Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | ... | 268

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 1991325 8-Apr-2018 06:56

Geektastic:
MaxLV:

Geektastic:

Personally I never found much to recommend Roosevelt myself. I can't see any reason to provide anything to those who have too little. Survival of the fittest usually wins out in any animal or human society and the fact that all this economic attempt to circumvent that never actually succeeds in reality is the result.

Also, suggesting that one badly maintained hospital is some sort of archetypical exemplar of the preceding 9 years of government is ludicrous. Our local hospital is clean, well maintained and remarkably efficient. Wellington gained a new hospital. I might just as well cite those as exemplars of the excellence of the National government.

Local managers are responsible for organising maintenance of hospitals, not the people who sit in the Beehive.

Local managers cant be held responsible for failed maintenance when they're not given the funding to organise maintenance of hospitals.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/93219807/capital--coast-dhbs-debt-hole-deepens-as-boss-admits-20-years-of-deficits

It's not just one hospital.

Dunedin Hospital is going to cost a billion to rebuild.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/95949112

Canterbury DHB:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/92342784/canterbury-district-health-board-budget-deficit-among-the-worst

District health boards are showing signs of financial pressure and some are neglecting spending on repairs and maintenance to try balance their books, a new stock-take by Treasury has found.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11851586

I think we might've found Steven Joyce's $11.7 billion hole. It looks like it was in the consistently underfunded health budgets of the last National Government. With rot, mould and sewage in the walls at Middlemore Hospital, asbestos in the maternity unit, faulty power supplies and God knows what else, the National Party has some serious questions to answer.

The one at the top of my mind is this: How the hell could they have been considering tax cuts when the health system was in such a dire state? Allowing the health system to literally moulder and ooze while offering tax cuts in an election lolly scramble is certainly not a good look. The party says on its website that it, "aspires to a New Zealand where all New Zealanders can flourish". Perhaps it should come with the disclaimer "unless those New Zealanders are sick", because the only thing flourishing at Middlemore seems to be the fungal spores.

I find the situation at Middlemore outrageous. As a New Zealander, I've always been proud of our health system. It's a testament to our spirit as a nation that we care for those who are sick and injured free of charge. It's just part of who we are. Failing to appropriately invest in health means that New Zealanders suffer. No Kiwi should ever have to go into a New Zealand hospital and wonder whether there's raw sewage leaking into the walls.

What kind of Third World outfit are we running? If the situation is this bad at Middlemore, what's it like elsewhere? Are our other hospitals plagued by similar issues? Have patients around the country been put at risk because the "strong economic managers" in the National Party decided to cut costs and cut corners?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12026497

The health service is not the be all and end all. Health is an increasingly expensive business. You want more money? Increase the population of taxpayers and grow the economy. You cannot have a situation like this:

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

(That quote is from 2016 so the figures won't be accurate but no doubt the general principle is)

and still expect to have a huge pile of cash for investing in everything. I suggest that if people wish to have a Gold Standard health service (and it's a reasonable aim) then they need to be prepared to pay for it somehow and, apparently, 40% or so of them currently are not doing so.

That's a good example of why a liberal social welfare policy like NZ's can never work for the good of the country in the long term.

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

gzt

11016 posts

Uber Geek

# 1991326 8-Apr-2018 07:14

More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A large number of these households are contributing a lot to the NZ economy. Some posters here are confusing tax net neutrality or negative with zero economic activity. It is not the same thing at all.

GV27

1556 posts

Uber Geek

# 1991328 8-Apr-2018 07:25

2 people support this post

gzt:
More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A large number of these households are contributing a lot to the NZ economy. Some posters here are confusing tax net neutrality or negative with zero economic activity. It is not the same thing at all.

The bulk of Govt revenue comes from Income Tax - it can't fund services using "economic activity".

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
11150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991391 8-Apr-2018 12:09

One person supports this post

rjt123:
Geektastic:

The health service is not the be all and end all. Health is an increasingly expensive business. You want more money? Increase the population of taxpayers and grow the economy. You cannot have a situation like this:

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

(That quote is from 2016 so the figures won't be accurate but no doubt the general principle is)

and still expect to have a huge pile of cash for investing in everything. I suggest that if people wish to have a Gold Standard health service (and it's a reasonable aim) then they need to be prepared to pay for it somehow and, apparently, 40% or so of them currently are not doing so.

That's a good example of why a liberal social welfare policy like NZ's can never work for the good of the country in the long term.

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

This is a convenient argument used as justification by those who just don't want to give up anything of their own to help others. I would say that the true end of a nation is when half of the population is in prison because the other half was too selfish to give them a hand up. People who can't share end up cutting off their own noses. The result is increasing poverty and crime, ill, dispossessed and alienated people, a cruel, self-serving society where those still grimly clinging to their dwindling possessions retreat to gated communities patrolled by armed guards. Just think how much that costs.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 1991450 8-Apr-2018 16:15

Rikkitic:
rjt123:
Geektastic:

The health service is not the be all and end all. Health is an increasingly expensive business. You want more money? Increase the population of taxpayers and grow the economy. You cannot have a situation like this:

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

(That quote is from 2016 so the figures won't be accurate but no doubt the general principle is)

and still expect to have a huge pile of cash for investing in everything. I suggest that if people wish to have a Gold Standard health service (and it's a reasonable aim) then they need to be prepared to pay for it somehow and, apparently, 40% or so of them currently are not doing so.

