On Monday, 28 November 2016 09:15:59 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:11:58 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 21:33:40 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:13:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:37:48 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:21:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 13:25:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:59:42 -0800 (PST), JohnO

<johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 23:11:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/are-family-carers-getting-a-fair-deal-2016112611

How was the deal different under Labour's 9 long years?

Watch the link above - when was the issue raised with government,

and

did Labour resist National's "worst legislation ever"?

You have done the distract - now try denial . . .

So you have avoided answering my question. Once again, how was it

different under Labour for family carers?

And you have ignored mine - when was the issue first raise with
government?

Irrelevant.

I suspect it was after November 2008. So the issue did not
arise under the good years of a Labour-led government.

So the deal offered by National is exactly the same as the one offered by

Labour.

What deal was offered by Labour?

The same one as National, according to you.

You lie. If you really believe I said that, prove it.

LOL Dickbot loves to put words in people's mouths but doesn't like it when it happens to it!

The point is, nothing has changed in the support offered to carers between National and Labour.

In other words the 'deal' is the same. Even someone as retarded as you should be able to grasp this, Dickbot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 28 November 2016 13:34:49 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 28 November 2016 09:15:59 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:11:58 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 21:33:40 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:13:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:37:48 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:21:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO

<johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 13:25:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:59:42 -0800 (PST), JohnO

<johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 23:11:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/are-family-carers-getting-a-fair-deal-2016112611

How was the deal different under Labour's 9 long years?

Watch the link above - when was the issue raised with government,

and

did Labour resist National's "worst legislation ever"?

You have done the distract - now try denial . . .

So you have avoided answering my question. Once again, how was it

different under Labour for family carers?

And you have ignored mine - when was the issue first raise with
government?

Irrelevant.

I suspect it was after November 2008. So the issue did not
arise under the good years of a Labour-led government.

So the deal offered by National is exactly the same as the one offered

by Labour.

What deal was offered by Labour?

The same one as National, according to you.

You lie. If you really believe I said that, prove it.

LOL Dickbot loves to put words in people's mouths but doesn't like it when

it happens to it!

The point is, nothing has changed in the support offered to carers between

National and Labour.

In other words the 'deal' is the same. Even someone as retarded as you

should be able to grasp this, Dickbot.

You are wrong - but I accept that you may be genuinely ignorant.

You being the expert on ignorance?

The current government have lost two court cases regarding payment to
people who are caring for family members

Which doesn't mean the deal has changed. It means the department was not adhering to it. As usual, you cannot differentiate between politics and the public service.

- with at least part of the
reason for those cases being taken being the "privatisation" of care
for the disabled - National's policy led to the cost of independent
providers being highlighted, and with the general squeezing of
benefits,

General squeezing of benefits? The current government handed out the largest genuine benefit increase in years:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/1st_core_benefit_increase_in_44_years_today.html

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11452700

the difference in support for fanily became more evident.
National's response to the general ruling was to fight it, but they
have been ruled against, so they passed legislation to limit the cost
- and in the process also to prevent anyone taking them to court in
relation to whatever they decided.
There is a good summary here: http://pundit.co.nz/content/a-little-something-for-the-weekend-now-with-pictures

Good old Dickbot appeal to lefty blog authority. No wonder nobody takes Dickbot
seriously.

Just last night, there was a story on TV about one family where the
new rules reduced the payments the father had been receiving - again
an appeal saw the payments reinstated, but now the government are

So the department didn't want to pay but the law says pay. Sounds like the Nats
got the law right and the department got it wrong.

refusing to pay the arrears for the period wherthey wrongly reduced
the payment. There has been another story about the determination of
how much is to be paid - invovling a detailed accounting of activities
- as the mother said her she will only be paid for a limited number of
bowel movements where her sone needs considerable assistance.

No the 'deal' has changed - the court has forced higher payments for
some, but the government is determined to resist as stringly as
possible, and for some the 'deal' is worse.

You can bleat it over and over, but you are still wrong.

Compassion is definitely missing from this governments policies - and evidently from your views as well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 28 November 2016 09:15:59 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:11:58 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 21:33:40 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:13:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:37:48 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:21:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 13:25:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:59:42 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 23:11:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/are-family-carers-getting-a-fair-deal-2016112611

How was the deal different under Labour's 9 long years?

Watch the link above - when was the issue raised with government, and
did Labour resist National's "worst legislation ever"?

You have done the distract - now try denial . . .

So you have avoided answering my question. Once again, how was it different under Labour for family carers?

And you have ignored mine - when was the issue first raise with
government?

Irrelevant.

I suspect it was after November 2008. So the issue did not
arise under the good years of a Labour-led government.

So the deal offered by National is exactly the same as the one offered by Labour.

What deal was offered by Labour?

The same one as National, according to you.

You lie. If you really believe I said that, prove it.

