Discussion:
Faith and Hope for our still new Government
(too old to reply)
Rich80105
2024-07-02 02:09:50 UTC
Permalink
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Crash
2024-07-02 04:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.

I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.

For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-07-02 05:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .

As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Crash
2024-07-02 06:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.

You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.

Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-07-02 08:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers. They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash? Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
Crash
2024-07-02 09:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-07-02 10:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Those with cancer and their families were particularly upset - if it
was not going to be acted on why was the promise made? From the
National party perspective of course they had won the election, other
matters were their priority - they did not understand that life and
death do matter to some people.

As you now probably know, previous governments had not decided not to
fund particular medicines - they relied on Pharmac to produce the best
results from the budget they were given - to interfere as National did
was in effect getting less for the money than Pharmac could.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
be purchased (some of those they named have been replaced by others in
effectiveness), and second they were over-riding the efficient system
to make the drugs more expensive. Now I suspect if they had just
increased the budget for Pharmac and told them that it was for cancer
drugs there would have been little problem, but publicising a
commitment would have been sure to increase the best negotiable price
- and this government knew that they were short of money to pay the
$2.9 billion to landlords . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
No, there has been no documented change in protocols and operating
methods for Pharmac. You referred to a "new development on Pharmac
independence on drug funding" - the current government has not changed
the normal way in which Pharmac operates - in fact they now appear to
understand why that method is desirable for the good of the country.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
have made any permanent changes to the way in which governments over a
long time have wanted Pharmac to work. There is in fact hope that,
having done this years ago by John Key and now again with Luxon, the
message may get through to them so they don't do it again.
Tony
2024-07-02 21:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Those with cancer and their families were particularly upset - if it
was not going to be acted on why was the promise made? From the
National party perspective of course they had won the election, other
matters were their priority - they did not understand that life and
death do matter to some people.
As you now probably know, previous governments had not decided not to
fund particular medicines - they relied on Pharmac to produce the best
results from the budget they were given - to interfere as National did
was in effect getting less for the money than Pharmac could.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
be purchased (some of those they named have been replaced by others in
effectiveness), and second they were over-riding the efficient system
to make the drugs more expensive. Now I suspect if they had just
increased the budget for Pharmac and told them that it was for cancer
drugs there would have been little problem, but publicising a
commitment would have been sure to increase the best negotiable price
- and this government knew that they were short of money to pay the
$2.9 billion to landlords . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
No, there has been no documented change in protocols and operating
methods for Pharmac. You referred to a "new development on Pharmac
independence on drug funding" - the current government has not changed
the normal way in which Pharmac operates - in fact they now appear to
understand why that method is desirable for the good of the country.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
have made any permanent changes to the way in which governments over a
long time have wanted Pharmac to work. There is in fact hope that,
having done this years ago by John Key and now again with Luxon, the
message may get through to them so they don't do it again.
You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are
some simple facts here.
The most important are -
This government is funding treatments that all previous government's failed to
do.
You ignore the huge good that a change of heart by a government can do - you
should be celebrating that but no, you cannot bring yourself to do that, that
needs honesty.
You are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a fig
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
Rich80105
2024-07-03 02:49:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Those with cancer and their families were particularly upset - if it
was not going to be acted on why was the promise made? From the
National party perspective of course they had won the election, other
matters were their priority - they did not understand that life and
death do matter to some people.
As you now probably know, previous governments had not decided not to
fund particular medicines - they relied on Pharmac to produce the best
results from the budget they were given - to interfere as National did
was in effect getting less for the money than Pharmac could.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
be purchased (some of those they named have been replaced by others in
effectiveness), and second they were over-riding the efficient system
to make the drugs more expensive. Now I suspect if they had just
increased the budget for Pharmac and told them that it was for cancer
drugs there would have been little problem, but publicising a
commitment would have been sure to increase the best negotiable price
- and this government knew that they were short of money to pay the
$2.9 billion to landlords . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
No, there has been no documented change in protocols and operating
methods for Pharmac. You referred to a "new development on Pharmac
independence on drug funding" - the current government has not changed
