ?

What commentators have to say is not relevant to the question. How do you define underfunding in the health sector? It's subjective. Throughout our country's history there have always been things that have not been funded or could have been funded more. For economic, social or other reasons, lines in the sand must be drawn, and the opposition parties will always claim that there has been underfunding on this basis because it's politically expedient to do so. Don't fall for this nonsense from any party.

wsnz

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 204

#1925021 25-Dec-2017 17:33

rjt123:

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Appropriate funding is subjective to personal opinion on what is a priority, based on your own circumstances, morals, beliefs, views etc. I think a lot of it comes down to mis-management and inefficiencies (e.g. in health especially. But I don't have any data to back up that up.)

Likewise, our priorities in our own perspective might be to create surpluses, or more wealth redistribution, or less taxes, or higher taxes with more state funding etc. There's no right or wrong, but there are benefits and drawbacks for each.

Yup, that's exactly the point I was stealthfully making :)

It's all highly subjective.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1925194 26-Dec-2017 09:52

wsnz:

rjt123:

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Appropriate funding is subjective to personal opinion on what is a priority, based on your own circumstances, morals, beliefs, views etc. I think a lot of it comes down to mis-management and inefficiencies (e.g. in health especially. But I don't have any data to back up that up.)

Likewise, our priorities in our own perspective might be to create surpluses, or more wealth redistribution, or less taxes, or higher taxes with more state funding etc. There's no right or wrong, but there are benefits and drawbacks for each.

Yup, that's exactly the point I was stealthfully making :)

It's all highly subjective.

What is 'highly subjective' about this?

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

This is the result (not a highly subjective opinion) of the previous governments borrowing mismanagement. Why did they 'need to' borrow all this money? What have they used it all for?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1925215 26-Dec-2017 10:50

The debt cannot be taken on it's own. It needs to be compared to growth rate and debt/GDP ratio. When looking at the previous governments borrowing events over the time need to be taken into account such as four major earthquakes, significant flooding events and a global financial crisis. There is the matter also of past deferred infrastructure expenditure and capital works.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | ... | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | ... | 268