That's a good example of why a liberal social welfare policy like NZ's can never work for the good of the country in the long term.

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

This is a convenient argument used as justification by those who just don't want to give up anything of their own to help others. I would say that the true end of a nation is when half of the population is in prison because the other half was too selfish to give them a hand up. People who can't share end up cutting off their own noses. The result is increasing poverty and crime, ill, dispossessed and alienated people, a cruel, self-serving society where those still grimly clinging to their dwindling possessions retreat to gated communities patrolled by armed guards. Just think how much that costs.

Sounds like Argentina when Christina Fernandez was in power. Voted in as a populist rather than in the nations best interests. (I can think of another female leader who was voted in on that premise).

Genuine question though, do you agree with the basic principle of that qoute? Or do u fundamentally disagree?

Geektastic

13720 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991459 8-Apr-2018 16:38

Rikkitic:

rjt123:
Geektastic:

The health service is not the be all and end all. Health is an increasingly expensive business. You want more money? Increase the population of taxpayers and grow the economy. You cannot have a situation like this:

"More than one in three households are contributing nothing to New Zealand's tax take.

A table from Finance Minister Bill English's office shows 663,000 households - or 40 per cent - receive more in tax credits and other benefits than they pay in tax. Thousands more are neutral contributors, or are close to it."

(That quote is from 2016 so the figures won't be accurate but no doubt the general principle is)

and still expect to have a huge pile of cash for investing in everything. I suggest that if people wish to have a Gold Standard health service (and it's a reasonable aim) then they need to be prepared to pay for it somehow and, apparently, 40% or so of them currently are not doing so.

That's a good example of why a liberal social welfare policy like NZ's can never work for the good of the country in the long term.

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

This is a convenient argument used as justification by those who just don't want to give up anything of their own to help others. I would say that the true end of a nation is when half of the population is in prison because the other half was too selfish to give them a hand up. People who can't share end up cutting off their own noses. The result is increasing poverty and crime, ill, dispossessed and alienated people, a cruel, self-serving society where those still grimly clinging to their dwindling possessions retreat to gated communities patrolled by armed guards. Just think how much that costs.

Half the population are in prison because they chose to commit criminal acts. Don't dump that one on the rest of us - we never forced them to break the law.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
11150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991468 8-Apr-2018 16:47

rjt123:

Genuine question though, do you agree with the basic principle of that qoute? Or do u fundamentally disagree?

It depends on what you consider the basic principle to be. If it is the first sentence, then I agree with that. I also agree with the second and third. You can't give something to someone without taking it from someone else. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the circumstances. My problem is with the last sentences, and the arrogant, sneering, superior, victim-blaming assumption of the selfish that those who don't work, don't want to, and are content to be supported by others. The facts do not bear this self-serving fiction out, and those who cling to it are a load of circle jerks in my humble opinion. Most people, given the chance and a decent opportunity, greatly prefer the dignity of earning their own way. If your idea of 'work' is cleaning someone's toilet or serving them hamburgers for a starvation wage, then no, I do not consider that suitable employment. It is for a student, or someone working their way up, but not as a dead end job for someone struggling to support a family. There is an awful lot of reeking BS in that quote, but I'm sure it keeps the well-off warm at night.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

gzt

11016 posts

Uber Geek

# 1991657 8-Apr-2018 19:57

One person supports this post

Let's hear that from the source:

Same quote is found on a bunch of anti-obama memes for some reason. Now for something the same guy didn't say in public:

Google Books: “I believe slavery is a much maligned institution; if we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess.”

I'm not going to claim the guy was an incorrigible racist but really a denomination that was founded as pro-slavery in 1845 has a lot of history to get over.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 1991904 9-Apr-2018 10:58

It seems that the current government is still determined to persist with the narrative that the last National Government significantly neglected (underfunded) its Health portfolio. The appalling situation at Middlemore Hospital is being held up as the most recent example of this.

Unfortunately for Labour, regardless how many times it is repeated, it simply doesn't change the facts. National invested significantly more funding in the Health sector than Clark's Labour government did. In the specific case of Counties Manukau DHB, its funding was increased by more than 40% over National's term.

Media release | New funding for Counties Manukau DHB in Budget 2016 increases the DHB’s total allocation to a record level, says Health Minister Jonathan Coleman.

Counties Manukau DHB will receive an extra $56 million in new money this year, taking the DHB’s total funding to $1.4 billion for 2016/17. That’s an extra $425 million in funding over the last eight years.

“Delivering better health services remains this Government’s number one funding priority,” says Dr Coleman.