LOL Dickbot loves to put words in people's mouths but doesn't like it when it happens to it!

The point is, nothing has changed in the support offered to carers between National and Labour.

In other words the 'deal' is the same. Even someone as retarded as you should be able to grasp this, Dickbot.

You are wrong - but I accept that you may be genuinely ignorant.

The current government have lost two court cases regarding payment to
people who are caring for family members - with at least part of the
reason for those cases being taken being the "privatisation" of care
for the disabled - National's policy led to the cost of independent
providers being highlighted, and with the general squeezing of
benefits, the difference in support for fanily became more evident.
National's response to the general ruling was to fight it, but they
have been ruled against, so they passed legislation to limit the cost
- and in the process also to prevent anyone taking them to court in
relation to whatever they decided.
There is a good summary here: http://pundit.co.nz/content/a-little-something-for-the-weekend-now-with-pictures

Just last night, there was a story on TV about one family where the
new rules reduced the payments the father had been receiving - again
an appeal saw the payments reinstated, but now the government are
refusing to pay the arrears for the period wherthey wrongly reduced
the payment. There has been another story about the determination of
how much is to be paid - invovling a detailed accounting of activities
- as the mother said her she will only be paid for a limited number of
bowel movements where her sone needs considerable assistance.

No the 'deal' has changed - the court has forced higher payments for
some, but the government is determined to resist as stringly as
possible, and for some the 'deal' is worse.

Compassion is definitely missing from this governments policies - and
evidently from your views as well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:03:28 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 28 November 2016 13:34:49 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 28 November 2016 09:15:59 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:11:58 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 21:33:40 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:13:32 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:37:48 UTC+13, Pooh wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 18:21:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 November 2016 13:25:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:59:42 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 23:11:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/are-family-carers-getting-a-fair-deal-2016112611

How was the deal different under Labour's 9 long years?

Watch the link above - when was the issue raised with government, and
did Labour resist National's "worst legislation ever"?

You have done the distract - now try denial . . .

So you have avoided answering my question. Once again, how was it different under Labour for family carers?

And you have ignored mine - when was the issue first raise with
government?

Irrelevant.

I suspect it was after November 2008. So the issue did not
arise under the good years of a Labour-led government.

So the deal offered by National is exactly the same as the one offered by Labour.

What deal was offered by Labour?

The same one as National, according to you.

You lie. If you really believe I said that, prove it.

LOL Dickbot loves to put words in people's mouths but doesn't like it when it happens to it!

The point is, nothing has changed in the support offered to carers between National and Labour.

In other words the 'deal' is the same. Even someone as retarded as you should be able to grasp this, Dickbot.

You are wrong - but I accept that you may be genuinely ignorant.

You being the expert on ignorance?

The current government have lost two court cases regarding payment to
people who are caring for family members

Which doesn't mean the deal has changed. It means the department was not adhering to it. As usual, you cannot differentiate between politics and the public service.

- with at least part of the
reason for those cases being taken being the "privatisation" of care
for the disabled - National's policy led to the cost of independent
providers being highlighted, and with the general squeezing of
benefits,

General squeezing of benefits? The current government handed out the largest genuine benefit increase in years:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/1st_core_benefit_increase_in_44_years_today.html

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11452700

the difference in support for fanily became more evident.
National's response to the general ruling was to fight it, but they
have been ruled against, so they passed legislation to limit the cost
- and in the process also to prevent anyone taking them to court in
relation to whatever they decided.
There is a good summary here:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/a-little-something-for-the-weekend-now-with-pictures

Good old Dickbot appeal to lefty blog authority. No wonder nobody takes Dickbot seriously.

So protesting about bad law defines the left does it JohnO? Did you
read the article? - it is by a law professor, and none of your usual
"right" blogs has found anything to disagree with in it.

Just last night, there was a story on TV about one family where the
new rules reduced the payments the father had been receiving - again
an appeal saw the payments reinstated, but now the government are

So the department didn't want to pay but the law says pay. Sounds like the Nats got the law right and the department got it wrong.

After 8 years of government, and changing the law, you now claim that
the National Ministers have lost control of their department! Who
else can you blame for National's policies, JohnO?

refusing to pay the arrears for the period wherthey wrongly reduced
the payment. There has been another story about the determination of
how much is to be paid - invovling a detailed accounting of activities
- as the mother said her she will only be paid for a limited number of
bowel movements where her sone needs considerable assistance.

No the 'deal' has changed - the court has forced higher payments for
some, but the government is determined to resist as stringly as
possible, and for some the 'deal' is worse.

You can bleat it over and over, but you are still wrong.

National passed new legislation to specify whatthe payments should be!
Try reading the article referred to above, and read the new
legislation!

Compassion is definitely missing from this governments policies - and
evidently from your views as well.

Add common-sense to the missing attributes . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)