the normal way in which Pharmac operates - in fact they now appear to
understand why that method is desirable for the good of the country.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
have made any permanent changes to the way in which governments over a
long time have wanted Pharmac to work. There is in fact hope that,
having done this years ago by John Key and now again with Luxon, the
message may get through to them so they don't do it again.
You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are
some simple facts here.
The most important are -
This government is funding treatments that all previous government's failed to
do.
_Every_ Government does that - drugs and medications being provided
through Pharmac are constantly changing - and some of those promised
by the current government may never be funded - between the
electioneering promise and the discovery they were not funded in the
budget, drugs had changed, and most effective value for money was not
in all of the drugs that had originally been promised.
Post by Tony
You ignore the huge good that a change of heart by a government can do - you
should be celebrating that but no, you cannot bring yourself to do that, that
needs honesty.
I agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so
quickly left them with little option, but their reversal will indeed
have been cause for celebration by many New Zealanders.
Post by Tony
You are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a fig
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
What rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
Tony
2024-07-03 07:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Those with cancer and their families were particularly upset - if it
was not going to be acted on why was the promise made? From the
National party perspective of course they had won the election, other
matters were their priority - they did not understand that life and
death do matter to some people.
As you now probably know, previous governments had not decided not to
fund particular medicines - they relied on Pharmac to produce the best
results from the budget they were given - to interfere as National did
was in effect getting less for the money than Pharmac could.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
be purchased (some of those they named have been replaced by others in
effectiveness), and second they were over-riding the efficient system
to make the drugs more expensive. Now I suspect if they had just
increased the budget for Pharmac and told them that it was for cancer
drugs there would have been little problem, but publicising a
commitment would have been sure to increase the best negotiable price
- and this government knew that they were short of money to pay the
$2.9 billion to landlords . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
No, there has been no documented change in protocols and operating
methods for Pharmac. You referred to a "new development on Pharmac
independence on drug funding" - the current government has not changed
the normal way in which Pharmac operates - in fact they now appear to
understand why that method is desirable for the good of the country.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
have made any permanent changes to the way in which governments over a
long time have wanted Pharmac to work. There is in fact hope that,
having done this years ago by John Key and now again with Luxon, the
message may get through to them so they don't do it again.
You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are
some simple facts here.
The most important are -
This government is funding treatments that all previous government's failed to
do.
_Every_ Government does that
OK then in that case you have no grounds for complaint. Well done - you agree
that the government has done well.
Post by Rich80105
- drugs and medications being provided
through Pharmac are constantly changing - and some of those promised
by the current government may never be funded - between the
electioneering promise and the discovery they were not funded in the
budget, drugs had changed, and most effective value for money was not
in all of the drugs that had originally been promised.
Post by Tony
You ignore the huge good that a change of heart by a government can do - you
should be celebrating that but no, you cannot bring yourself to do that, that
needs honesty.
I agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so
quickly left them with little option, but their reversal will indeed
have been cause for celebration by many New Zealanders.
If only other government's had done the same, in particular the last one who
never corrected any of their numerous errors and stupid racist decisions.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a fig
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
What rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
Rich80105
2024-07-03 10:13:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Those with cancer and their families were particularly upset - if it
was not going to be acted on why was the promise made? From the
National party perspective of course they had won the election, other
matters were their priority - they did not understand that life and
death do matter to some people.
As you now probably know, previous governments had not decided not to
fund particular medicines - they relied on Pharmac to produce the best
results from the budget they were given - to interfere as National did
was in effect getting less for the money than Pharmac could.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
be purchased (some of those they named have been replaced by others in
effectiveness), and second they were over-riding the efficient system
to make the drugs more expensive. Now I suspect if they had just
increased the budget for Pharmac and told them that it was for cancer
drugs there would have been little problem, but publicising a
commitment would have been sure to increase the best negotiable price
- and this government knew that they were short of money to pay the
$2.9 billion to landlords . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
No, there has been no documented change in protocols and operating
methods for Pharmac. You referred to a "new development on Pharmac
independence on drug funding" - the current government has not changed
the normal way in which Pharmac operates - in fact they now appear to
understand why that method is desirable for the good of the country.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
have made any permanent changes to the way in which governments over a
