On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never enough money to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry pick

Rich.

Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget" which is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year. Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication regarding budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion, taking the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

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

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:50:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never enough money
to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry pick Rich.
Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget" which

is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year.
Most budgets for ongoing expenditure can be expected to go up broadly
in line with inflation and growth of the relevant population. For
health, the fact that baby-boomers are now moving int retirement is
well nown, and the effect on anticipated health costs (as well as
costs of NZ Super) well modelled. Offsetting that age effect is the
efect of younger immigrants and refugees, but again that is well
monitored and allowed for in modelling. To increase the budget by
less than the combined effet of population and health cost inflation,
is a nominal increase, but a real decrease.

Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication regarding budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion, taking

the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

Yes - Labour increased the health budget by at least the amount
necessary for population and health cost inflation. That is not to say
they did not have issues with demand exceeding supply, but they never
had DHBS in the position of siralling debt such that senior manager
turnoever became high as National has done.

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

On 22/02/2016 3:23 p.m., JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 15:04:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:50:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never enough money
to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry pick Rich.
Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget" which is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year.

Most budgets for ongoing expenditure can be expected to go up broadly
in line with inflation and growth of the relevant population. For
health, the fact that baby-boomers are now moving int retirement is
well nown, and the effect on anticipated health costs (as well as
costs of NZ Super) well modelled. Offsetting that age effect is the
efect of younger immigrants and refugees, but again that is well
monitored and allowed for in modelling. To increase the budget by
less than the combined effet of population and health cost inflation,
is a nominal increase, but a real decrease.

Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication regarding

budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion, taking the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

Yes - Labour increased the health budget by at least the amount
necessary for population and health cost inflation.

That's not the question I asked. You couldn't answer the actual question, so

you dishonestly reworded it it. Typical.

You should realise JohnO, that Labour were perfect, perhaps the greatest
body of human beings ever assembled on this earth, and would be again.
It seems unfair that only Rich knows this.

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

On Monday, 22 February 2016 15:04:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:50:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never enough

money

to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry pick

Rich.

Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget"

which is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year.

Most budgets for ongoing expenditure can be expected to go up broadly
in line with inflation and growth of the relevant population. For
health, the fact that baby-boomers are now moving int retirement is
well nown, and the effect on anticipated health costs (as well as
costs of NZ Super) well modelled. Offsetting that age effect is the
efect of younger immigrants and refugees, but again that is well
monitored and allowed for in modelling. To increase the budget by
less than the combined effet of population and health cost inflation,
is a nominal increase, but a real decrease.

Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication regarding

budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion,

taking the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

Yes - Labour increased the health budget by at least the amount
necessary for population and health cost inflation.

That's not the question I asked. You couldn't answer the actual question, so you dishonestly reworded it it. Typical.

That is not to say
they did not have issues with demand exceeding supply, but they never
had DHBS in the position of siralling debt such that senior manager
turnoever became high as National has done.

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

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 18:23:04 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 15:04:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:50:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never enough money
to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry pick Rich.
Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget" which is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year.

Most budgets for ongoing expenditure can be expected to go up broadly
in line with inflation and growth of the relevant population. For
health, the fact that baby-boomers are now moving int retirement is
well nown, and the effect on anticipated health costs (as well as
costs of NZ Super) well modelled. Offsetting that age effect is the
efect of younger immigrants and refugees, but again that is well
monitored and allowed for in modelling. To increase the budget by
less than the combined effet of population and health cost inflation,
is a nominal increase, but a real decrease.

Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication regarding

budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion, taking the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

Yes - Labour increased the health budget by at least the amount
necessary for population and health cost inflation.

That's not the question I asked. You couldn't answer the actual question, so you dishonestly reworded it it. Typical.

I cannot remember whether there has been a year in which the health
budget has not been increased - can you?

The increase in nominal terms has probably increased each year as well
- with the nominal amounts increasing each year as well - so if you
were asking about whether Labour had ever increased the budget by $1.7
billion, then probably not, and since $15.9bn is a record, then
clearly no previous budget totalled that much - but it is possible
that every year was a record, and that in many years the percentage
increase was as much as this year from the National-led government.

Of course an aging population makes increases necessary even if
population and inflation increases are zero, but that would affect the
"real" increase - but then you dishoinestly did not want to talk about
that, did you JohnO?

