On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:43:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:53:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/94092238/english-wasnt-there-for-us
AN opinion, clearly biased - I note no mention of Labour's attempt at "slave
labour" (pun intended!).

Absolutely Tony - it is from the Southland Times - a bunch of lefties >>>that used to vote NAtional - right? Don't worry, Bill English isn;t >>>standing as their local MP any more.

Incomprehensible, confused, irrelevant and entirely off the point. Well done, >>another failure to communicate by you!

And another group of people that National isn't there for: >>>>>https://www.change.org/p/bill-english-i-urgently-need-a-cochlear-implant-surgery-before-i-go-completely-deaf

Ah, so this unfortunate person (I know some deaf people) should get her >>>>surgery
instead of four people getting hip replacements.

It seems you may not have read the whole appeal, Tony - here is an >>>extract:

You are big on assumptions but in fact I read it with care - I hoped you had a
point but of course you didn't - just more personal abuse disguised as equally
cynical sarcasm (once more!)

"When I was first told I was losing hearing in both ears I was shocked >>>and scared, but I thought living in a country like New Zealand meant I >>>would be ok. I was told there was a straightforward operation that
could fix both my ears and, believing in the health system, I thought
all would be ok.
But the government has given up on me. My future is in their hands,
but they refuse to fund more than 40 surgeries a year despite a
waiting list of over 214 adults. During my three years on the waiting >>>list my right ear has become completely deaf and every minute that
passes I risk becoming completely deaf in my left also.
To make things even worse the government is now saying they want to
take me off the waiting list altogether, so that their numbers look >>>better.
I have been a volunteer surf lifesaver for over seven years now. I
want to be able to continue saving lives. I want to listen to all the >>>little things, my family talking, the Tui’s, the sound of the waves. I >>>want the future I had planned. Once I become fully deaf, I will also >>>start to lose the ability to speak. My entire world is crashing in
front of me.
Just this last week my hearing has deteriorated and I haven’t been
able to hear my family or boyfriend speak to me. It’s left me in
tears, and I am so scared and angry.
I am not asking to jump to the front of the queue, I am asking for
urgent funding so that those in front of me can get their urgent >>>operations also."


So she is not asking to jump to the front of the queue - and there is
no mention of hip replacements - I know a few people who have had that >>>operation; to get it through the public system you need to be
virtually unable to walk and have been so disabled for up to a year;
if that is your problem Tony I hope you have either health insurance
or enough money to pay for it; it is I think about as low in priority
as choclear implants.

I don't pretend to have the answer to that dilemma but only so much money is
available. What is not funded if we fund more implants? Have you analysed >>>>that?

I'm glad you recognise you didn't have the answer - why hit on people >>>needing hip replacement then?

You stupid and gutter dwelling low life, I did nothing of the sort.
I merely explained to you, with words that were clearly too long for you to >>understand, that there is only so much money in the pot and that decisions on >>priorities are necessary (you and I would agree that it is unfortunate that >>that is the unavoidable case!)
You completely fail to explain how you would make the judgement between 4 >>people that need new hips and one person that needs an implant - Will you tell
us how you would make that decision, "oh person of ultimate wisdom"?

There is of course more than one "answer", Tony - government finances >>>are not so binary in terms of right decisions and what the National >>>cabinet decides. But just to start you off how about the $17 million
teh government granted to a company helping teh Oracle team defend the >>>Americas Cup? How about the cost for the unwanted flag referendum
(hugely more expensive than if it had been delayed to the next
election, but a total waste anyway). There are lots of other poor >>>investment decisions by the Nats where the money wasted could have
been used for a few more operations.

Irrelevant and childish attempt to change the subject - oh and by the way M$17
was not "given" and the returns will be billions just like last time and your >>precious leader loved the cup result. Did you???

I doubt it!
It seems that you would prefer the implant to four people who can be free of
pain.

What on earth gives you that impression? I suspect losing your hearing
is quite deleterious to future earning capacity - surely the Nats >>>"Social Investment" approach should show that there is a great return
on spending the money for the operation - it will be more than repaid
by future tax income instead of future social benefit payments!

