Occupy Dunedin?

[Ocean1]

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.

You can't avoid trade-offs in terms of lives unless you have infinite resources. That's never going to happen whether you're describing available resources in $NZ or potatoes.

In the real world you've just got to accept that and spend what you've got wisely. I can assure you health professionals are sick and fucking tired of politicians writing policy that promises to supply most things for everybody when we patently can't afford it. That's what caused the blowout in waiting lists a couple of years ago. What was the response? Mandate minimum waiting times. With no further resources.

That's no more possible than the last set of rules, though. So what's happening now? Some nasty tweaking of the eligibility criteria for certain health services. That's right, instead of deciding what to spend based on how worthwhile the procedure/drug is we're starting to decide what to spend based on who needs it. We've gone from a system that provided a limited (but pretty impressive) list of services to everyone to one where we supply damn near everything to a limited number of people.

The people doing the choosing of best value services and drugs were genuinely professional experts in their field. Who's now doing the choosing of who gets it?


Next election vote, eh? Vote for the crowd behaving least like they're chucking lollies to 5 year olds.

[avgas]

OCCUPY DUNEDIN!!!!

If you don't they will close the town!

[mashman]

You can't avoid trade-offs in terms of lives unless you have infinite resources. That's never going to happen whether you're describing available resources in $NZ or potatoes.

In the real world you've just got to accept that and spend what you've got wisely. I can assure you health professionals are sick and fucking tired of politicians writing policy that promises to supply most things for everybody when we patently can't afford it. That's what caused the blowout in waiting lists a couple of years ago. What was the response? Mandate minimum waiting times. With no further resources.

That's no more possible than the last set of rules, though. So what's happening now? Some nasty tweaking of the eligibility criteria for certain health services. That's right, instead of deciding what to spend based on how worthwhile the procedure/drug is we're starting to decide what to spend based on who needs it. We've gone from a system that provided a limited (but pretty impressive) list of services to everyone to one where we supply damn near everything to a limited number of people.

The people doing the choosing of best value services and drugs were genuinely professional experts in their field. Who's now doing the choosing of who gets it?


Next election vote, eh? Vote for the crowd behaving least like they're chucking lollies to 5 year olds

I agree trade-offs are needed in the face of finite resources and I understand the need for the list in the real world. The fact that the treatments are available shows that the resources aren't finite and that the finite part is $$$ related... if there was enough $$$ we could have everything on the list.

I have no doubt that it drives health professionals around the twist, being front line having to tell people that something isn't available, or that it is but it'll be expensive, or that they're gonna have to wait, or just a plain no, it isn't available in NZ, especially as they know what the likely outcomes are gonna be for "denied" treatment.

@next election... Do you know what's happening with Pharmac and the TPPA? I've only seen the odd new snip, Goff and Norman... but they raised concerns that the governance that you highlight above (non health professional led decisions), could potentially be open to overseas influences?

[Ocean1]

I agree trade-offs are needed in the face of finite resources and I understand the need for the list in the real world. The fact that the treatments are available shows that the resources aren't finite and that the finite part is $$$ related... if there was enough $$$ we could have everything on the list.

Resources are represented by money. It’s the same thing. I know you don’t think it should work like that but it does, get used to it, no other system in history has ever worked. So saying the fact that treatments are available shows that resources are infinite is drivel. As is blaming the commonly accepted unit of value for the absence of infinite resources.

I have no doubt that it drives health professionals around the twist, being front line having to tell people that something isn't available, or that it is but it'll be expensive, or that they're gonna have to wait, or just a plain no, it isn't available in NZ, especially as they know what the likely outcomes are gonna be for "denied" treatment.

No. By and large they’re realists, they know there’s necessary constraints to what they can do. What drives them around the twist is people subverting resources assigned for health care for other purposes and wasting them on populist promotional vote buying sprees.

@next election... Do you know what's happening with Pharmac and the TPPA? I've only seen the odd new snip, Goff and Norman... but they raised concerns that the governance that you highlight above (non health professional led decisions), could potentially be open to overseas influences?

Yes. So you’ll be voting for whichever party says they’ll structure health policy so that as much budget as practically possible is spent helping patients?

Let me make one thing clear: Pharmacs’ mandate is ALL about providing best value for the drug budget money. Those “overseas influences” have been seriously pissed at NZ for some time because Pharmac is effectively parallel-importing drugs far less expensive than the mainstream producers supply them for. That’s fairly non-capitalist behaviour for a branch of a western government, (and it's tantimount to refusing to pay for the R&D that made the drugs available in the first place) but it extends the range of treatments we can offer dramatically.

