Occupy Dunedin?

[mashman]

Again, and with respect, there is no such thing as "free education, free healthcare and free housing". Those things may be free to you, but someone has to pay for them. Some people have to sit around doing the "evil capitalist" tango earning money and paying taxes so the government takes money in, so said money can be re-distributed (after Govt employees take their very substantial 'share') to fund the receipt by other people of the so-called "free education, free healthcare and free housing". If you have time, look up the meaning and origins of the acronym TANSTAAFL.

Sorry, my context is in regards to a free NZ economy. heh@TANSTAAFL...

[Big Dave]

Survival of the fittest. The primal drive to secure the best mate and trappings and advance the species. What mashy wants to replace is that evolution from 2 Bucks banging antlers in a meadow.

Maybe it can be done without coin - but something else equally competitive will replace it. Inherent nature of the beast.

Look at the recent examples of 'flat' societies - absolute power becomes the currency and the despots rise to the top. Probably no different to capitalism in some ways, but at least more have a shot at it.

[RDJ]

Sorry, my context is in regards to a free NZ economy. heh@TANSTAAFL...

Fair enough! However, if an evil capitalist overseas pharmaceutical company (but I repeat myself :-) ) develops a new treatment that saves children, puppies and unicorns, but the free New Zealand economy doesn't have overseas exchange to buy it in, is that overall good or bad for the free New Zealanders? Just a thought - YMMV... and thanks for the discussion, it's always educational to have preconceptions challenged.

[Big Dave]

Yeah Mashy - re message - I agree - if we 'could' all go John Lennon on it - it would be grand. Problem is there are too many right fuckers in the world. :-)

[mashman]

Fair enough! However, if an evil capitalist overseas pharmaceutical company (but I repeat myself :-) ) develops a new treatment that saves children, puppies and unicorns, but the free New Zealand economy doesn't have overseas exchange to buy it in, is that overall good or bad for the free New Zealanders? Just a thought - YMMV... and thanks for the discussion, it's always educational to have preconceptions challenged.

Like Herceptin perhaps? Not every woman gets access to it because the NZ govt can't afford it (uber fuckin fail). I'm aware that a "free" NZ would have to operate in a financial economy... as you point out 1 of the things we'd need to buy is medicine, there's also fuel and no doubt a few other necessities... In regard to that I have an "idea". Part will be that we will still export and hopefully will be importing less and less cheap crap (on the premise that we've made it to a free NZ we still need to be financially wise) but those exports, even though there will be no financial overheads (no wages, feed costs, transport costs etc...), those exports may not be enough. So to top up the NZ communal bank (, best description I have at the mo), Kiwibank, we would "hire" out trained members our free workforce to large companies (the 99% will be spitting, heh) that want to save costs and want to setup in NZ. An almost tax haven I guess, no need to be greedy about it, as long as it pays the bills and allows us to import useful "stuff".

That's just an idea... the flight of fancy being, IF our crime stats, poverty stats, education levels, healthcare levels, equity index measure (fooked if I know what you'd call it, happined index???), but if they all point to the "experiment" having been a marked success, if we have built the society with think globally act locally in mind... do you reckon any other countries would consider trying something similar? Could changing NZ change the world, cuckoo cuckoo .

[mashman]

Yeah Mashy - re message - I agree - if we 'could' all go John Lennon on it - it would be grand. Problem is there are too many right fuckers in the world. :-)

heh, enough with the succinct shit. Was that Right fuckers, or right fuckers ... apparently it would only need a majority ... I'd include kids 13+ in the "vote" too... or would that be classed as loading the dice?

[Oscar]

Yeah Mashy - re message - I agree - if we 'could' all go John Lennon on it - it would be grand. Problem is there are too many right fuckers in the world. :-)

You called?

[Big Dave]

Denial is a river in Africa.

[Ocean1]

Like Herceptin perhaps? Not every woman gets access to it because the NZ govt can't afford it (uber fuckin fail).

You really, really have no idea about that.

Tell you what; do some reading for a change about the economic drivers behind pharmac's funding policy at the time. Get back to me when you understand how health funding is supposed to work and let me know what you've found. Then, perhaps I'll take some notice of your similes, eh?

[mashman]

You really, really have no idea about that.

Tell you what; do some reading for a change about the economic drivers behind pharmac's funding policy at the time. Get back to me when you understand how health funding is supposed to work and let me know what you've found. Then, perhaps I'll take some notice of your similes, eh?

I remember the stories of women who were being denied the treatment on the basis of cost.

I am three years behind the times... National where as good as their word and implemented a guarantee for everyone to receive the 12 months course... fuckin good on 'em...