So you are an expert in sociology and return on investement - give me a break,
you are a poseur!

If that is the case then you are self righteous to a fault. Perhaps you have
the wisdom of Solomon but I really doubt it.

I note that you widely did not claim any wisdom for yourself - well
done!

Not hard for me - but your descent into sarcsam is once again noted.

How many implants did Labour fund per year? Perhaps you have done that >>>>research, if not then you are a hypocrite, come to think of it!!!!

Tony

I'm sure you would not have raised that without knowing the answer,
Tony, so do tell - how many did they? And then perhaps you could also >>>explain why that is a constraint on the National-led government nearly >>>nine years later.

Of course I didn't, your responsibility not mine! How many did they fund - do >>tell!
The answer to the second part of that very silly paragraph is answered above >>quite comprehensively - do go and look!

Of course you may be aware that medical funding has been a bit of a >>>problem for National in a range of areas - here is one of the latest >>>bungles:

No government is perfect, fortunately this one is less imperfect than the last
Labour government which was "wisely' voted out by a caring and educated >>populace! >>>https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1857-government-knew-of-dhb-blunder-before-budget

Tony

You still seem to think there is an immutable "pot" that cannot be
changed.
You are wrong
You are blinkered

Your artificial "choice" ignores the choice that the current
government have had for nearly 9 years to "be there for us" - they
have chosen to reduce the money going into health on a per person,
inflation adjusted basis. Shortages in many areas of medical care are
the result..
.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:04:03 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:43:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:53:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/94092238/english-wasnt-there-for-us >>>>>AN opinion, clearly biased - I note no mention of Labour's attempt at "slave
labour" (pun intended!).

Absolutely Tony - it is from the Southland Times - a bunch of lefties >>>>that used to vote NAtional - right? Don't worry, Bill English isn;t >>>>standing as their local MP any more.

Incomprehensible, confused, irrelevant and entirely off the point. Well done,
another failure to communicate by you!

And another group of people that National isn't there for: >>>>>>https://www.change.org/p/bill-english-i-urgently-need-a-cochlear-implant-surgery-before-i-go-completely-deaf

Ah, so this unfortunate person (I know some deaf people) should get her >>>>>surgery
instead of four people getting hip replacements.

It seems you may not have read the whole appeal, Tony - here is an >>>>extract:

You are big on assumptions but in fact I read it with care - I hoped you had

point but of course you didn't - just more personal abuse disguised as equally
cynical sarcasm (once more!)

"When I was first told I was losing hearing in both ears I was shocked >>>>and scared, but I thought living in a country like New Zealand meant I >>>>would be ok. I was told there was a straightforward operation that >>>>could fix both my ears and, believing in the health system, I thought >>>>all would be ok.
But the government has given up on me. My future is in their hands,
but they refuse to fund more than 40 surgeries a year despite a
waiting list of over 214 adults. During my three years on the waiting >>>>list my right ear has become completely deaf and every minute that >>>>passes I risk becoming completely deaf in my left also.
To make things even worse the government is now saying they want to >>>>take me off the waiting list altogether, so that their numbers look >>>>better.
I have been a volunteer surf lifesaver for over seven years now. I
want to be able to continue saving lives. I want to listen to all the >>>>little things, my family talking, the Tui’s, the sound of the waves. I >>>>want the future I had planned. Once I become fully deaf, I will also >>>>start to lose the ability to speak. My entire world is crashing in >>>>front of me.
Just this last week my hearing has deteriorated and I haven’t been
able to hear my family or boyfriend speak to me. It’s left me in
tears, and I am so scared and angry.
I am not asking to jump to the front of the queue, I am asking for >>>>urgent funding so that those in front of me can get their urgent >>>>operations also."


So she is not asking to jump to the front of the queue - and there is >>>>no mention of hip replacements - I know a few people who have had that >>>>operation; to get it through the public system you need to be
virtually unable to walk and have been so disabled for up to a year;
if that is your problem Tony I hope you have either health insurance
or enough money to pay for it; it is I think about as low in priority >>>>as choclear implants.