Yes, it’s possible that some health bureaucrat might accept a “free” trip to a conference, or a senior consultant might accept a free pen. But if you leave the structure of health funding to politicians it’s a dead set certainty that they won’t be doing anywhere near as well, or spending what’s not wasted “fairly” for everyone.

[FJRider]

All hospital boards have a budget ... not a bottomless pit of money. More money spent on one patient, means less spent on another ..

Where the money gets spent is usually decided on by panels made up from those board members ... (often ... but not always ... doctors)

Cost/effect of extra funding is taken into account. With factors such as ... if it will be required long term, or a one-off expense ...

Board policys are seldom ignored ... (note seldom ... exceptions do occur) and a right of redress is available ... Never take first answer without question.

[mashman]

Resources are represented by money. It’s the same thing. I know you don’t think it should work like that but it does, get used to it, no other system in history has ever worked. So saying the fact that treatments are available shows that resources are infinite is drivel. As is blaming the commonly accepted unit of value for the absence of infinite resources.

Heh, does it show... I've been used to it for too long, so I've decided to change my mind and shovel shit up hill and piss in the wind for the rest of my time on this spinning rock, get used to it (even better, join us ). Has anyone ever tried what I am suggesting? I know I'm not the first or only one that believes a non-financial system could work. So why haven't we tried it? The vested interests of TPTB? The fact that no other system in history (all financially based) has worked (sorry, epic copout)? Is that really a reason not to try something entirely different? Are you that much of a defeatist?

No. By and large they’re realists, they know there’s necessary constraints to what they can do. What drives them around the twist is people subverting resources assigned for health care for other purposes and wasting them on populist promotional vote buying sprees.

By and large isn't everyone, yes hairsplitting, who woulda thunk it... your point is taken... last thing I'd want is wound healthcare professionals providing "treatment" by the clock and acting within the confines of a budget.

Yes. So you’ll be voting for whichever party says they’ll structure health policy so that as much budget as practically possible is spent helping patients?

Let me make one thing clear: Pharmacs’ mandate is ALL about providing best value for the drug budget money. Those “overseas influences” have been seriously pissed at NZ for some time because Pharmac is effectively parallel-importing drugs far less expensive than the mainstream producers supply them for. That’s fairly non-capitalist behaviour for a branch of a western government, (and it's tantimount to refusing to pay for the R&D that made the drugs available in the first place) but it extends the range of treatments we can offer dramatically.

Yes, it’s possible that some health bureaucrat might accept a “free” trip to a conference, or a senior consultant might accept a free pen. But if you leave the structure of health funding to politicians it’s a dead set certainty that they won’t be doing anywhere near as well, or spending what’s not wasted “fairly” for everyone.

Only healthcare? Not enough, I want everyone out of poverty, no homeless and a free education system, at the very least, before I'd even consider ticking a box so that my "views" can be take more seriously.

Fair enough. I'll keep my fingers crossed that they can keep the politicians out of it... but I won't hold my breath.

[Ocean1]

Has anyone ever tried what I am suggesting? I know I'm not the first or only one that believes a non-financial system could work. So why haven't we tried it? The vested interests of TPTB? The fact that no other system in history (all financially based) has worked (sorry, epic copout)? Is that really a reason not to try something entirely different? Are you that much of a defeatist?

In order for any system to work it needs negative feedback. No, that’s not a acronym for bad parenting, it’s the first requirement for any workable control system. It means you need to organise things so that bad shit causes a change that reduces bad shit, and so that good shit causes a change that causes more good shit.

So no, nobody’s secret agenda is being protected, it’s just that without some form of reward / disincentive effect an economy, (like any other piece of machinery) will either spin out of control or do absolutely nothing. Feel free to play with concepts that don’t involve money, but if they don’t involve some proportional reward for value received you’re effectively trying to invent perpetual motion.

Oh, and yes, alternatives to “value tokens” have been tried numerous times throughout history. They only work if you want to carry your cows around with you as items of exchange. Because y'see, it's just not true that everybody's daily produce is worth anyone else's.

Not enough, I want everyone out of poverty, no homeless and a free education system, at the very least, before I'd even consider ticking a box so that my "views" can be take more seriously.

Then I suggest that you talk to those poor and homeless, ‘cause from vast experience nobody else can ever make for them what they won’t make for themselves. In today’s western world being homeless, (for an adult) basically means you’re dropping successive heavily discounted opportunities each time they’re place into your hands. You’ve really got to make a special effort to be actually hungry.