That is not to say
they did not have issues with demand exceeding supply, but they never
had DHBS in the position of spiralling debt such that senior manager
turnover became high as National has done.

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

On Monday, 22 February 2016 17:43:56 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 18:23:04 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 15:04:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:50:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com

wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never enough

money

to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry

pick Rich.

Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget"

which is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year.

Most budgets for ongoing expenditure can be expected to go up broadly
in line with inflation and growth of the relevant population. For
health, the fact that baby-boomers are now moving int retirement is
well nown, and the effect on anticipated health costs (as well as
costs of NZ Super) well modelled. Offsetting that age effect is the
efect of younger immigrants and refugees, but again that is well
monitored and allowed for in modelling. To increase the budget by
less than the combined effet of population and health cost inflation,
is a nominal increase, but a real decrease.

Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication

regarding budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion,

taking the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

Yes - Labour increased the health budget by at least the amount
necessary for population and health cost inflation.

That's not the question I asked. You couldn't answer the actual question, so

you dishonestly reworded it it. Typical.

I cannot remember whether there has been a year in which the health
budget has not been increased - can you?

And once again the dishonest little shit Dickbot changes the question.

The increase in nominal terms has probably increased each year as well
- with the nominal amounts increasing each year as well - so if you
were asking about whether Labour had ever increased the budget by $1.7 billion, then probably not, and since $15.9bn is a record, then
clearly no previous budget totalled that much - but it is possible
that every year was a record, and that in many years the percentage
increase was as much as this year from the National-led government.

Of course an aging population makes increases necessary even if
population and inflation increases are zero, but that would affect the
"real" increase - but then you dishoinestly did not want to talk about
that, did you JohnO?

You're the one making up stories once again. I never said I did or didn't want to talk about that. Now are you going to make such a claim? If so you should support it with a convincing argument and numbers that can be supported with cites to official
sources. I won't hold my breath on that.

That is not to say
they did not have issues with demand exceeding supply, but they never
had DHBS in the position of spiralling debt such that senior manager
turnover became high as National has done.

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

"JohnO" <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c991c774-1994-4c9f-a0eb-dd2f6ec0cc05@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, 22 February 2016 15:04:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:50:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:38:38 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com
wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/77054221/stacey-kirk-whats-ailing-our-health-system-and-will-any-fix-be-enough

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbwtcl-UMAAgINt.png

No different to the last 20 years of governance. There is never
enough money
to do everything we would like to see done. But feel free to cherry
pick Rich.
Tony

Indeed. The reporter mentions "incessant squeezing of the health budget"
which is very misleading. The health budget goes up every single year.

Most budgets for ongoing expenditure can be expected to go up broadly
in line with inflation and growth of the relevant population. For
health, the fact that baby-boomers are now moving int retirement is
well nown, and the effect on anticipated health costs (as well as
costs of NZ Super) well modelled. Offsetting that age effect is the
efect of younger immigrants and refugees, but again that is well
monitored and allowed for in modelling. To increase the budget by
less than the combined effet of population and health cost inflation,
is a nominal increase, but a real decrease.

Strange that the reporter didn't read this in her own publication
regarding budget 2015:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742541/budget-2015-health-gets-billiondollar-shot-in-the-arm

"The Government has boosted the health budget by an extra $1.7 billion,
taking the country's largest spending area to a record $15.9b."

Did any Labour government ever give health such a boost? I doubt it.

Yes - Labour increased the health budget by at least the amount
necessary for population and health cost inflation.

That's not the question I asked. You couldn't answer the actual question,
so you dishonestly reworded it it. Typical.

What do you expect from a turd troll like Rich. Honesty and a reply with meaning? Why should the marxist muppet change the habits of a lifetime
unless he doesn't want to give the impression of Rich being a dirty
political turd troll like he is?

That is not to say
they did not have issues with demand exceeding supply, but they never
had DHBS in the position of siralling debt such that senior manager
turnoever became high as National has done.

Only because Labour were busily filling the DHBS with management to the
extent that front line staff had a major treck from their parking spots
Rich. They certainly did have issues with demand exceeding supply which is
why they had to us Balcott hospital to relieve the pressure on surgical
staff. How quickly you ignore the reality of a Labour government Rich.

Pooh

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