I don't pretend to have the answer to that dilemma but only so much money is
available. What is not funded if we fund more implants? Have you analysed >>>>>that?

I'm glad you recognise you didn't have the answer - why hit on people >>>>needing hip replacement then?

You stupid and gutter dwelling low life, I did nothing of the sort.
I merely explained to you, with words that were clearly too long for you to >>>understand, that there is only so much money in the pot and that decisions on
priorities are necessary (you and I would agree that it is unfortunate that >>>that is the unavoidable case!)
You completely fail to explain how you would make the judgement between 4 >>>people that need new hips and one person that needs an implant - Will you tell
us how you would make that decision, "oh person of ultimate wisdom"?

There is of course more than one "answer", Tony - government finances >>>>are not so binary in terms of right decisions and what the National >>>>cabinet decides. But just to start you off how about the $17 million >>>>teh government granted to a company helping teh Oracle team defend the >>>>Americas Cup? How about the cost for the unwanted flag referendum >>>>(hugely more expensive than if it had been delayed to the next >>>>election, but a total waste anyway). There are lots of other poor >>>>investment decisions by the Nats where the money wasted could have
been used for a few more operations.

Irrelevant and childish attempt to change the subject - oh and by the way M$17
was not "given" and the returns will be billions just like last time and your
precious leader loved the cup result. Did you???

I doubt it!
It seems that you would prefer the implant to four people who can be free of
pain.

What on earth gives you that impression? I suspect losing your hearing >>>>is quite deleterious to future earning capacity - surely the Nats >>>>"Social Investment" approach should show that there is a great return >>>>on spending the money for the operation - it will be more than repaid >>>>by future tax income instead of future social benefit payments!

So you are an expert in sociology and return on investement - give me a break,
you are a poseur!

If that is the case then you are self righteous to a fault. Perhaps you have
the wisdom of Solomon but I really doubt it.

I note that you widely did not claim any wisdom for yourself - well >>>>done!

Not hard for me - but your descent into sarcsam is once again noted.

How many implants did Labour fund per year? Perhaps you have done that >>>>>research, if not then you are a hypocrite, come to think of it!!!!

Tony

I'm sure you would not have raised that without knowing the answer, >>>>Tony, so do tell - how many did they? And then perhaps you could also >>>>explain why that is a constraint on the National-led government nearly >>>>nine years later.

Of course I didn't, your responsibility not mine! How many did they fund - do
tell!
The answer to the second part of that very silly paragraph is answered above >>>quite comprehensively - do go and look!

Of course you may be aware that medical funding has been a bit of a >>>>problem for National in a range of areas - here is one of the latest >>>>bungles:

No government is perfect, fortunately this one is less imperfect than the last
Labour government which was "wisely' voted out by a caring and educated >>>populace! >>>>https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1857-government-knew-of-dhb-blunder-before-budget

Tony

You still seem to think there is an immutable "pot" that cannot be
changed.
You are wrong
You are blinkered

Tony has said what is a considered opinion that I find credible. You,
Rich, are advocating for change - which is fair enough in its own
right - but that change comes at the price of having a
Labour/Greens/NZ First government based on the last 3 election results
and current pricing.

Now that government will be severely unstable. Labour will lead it as
having the most MPs, but the Greens and NZF combined will have more
MPs than Labour. This is a recipe for instability in its own right
but doubly so when you factor in Winston and his attitude to the
Greens in particular. The Greens and/or NZF can simply bring the
government down whenever they choose to do so. Three-year terms are
short enough, we don't need shorter.

In comparison National offer a far more safe option in that they can
almost form a majority government in their own right - meaning that
they dominate a government that includes them and the very small
parties like UF and Maori. This is stable and a known quantity
compared to the other options.

Your artificial "choice" ignores the choice that the current
government have had for nearly 9 years to "be there for us" - they
have chosen to reduce the money going into health on a per person, >>inflation adjusted basis. Shortages in many areas of medical care are
the result..
.

I would be interested in a cite for money going into health. There is
a long list of worthy recipients of the increased tax take National
have achieved.