[mashman]

In order for any system to work it needs negative feedback. No, that’s not a acronym for bad parenting, it’s the first requirement for any workable control system. It means you need to organise things so that bad shit causes a change that reduces bad shit, and so that good shit causes a change that causes more good shit.

So no, nobody’s secret agenda is being protected, it’s just that without some form of reward / disincentive effect an economy, (like any other piece of machinery) will either spin out of control or do absolutely nothing. Feel free to play with concepts that don’t involve money, but if they don’t involve some proportional reward for value received you’re effectively trying to invent perpetual motion.

Oh, and yes, alternatives to “value tokens” have been tried numerous times throughout history. They only work if you want to carry your cows around with you as items of exchange. Because y'see, it's just not true that everybody's daily produce is worth anyone else's.

I'm all for negative feedback... as you say it's the only way to highlight and mitigate the bad shit and turn it into not so bad shit, or even better, turn it into good shit... and indeed saying it can't be done is a good start.

The main reason we haven't gotten to a higher state of society (fuckit, felt like a little hippy was needed) is because people value things... and over millenia have been told that we need to value things, because, erm, because you earned it and you're worth it. It's up there with the concept of ownership, or should I say long term lease as we aren't here forever. Those concepts, ihmo, are outdated given the current environment we live in. It can't last forever and it's only speeding the process up and that doesn't give us a chance to think things through a little more clearly. To that end, the value system is going to have to go as it causes more problems than it solves, and people will just have to get used to their new roles... which I reckon they will. Overly confident maybe, but if they're willing to suffer the current array of shit, I would think that they'll accept something "better", especially if it removes the worry of having to make their payment schedule for the month so as not to lose everything.

Everyone's contribution is as valuable as the next persons, that's not just my perspective. Take away any workforce and we have nothing. You may be the best of the best, but without people manufacturing your components, think production line, then the best can't do what they need to. If you remove the mail boy from the mail room, no mail gets delivered and vital documents may be lost. If you remove the binman, then rats infestation will probably ensue with their associated diseases etc... Just because some fat flappy arsed idiot doesn't see these required contributions as valuable, doesn't mean that they aren't. Try not having the "service" the menial laborers provide and see what happens. Don;t pay them enough and they strike. All contributions are required and are all contributions are valuable, because they interlink.

Then I suggest that you talk to those poor and homeless, ‘cause from vast experience nobody else can ever make for them what they won’t make for themselves. In today’s western world being homeless, (for an adult) basically means you’re dropping successive heavily discounted opportunities each time they’re place into your hands. You’ve really got to make a special effort to be actually hungry.

Very true.

[mashman]

Well you may all get your wish as Occupy Wellington are leaving Civic Square... pretty much anyway. Perhaps the rest of Occupy in NZ will do the same thing. So you can have your squares, octagons etc... back. Enjoy.

[avgas]

Well you may all get your wish as Occupy Wellington are leaving Civic Square... pretty much anyway. Perhaps the rest of Occupy in NZ will do the same thing. So you can have your squares, octagons etc... back. Enjoy.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE -
OCCUPY DUNEDIN!!!!
The recession is hitting them hard.

[mashman]

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE -
OCCUPY DUNEDIN!!!!
The recession is hitting them hard.

fackin cool pic... I see an American flag (well 2) there, lots of American cars, a 4 lane one way system and most likely some cars on the wrong side of the road... is that taken after the takeover?

[Berries]

I think it is only this thread keeping it alive. Wandered through the Octagon at lunchtime and the tent dwellers are just being ignored now. Now that they have achieved all that they are going to I wonder when they are going to pack up and fuck off.

[Pussy]

... is that taken after the takeover?

No... after the "take over" there will just be a bunch of yobs sitting around with their hands out.
Take over probably won't happen unless they find someone actually willing to get off their arse to do it anyway.

[mashman]

I think it is only this thread keeping it alive. Wandered through the Octagon at lunchtime and the tent dwellers are just being ignored now. Now that they have achieved all that they are going to I wonder when they are going to pack up and fuck off.

oh stop yer whining... you gotta be a pom

No... after the "take over" there will just be a bunch of yobs sitting around with their hands out.
Take over probably won't happen unless they find someone actually willing to get off their arse to do it anyway.

at least I'll be able to have a smoke without getting arrested and will likely be able to call the missus biotch without worrying that my balls will be in my mouth the following morning

[JimO]

I think it is only this thread keeping it alive. Wandered through the Octagon at lunchtime and the tent dwellers are just being ignored now. Now that they have achieved all that they are going to I wonder when they are going to pack up and fuck off.

they get free power, wifi and live handy to town for free