Thursday, September 21, 2017

ON HEALTH

The reality is that 'Health' is a bottomless pit.   Whatever you spend on it will not be enough egged along by the simple fact that the 'industry' (and that includes you and me) are very good at 'shroud waving'.  

The demand on vote Health will continue to increase exponentially  driven by the reality of an aging population living longer.

Which makes refusal by Labour and NZ First to countenance the lifting of the age of entitlement to NZ Superannuation to 67 thereby freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars which could be redirected into Health spending totally unconscionable.

This has nothing to do with KiwiSaver ... KiwiSaver doesn't replace NZ Superannuation ... it's a top up to provide an enhanced level of retirement ... unless of course 'they' have a (another) secret plan to means test or reduce NZ Superannuation using KiwiSaver as an offset in order to free up funding for Health ... just askin.

  

5 comments:

gravedodger said...

Interesting graphic on Farrar's kiwiblog recently on staff increases in state hospitals revealing a doubling of both Drs and Nurses employed over last nine years.
That suggests a significant increase in service
As the post suggests any increase will be swallowed and people will still die.
The massive reductions in ACC component of motor regs but one bit of evidence.

Anonymous said...

Dodger....at least read the article in it's entirety
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/92407720/increasing-numbers-of-doctors-looks-good-on-paper-only

It is like suggesting that the army has doubled its generals and privates.

Health need not be a bottomless pit if handled correctly. Plying catch up and spending money of cure and not prevention as is happening now ...is one way of reaching the bottom of the shekel barrel very quickly.

Lord Egbut

Andrei said...

Superannuation should be a sixty - a whole generation paid into Nationals (Robert Muldoon's) scheme their entire working lives under the expectation they would get their pay out at sixty only to be robbed and have their age of entitlement put back

If a private company did this you could sue them but Governments are a law unto themselves

As for health as new expensive treatments come online there is the unrealistic expectation the Government should fund them for everybody and that when you get sick you should be treated instantly which requires a greater capacity than is feasible

Of course our masters have a solution to both the super problem and the health cost problem in the pipeline - it is called "Voluntary" Euthanasia but it wont be "Voluntary" for long and in a generation or so people will be being put to sleep at the end of their useful economic lives if our masters get their way

The Veteran said...

Andrei ... no-one paid into Muldoon' scheme and they don't do it now either in the sense that NZ Superannuation is funded from taxation. The scheme had its age of entitlement wound back from 60 to 65 when it was realised that in the medium term it simply unaffordable. Since then the scheme has been enhanced. For me the 67 debate is a no brainer and recognises what much of the world has recognised ... that we are living longer.

Your para three is on the money and I fear that para four could indeed happen in a changing world.

Andrei said...

"no-one paid into Muldoon' scheme and they don't do it now either in the sense that NZ Superannuation is funded from taxation"

And taxation comes out of thin air? The money that is taken from people as tax could if left in their own pockets be invested in other things including Super annuation schemes

If you will recall the scheme that the Honorable Robert Muldoon replaced had the Government take a proportion of peoples income and set it aside explicitly for super at age sixty with the option for people to opt out and invest an equivalent or greater sum in private schemes

And the deal as sold to the gullible electorate at the time was that the working age population would pay universal super for those eligible and in return when their time came receive it in return

Of course those who were smart at the time knew that the deal would be reneged upon eventually and so it was

There is another reality that those in ivory towers miss in these discussions and that is that a large number of people are not really fit for work at sixty - this is quite common in some who have done heavy physical labour for forty years and accumulated many injuries along the way as a result, bad backs, arthritis, black lung and so forth - such people cannot start new careers as corporate lawyers in their late fifties as time takes it toll now can they - my father who was twice wounded in WW2 had Asbestosis and lost the ability to even drive in his late fifties which was sad to see and while many in sedentary occupations may be able to perform to the satisfaction of their employers to their seventies this is far from true for the swingers of sledgehammers and the assemblers of tower cranes

In any case Veteran though it maybe churlish to point this out but given you served in Vietnam I assume you are receiving Government Super plus other pensions and have been since at a minimum of age sixty five if not earlier