A reminder that I don't support National - I simply don't see a
credible alternative to them in government. Until Labour can come up
with credible candidates and policies that can turn voters away from
National (as they have done historically up to the 2002 general
election) we are stuck with National.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:04:03 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:43:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:53:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/94092238/english-wasnt-there-for-us >>>>>AN opinion, clearly biased - I note no mention of Labour's attempt at "slave
labour" (pun intended!).

Absolutely Tony - it is from the Southland Times - a bunch of lefties >>>>that used to vote NAtional - right? Don't worry, Bill English isn;t >>>>standing as their local MP any more.

Incomprehensible, confused, irrelevant and entirely off the point. Well done,
another failure to communicate by you!

And another group of people that National isn't there for: >>>>>>https://www.change.org/p/bill-english-i-urgently-need-a-cochlear-implant-surgery-before-i-go-completely-deaf

Ah, so this unfortunate person (I know some deaf people) should get her >>>>>surgery
instead of four people getting hip replacements.

It seems you may not have read the whole appeal, Tony - here is an >>>>extract:

You are big on assumptions but in fact I read it with care - I hoped you had

point but of course you didn't - just more personal abuse disguised as equally
cynical sarcasm (once more!)

"When I was first told I was losing hearing in both ears I was shocked >>>>and scared, but I thought living in a country like New Zealand meant I >>>>would be ok. I was told there was a straightforward operation that >>>>could fix both my ears and, believing in the health system, I thought >>>>all would be ok.
But the government has given up on me. My future is in their hands,
but they refuse to fund more than 40 surgeries a year despite a
waiting list of over 214 adults. During my three years on the waiting >>>>list my right ear has become completely deaf and every minute that >>>>passes I risk becoming completely deaf in my left also.
To make things even worse the government is now saying they want to >>>>take me off the waiting list altogether, so that their numbers look >>>>better.
I have been a volunteer surf lifesaver for over seven years now. I
want to be able to continue saving lives. I want to listen to all the >>>>little things, my family talking, the Tui’s, the sound of the waves. I >>>>want the future I had planned. Once I become fully deaf, I will also >>>>start to lose the ability to speak. My entire world is crashing in >>>>front of me.
Just this last week my hearing has deteriorated and I haven’t been
able to hear my family or boyfriend speak to me. It’s left me in
tears, and I am so scared and angry.
I am not asking to jump to the front of the queue, I am asking for >>>>urgent funding so that those in front of me can get their urgent >>>>operations also."


So she is not asking to jump to the front of the queue - and there is >>>>no mention of hip replacements - I know a few people who have had that >>>>operation; to get it through the public system you need to be
virtually unable to walk and have been so disabled for up to a year;
if that is your problem Tony I hope you have either health insurance
or enough money to pay for it; it is I think about as low in priority >>>>as choclear implants.

I don't pretend to have the answer to that dilemma but only so much money is
available. What is not funded if we fund more implants? Have you analysed >>>>>that?

I'm glad you recognise you didn't have the answer - why hit on people >>>>needing hip replacement then?

You stupid and gutter dwelling low life, I did nothing of the sort.
I merely explained to you, with words that were clearly too long for you to >>>understand, that there is only so much money in the pot and that decisions on
priorities are necessary (you and I would agree that it is unfortunate that >>>that is the unavoidable case!)
You completely fail to explain how you would make the judgement between 4 >>>people that need new hips and one person that needs an implant - Will you tell
us how you would make that decision, "oh person of ultimate wisdom"?

There is of course more than one "answer", Tony - government finances >>>>are not so binary in terms of right decisions and what the National >>>>cabinet decides. But just to start you off how about the $17 million >>>>teh government granted to a company helping teh Oracle team defend the >>>>Americas Cup? How about the cost for the unwanted flag referendum >>>>(hugely more expensive than if it had been delayed to the next >>>>election, but a total waste anyway). There are lots of other poor >>>>investment decisions by the Nats where the money wasted could have
been used for a few more operations.

Irrelevant and childish attempt to change the subject - oh and by the way M$17
was not "given" and the returns will be billions just like last time and your
precious leader loved the cup result. Did you???

I doubt it!
It seems that you would prefer the implant to four people who can be free of
pain.