I am eating the humble pie, thanks for settin me right.

[RDJ]

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.-- G. Gordon Liddy

[Ocean1]

I remember the stories of women who were being denied the treatment on the basis of cost.

I am three years behind the times... National where as good as their word and implemented a guarantee for everyone to receive the 12 months course... fuckin good on 'em...

I am eating the humble pie, thanks for settin me right.

The policy... you reading this, at least? was based on a protocol that, (amongst other things) assumes there's a limit to funding resources and that you want to make that budget work as hard for you as possible. So you start with a list of procedures, interventions, drugs etc that figure in the supply of a health service and you order the lists so that the best "bang for your buck" items are at the top.

You supply the items starting from the top, you keep spending until you run out of money. Existing, traditional use of Herceptin was on the list, and it was funded. What wasn't on the list was a new use for the drug that used much higher doses for slightly different diagnosis which produced benefits that was less certain.

So, much noise from the crowd, pitchforks and flaming torches etc, and the new use for the drug is funded. Here's the thing: what treatment that represented better use of the health budged got knocked off the list to make it happen? And how many people are today affected by that lack of treatment?

This is what politicians and one-cause advocates do to perfectly fair and rational systems: they make them more fair for some people than for others, and they waste budget in doing so.

[mashman]

The policy... you reading this, at least? was based on a protocol that, (amongst other things) assumes there's a limit to funding resources and that you want to make that budget work as hard for you as possible. So you start with a list of procedures, interventions, drugs etc that figure in the supply of a health service and you order the lists so that the best "bang for your buck" items are at the top.

You supply the items starting from the top, you keep spending until you run out of money. Existing, traditional use of Herceptin was on the list, and it was funded. What wasn't on the list was a new use for the drug that used much higher doses for slightly different diagnosis which produced benefits that was less certain.

So, much noise from the crowd, pitchforks and flaming torches etc, and the new use for the drug is funded. Here's the thing: what treatment that represented better use of the health budged got knocked off the list to make it happen? And how many people are today affected by that lack of treatment?

This is what politicians and one-cause advocates do to perfectly fair and rational systems: they make them more fair for some people than for others, and they waste budget in doing so.

That's pretty fucked up. The medicine is available but only if there's enough money and that trade-offs, in terms of lives (potentially), have to be made. Kinda 1 of the reasons I don't like money... especially if the medicine is available.

[Winston001]

I'd love to ask the whole of NZ . We can do better, I have no doubt...


As for us, I don't see us as reacting too differently to animals...

Humans have been developing civilisation for 6000 years, so answer me this:

Germany, the home of Proust, Goethe, Kant, Beethoven, Holbein, Druer, - one of the most intellectual and educated nations on the planet, rivalling England for science and philosophy....only seventy years ago murdered 6 million people in factories.

Pol Pot much more recently carried out the same murderous acts on an innocent population.

Idi Amin did the same in Uganda.

And even more up to date, the Hutu in Rwanda embarked on a chilling slashing attack against the Tutsi killing 500,000 of them over a four month period.

Have you ever killed someone? One person. Can you imagine that? Yet here we have groups of civilised (certainly the Germans fit that description) people deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of bewildered human beings.

This had nothing to do with money, or wealth, or banks, or financiers, or fractional banking etc etc: it was pure primal power. Kill them because I can.

What chance has humanity of developing a communal culture when the evidence is we are only a blink away from genocide?

[mashman]

Humans have been developing civilisation for 6000 years, so answer me this:

Death by civilised people.

What chance has humanity of developing a communal culture when the evidence is we are only a blink away from genocide?

How many people die across the globe as the result of human inaction/corruption etc...? 20, 30, 1000, millions? and aid is only going to shrink as we tighten our global purse strings. Poverty amidst plenty.

Sure there have been maniacs, there still are and they are ignored for the most part. How many has Mugabe murdered over how long? yet nothing has been done... priceless.

What evidence? I'm not trying to be awkward, but you can probably name 1000 maniacs out of billions who have been on the planet. How did they maintain their armies? Did the armies do the job for free or did they receive payment for fulfilling some nutcases blood lust? Would they have done the same if they weren't getting paid? I hope I never have to kill anyone, perhaps I won't be able to if the time comes, I never want to find out.

I don't see why we shouldn't try something different, just because history says it can't be done. What do you see that I am trying to deny? Human nature? Human beings are ugly, I agree, I've seen enough of it thanks, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of doing anything they set their minds to... including a "communal" culture. We're a blink away from a lot of things... how likely is genocide these days? given that we have the UN etc...