Now, you can make the point that it never should have been allowed to get into the state that it has, and it will be interesting to see how that story unfolds... but to simplisticly paint this as an under-investment issue is both intellectually lazy and patently wrong.

mrfte

83 posts

Master Geek

# 1991910 9-Apr-2018 11:07

I spent a day with my wife at Waitakere hospital on Friday (2 days ago) to get some checks + scans done for her. The staff were extremely busy and looked fatigued. Despite the fact that we waited over 7hrs for a 1.5 hour procedure, both of us saw that the staff were doing their best that they can to prioritize each case and deal with it as efficiently as possible. We both felt that the management was simply clueless with their jobs. I agree with Bridges when he says that the DHB isn't doing their job properly. However, I am not sure how effective the ruling party can be to effect the change necessary in improving the quality of DHB without looking socialist and heavy handed.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 1991918 9-Apr-2018 11:37

mrfte:

However, I am not sure how effective the ruling party can be to effect the change necessary in improving the quality of DHB without looking socialist and heavy handed.

Better checks & balances to prevent examples like this from occurring will be a helpful start.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
11150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991926 9-Apr-2018 11:55

One person supports this post

6FIEND:

Now, you can make the point that it never should have been allowed to get into the state that it has, and it will be interesting to see how that story unfolds... but to simplisticly paint this as an under-investment issue is both intellectually lazy and patently wrong.

I haven't been following this, but a quick Google search turns up items from the same source that paint a very different picture:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80411042/Canterbury-District-Health-Board-gets-lowest-funding-increase

And then there's this one:

PSA national secretary Erin Polaczuk said nine years of underfunding in health has put DHBs like Counties Manukau in a “perilous state”. Source here.

These days anyone can quote anything to prove anything. That don't impress me much.

Depending on what you choose to believe (take your pick, there is plenty), 'the under-investment issue' is neither intellectually lazy nor patently wrong, but an indisputable fact of history resulting from intentional National policy.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

networkn

21745 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991930 9-Apr-2018 12:04

One person supports this post

Rikkitic:

These days anyone can quote anything to prove anything. That don't impress me much.

Depending on what you choose to believe (take your pick, there is plenty), 'the under-investment issue' is neither intellectually lazy nor patently wrong, but an indisputable fact of history resulting from intentional National policy.

Heh, you have failed to pay attention to the earlier postings that healthcare funding has increased under National by a higher percentage than the prior Labour Government.

You've also failed to take into account that Labour cut *500* Million of it's promised funding from the healthcare budget in order to pay Winstons ransom. (Yet another broken promise, which I think I'm going to coin as #YABPbL). As someone with close ties to the medical community, I can tell you a lot of Doctors voted Labour soley for the extra funding that they would be getting, and those doctors are now frothing at the mouth angry over that broken promise.

It's worth noting that National had promised to increase funding this term.

Also worth noting, is that Labour is increasing GP Workloads significantly over the coming 6 years whilst compensating them by a ridiculously smaller amount.

Hardly the glowing investment in Healthcare is it?

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
11150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991936 9-Apr-2018 12:18

networkn:

Heh, you have failed to pay attention to the earlier postings that healthcare funding has increased under National by a higher percentage than the prior Labour Government.

You've also failed to take into account that Labour cut *500* Million of it's promised funding from the healthcare budget in order to pay Winstons ransom. (Yet another broken promise, which I think I'm going to coin as #YABPbL). As someone with close ties to the medical community, I can tell you a lot of Doctors voted Labour soley for the extra funding that they would be getting, and those doctors are now frothing at the mouth angry over that broken promise.

It's worth noting that National had promised to increase funding this term.

Also worth noting, is that Labour is increasing GP Workloads significantly over the coming 6 years whilst compensating them by a ridiculously smaller amount.

Hardly the glowing investment in Healthcare is it?

Welcome back. I wasn't actually trying to do a National vs Labour thing here, just pointing out that there is some substance to the allegations of ongoing chronic underfunding. That doesn't necessarily mean there hasn't been any funding, just not what is needed to keep the health system going.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

networkn

21745 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1991940 9-Apr-2018 12:24

One person supports this post

Rikkitic:

Welcome back. I wasn't actually trying to do a National vs Labour thing here, just pointing out that there is some substance to the allegations of ongoing chronic underfunding. That doesn't necessarily mean there hasn't been any funding, just not what is needed to keep the health system going.

Thanks. Scary last few days, back to good now. Medical care in NZ is very first rate. My doctor at the hospital came in to see me after his hours were over because he knew my team were very busy, to check on me, and when he checked nothing had changed, helped me discharge and come home earlier instead of spending another day in Hospital.

There are a LOT of inefficiencies in Healthcare. It's a normal consequence of being large, and it's the same in education. The problem is tackling that is both a political and logistical nightmare because you are asking people to do more with less usually. I would advocate on a reduction of waste which I forsee a lot of in both sectors. I am not saying teachers or doctors don't do a good job.

You can't have everything at once. I'd suggest it's very unlikely even if it wasn't National in power you'd still be seeing underfunding in Healthcare because it will always need to be more.

1 | ... | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | ... | 268