What on earth gives you that impression? I suspect losing your hearing >>>>is quite deleterious to future earning capacity - surely the Nats >>>>"Social Investment" approach should show that there is a great return >>>>on spending the money for the operation - it will be more than repaid >>>>by future tax income instead of future social benefit payments!

So you are an expert in sociology and return on investement - give me a break,
you are a poseur!

If that is the case then you are self righteous to a fault. Perhaps you have
the wisdom of Solomon but I really doubt it.

I note that you widely did not claim any wisdom for yourself - well >>>>done!

Not hard for me - but your descent into sarcsam is once again noted.

How many implants did Labour fund per year? Perhaps you have done that >>>>>research, if not then you are a hypocrite, come to think of it!!!!

Tony

I'm sure you would not have raised that without knowing the answer, >>>>Tony, so do tell - how many did they? And then perhaps you could also >>>>explain why that is a constraint on the National-led government nearly >>>>nine years later.

Of course I didn't, your responsibility not mine! How many did they fund - do
tell!
The answer to the second part of that very silly paragraph is answered above >>>quite comprehensively - do go and look!

Of course you may be aware that medical funding has been a bit of a >>>>problem for National in a range of areas - here is one of the latest >>>>bungles:

No government is perfect, fortunately this one is less imperfect than the last
Labour government which was "wisely' voted out by a caring and educated >>>populace! >>>>https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1857-government-knew-of-dhb-blunder-before-budget

Tony

You still seem to think there is an immutable "pot" that cannot be
changed.
You are wrong
You are blinkered

Tony has said what is a considered opinion that I find credible. You,
Rich, are advocating for change - which is fair enough in its own
right - but that change comes at the price of having a
Labour/Greens/NZ First government based on the last 3 election results
and current pricing.

Now that government will be severely unstable. Labour will lead it as
having the most MPs, but the Greens and NZF combined will have more
MPs than Labour. This is a recipe for instability in its own right
but doubly so when you factor in Winston and his attitude to the
Greens in particular. The Greens and/or NZF can simply bring the
government down whenever they choose to do so. Three-year terms are
short enough, we don't need shorter.

In comparison National offer a far more safe option in that they can
almost form a majority government in their own right - meaning that
they dominate a government that includes them and the very small
parties like UF and Maori. This is stable and a known quantity
compared to the other options.

Your artificial "choice" ignores the choice that the current
government have had for nearly 9 years to "be there for us" - they
have chosen to reduce the money going into health on a per person, >>inflation adjusted basis. Shortages in many areas of medical care are
the result..
.

I would be interested in a cite for money going into health. There is
a long list of worthy recipients of the increased tax take National
have achieved.

A reminder that I don't support National - I simply don't see a
credible alternative to them in government. Until Labour can come up
with credible candidates and policies that can turn voters away from
National (as they have done historically up to the 2002 general
election) we are stuck with National.

A reminder that I don't support National - I simply don't see a
credible alternative to them in government. Until Labour can come up
with credible candidates and policies that can turn voters away from
National (as they have done historically up to the 2002 general
election) we are stuck with National.

On 7/1/2017 5:21 PM, Crash wrote:

A reminder that I don't support National - I simply don't see a
credible alternative to them in government. Until Labour can come up
with credible candidates and policies that can turn voters away from
National (as they have done historically up to the 2002 general
election) we are stuck with National.

Were liebor and its minions capable of presenting a viable alternative
set of policy then more people would vote for them.
It's this viciousness from them and their pet media, liebor controlled >councils that repels voters..

Do they learn? No!
Why not?
Well, they live in an echo chamber.
Look at the latest debacle.
After explaining their immigration policy they then do the opposite by >bringing in 'slave' labour to work for them in the election...
Ever seen dog tucker looking for a dog to eat it ?????

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 17:21:19 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:04:03 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:43:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:53:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/94092238/english-wasnt-there-for-us >>>>>>AN opinion, clearly biased - I note no mention of Labour's attempt at "slave
labour" (pun intended!).

Absolutely Tony - it is from the Southland Times - a bunch of lefties >>>>>that used to vote NAtional - right? Don't worry, Bill English isn;t >>>>>standing as their local MP any more.

Incomprehensible, confused, irrelevant and entirely off the point. Well done,
another failure to communicate by you!

And another group of people that National isn't there for: >>>>>>>https://www.change.org/p/bill-english-i-urgently-need-a-cochlear-implant-surgery-before-i-go-completely-deaf

Ah, so this unfortunate person (I know some deaf people) should get her >>>>>>surgery
instead of four people getting hip replacements.

It seems you may not have read the whole appeal, Tony - here is an >>>>>extract:

You are big on assumptions but in fact I read it with care - I hoped you had a
point but of course you didn't - just more personal abuse disguised as equally
cynical sarcasm (once more!)

"When I was first told I was losing hearing in both ears I was shocked >>>>>and scared, but I thought living in a country like New Zealand meant I >>>>>would be ok. I was told there was a straightforward operation that >>>>>could fix both my ears and, believing in the health system, I thought >>>>>all would be ok.
But the government has given up on me. My future is in their hands, >>>>>but they refuse to fund more than 40 surgeries a year despite a >>>>>waiting list of over 214 adults. During my three years on the waiting >>>>>list my right ear has become completely deaf and every minute that >>>>>passes I risk becoming completely deaf in my left also.
To make things even worse the government is now saying they want to >>>>>take me off the waiting list altogether, so that their numbers look >>>>>better.
I have been a volunteer surf lifesaver for over seven years now. I >>>>>want to be able to continue saving lives. I want to listen to all the >>>>>little things, my family talking, the Tui’s, the sound of the waves. I >>>>>want the future I had planned. Once I become fully deaf, I will also >>>>>start to lose the ability to speak. My entire world is crashing in >>>>>front of me.
Just this last week my hearing has deteriorated and I haven’t been >>>>>able to hear my family or boyfriend speak to me. It’s left me in >>>>>tears, and I am so scared and angry.
I am not asking to jump to the front of the queue, I am asking for >>>>>urgent funding so that those in front of me can get their urgent >>>>>operations also."


So she is not asking to jump to the front of the queue - and there is >>>>>no mention of hip replacements - I know a few people who have had that >>>>>operation; to get it through the public system you need to be >>>>>virtually unable to walk and have been so disabled for up to a year; >>>>>if that is your problem Tony I hope you have either health insurance >>>>>or enough money to pay for it; it is I think about as low in priority >>>>>as choclear implants.

I don't pretend to have the answer to that dilemma but only so much money

available. What is not funded if we fund more implants? Have you analysed >>>>>>that?

I'm glad you recognise you didn't have the answer - why hit on people >>>>>needing hip replacement then?

You stupid and gutter dwelling low life, I did nothing of the sort.
I merely explained to you, with words that were clearly too long for you to >>>>understand, that there is only so much money in the pot and that decisions on
priorities are necessary (you and I would agree that it is unfortunate that >>>>that is the unavoidable case!)
You completely fail to explain how you would make the judgement between 4 >>>>people that need new hips and one person that needs an implant - Will you tell
us how you would make that decision, "oh person of ultimate wisdom"?

There is of course more than one "answer", Tony - government finances >>>>>are not so binary in terms of right decisions and what the National >>>>>cabinet decides. But just to start you off how about the $17 million >>>>>teh government granted to a company helping teh Oracle team defend the >>>>>Americas Cup? How about the cost for the unwanted flag referendum >>>>>(hugely more expensive than if it had been delayed to the next >>>>>election, but a total waste anyway). There are lots of other poor >>>>>investment decisions by the Nats where the money wasted could have >>>>>been used for a few more operations.

Irrelevant and childish attempt to change the subject - oh and by the way M$17
was not "given" and the returns will be billions just like last time and your
precious leader loved the cup result. Did you???

I doubt it!
It seems that you would prefer the implant to four people who can be free

pain.

What on earth gives you that impression? I suspect losing your hearing >>>>>is quite deleterious to future earning capacity - surely the Nats >>>>>"Social Investment" approach should show that there is a great return >>>>>on spending the money for the operation - it will be more than repaid >>>>>by future tax income instead of future social benefit payments!

So you are an expert in sociology and return on investement - give me a break,
you are a poseur!

If that is the case then you are self righteous to a fault. Perhaps you have
the wisdom of Solomon but I really doubt it.

I note that you widely did not claim any wisdom for yourself - well >>>>>done!

Not hard for me - but your descent into sarcsam is once again noted.

How many implants did Labour fund per year? Perhaps you have done that >>>>>>research, if not then you are a hypocrite, come to think of it!!!!

Tony

I'm sure you would not have raised that without knowing the answer, >>>>>Tony, so do tell - how many did they? And then perhaps you could also >>>>>explain why that is a constraint on the National-led government nearly >>>>>nine years later.

Of course I didn't, your responsibility not mine! How many did they fund - do
tell!
The answer to the second part of that very silly paragraph is answered above
quite comprehensively - do go and look!

Of course you may be aware that medical funding has been a bit of a >>>>>problem for National in a range of areas - here is one of the latest >>>>>bungles:

No government is perfect, fortunately this one is less imperfect than the last
Labour government which was "wisely' voted out by a caring and educated >>>>populace! >>>>>https://pro.newsroom.co.nz/articles/1857-government-knew-of-dhb-blunder-before-budget

Tony

You still seem to think there is an immutable "pot" that cannot be >>>changed.
You are wrong
You are blinkered

Tony has said what is a considered opinion that I find credible. You, >>Rich, are advocating for change - which is fair enough in its own
right - but that change comes at the price of having a
Labour/Greens/NZ First government based on the last 3 election results
and current pricing.

Now that government will be severely unstable. Labour will lead it as >>having the most MPs, but the Greens and NZF combined will have more
MPs than Labour. This is a recipe for instability in its own right
but doubly so when you factor in Winston and his attitude to the
Greens in particular. The Greens and/or NZF can simply bring the >>government down whenever they choose to do so. Three-year terms are
short enough, we don't need shorter.

In comparison National offer a far more safe option in that they can
almost form a majority government in their own right - meaning that
they dominate a government that includes them and the very small
parties like UF and Maori. This is stable and a known quantity
compared to the other options.

Your artificial "choice" ignores the choice that the current
government have had for nearly 9 years to "be there for us" - they
have chosen to reduce the money going into health on a per person, >>>inflation adjusted basis. Shortages in many areas of medical care are
the result..
.

I would be interested in a cite for money going into health. There is
a long list of worthy recipients of the increased tax take National
have achieved.

A reminder that I don't support National - I simply don't see a
credible alternative to them in government. Until Labour can come up
with credible candidates and policies that can turn voters away from >>National (as they have done historically up to the 2002 general
election) we are stuck with National.

Another article listing a few things the government could have not
spent - and tehreby have more money for needed operations . . . >https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/2-3-mill-for-a-bankers-advice-on-selling-hnz-houses-see-what-else-your-govt-corporation-spends-your-tax-money-on-kiwis/

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 08:34:18 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 7/1/2017 5:21 PM, Crash wrote:

A reminder that I don't support National - I simply don't see a
credible alternative to them in government. Until Labour can come up
with credible candidates and policies that can turn voters away from
National (as they have done historically up to the 2002 general
election) we are stuck with National.

Were liebor and its minions capable of presenting a viable alternative
set of policy then more people would vote for them.
It's this viciousness from them and their pet media, liebor controlled
councils that repels voters..

I guess it is that vicuousness that leads you to use the word
"liebor," is it george?

Do they learn? No!
Why not?
Well, they live in an echo chamber.
Look at the latest debacle.
After explaining their immigration policy they then do the opposite by
bringing in 'slave' labour to work for them in the election...
Ever seen dog tucker looking for a dog to eat it ?????

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11881086

No slave labour, no dishonesty, a small problem tht was readily
acknowledged and fixed. Compare with National and the Barclay scandal
- which was hidden for a year, and Barclay allowed to be selected to
stand again while keeping it all hidden from the publi, and then the
lies when discovered. Police now investigating again. No comparison
indeed.