long time have wanted Pharmac to work. There is in fact hope that,
having done this years ago by John Key and now again with Luxon, the
message may get through to them so they don't do it again.
You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are
some simple facts here.
The most important are -
This government is funding treatments that all previous government's failed to
do.
_Every_ Government does that
OK then in that case you have no grounds for complaint. Well done - you agree
that the government has done well.
It does not of course mean that. the current government interfered
with the system because they did not understand it - despite having
made the same mistake years ago when John Key thought it may be a good
idea. They could halve the Pharmac budget and still some new medicines
may be funded, purely through old drugs being replaced by new versions
- are you trying to say that reducing Pharmac's budget is a good
thing, Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
- drugs and medications being provided
through Pharmac are constantly changing - and some of those promised
by the current government may never be funded - between the
electioneering promise and the discovery they were not funded in the
budget, drugs had changed, and most effective value for money was not
in all of the drugs that had originally been promised.
Post by Tony
You ignore the huge good that a change of heart by a government can do - you
should be celebrating that but no, you cannot bring yourself to do that, that
needs honesty.
I agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so
quickly left them with little option, but their reversal will indeed
have been cause for celebration by many New Zealanders.
If only other government's had done the same, in particular the last one who
never corrected any of their numerous errors and stupid racist decisions.
The previous government did no make the mistake of trying to do the
job Pharmac have been asked to do - what mistakes regarding Pharmac
are you claiming that the previous government made, Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a fig
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
What rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
Clearly you have no shame Tony - you cannot even apologise for being
wrong and insulting at the same time . . .
Tony
2024-07-03 20:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:52:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
Once again a journalist ignores a couple of key facts: National never
put a timescale on the '13 treatments' (either in their policy
statement of in the coalition agreement with NZF) and neither did they
specify that they were drugs. The timescale is therefore the same as
that for the coalition agreements: the current Parliamentary term.
I don't see any odium going to the previous Labour government for not
promising or delivering any such treatments or drugs.
For the record I don't support what the government has done in setting
a new precedent for Pharmac funding. Pharmac has always made the
decision on what drugs to buy. These funds could have been provided
with ring fencing to spend on cancer-mitigation drugs not currently
funded - leaving Pharmac to get the best deal on the drugs they decide
to fund with this money.
The article did not claim that there had been a timescale, but did
point out why some were upset that it was not included in the budget.
Duh! Being upset at the absence from the budget 2024 clearly
indicates that there was a timescale that has been breached. The
article did not point this out, and in doing so supports the view that
there was a timescale.
Of course there was a timescale - those with cancer, some of whom were
raising money through the internet, were desperate to get the
medicines to try to save their lives! Are you surprised that they
were upset when it wasn't even mentioned in the Budget?
Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
Those with cancer and their families were particularly upset - if it
was not going to be acted on why was the promise made? From the
National party perspective of course they had won the election, other
matters were their priority - they did not understand that life and
death do matter to some people.
As you now probably know, previous governments had not decided not to
fund particular medicines - they relied on Pharmac to produce the best
results from the budget they were given - to interfere as National did
was in effect getting less for the money than Pharmac could.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon to
discover that Pharmac had quite a good purchasing regime that he
appears to have been unaware of - and then goes on to list a few other
areas where Luxon and his Ministers may benefit from looking at what
else they may achieve by using already existing structures. It is
tough coming into government with nearly no knowledge of how
government works, but it is good that in only a few months after the
fuss over the budget that did not include the cancer treatments, Luxon
does seem to have learned something . . .
All pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
article have not cited any credible evidence and therefore this is a
conclusion born of political motivation. Perhaps that is also a
motivation behind your OP.
Post by Rich80105
As the article says: "Having found an answer to their cancer
drug-funding predicament, Luxon and co may be happy to learn of some
other useful tools hiding in plain sight."
Again - speculation borne of anti-government putdown motivation.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
You did not address the elephant in the room - Labour have ignored
completely the bias of Pharmac against funding life-saving drugs for
cancer-sufferers. I have a friend who died on August 31 2023 from
various cancers so I have a personal interest in the hypocrisy of the
subject matter of that article.
No, Pharmac did not have and does not have a bias against funding
life-saving drugs for cancer sufferers.
Then why are there complaints about what National promised?
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
be purchased (some of those they named have been replaced by others in
effectiveness), and second they were over-riding the efficient system
to make the drugs more expensive. Now I suspect if they had just
increased the budget for Pharmac and told them that it was for cancer
drugs there would have been little problem, but publicising a
commitment would have been sure to increase the best negotiable price
- and this government knew that they were short of money to pay the
$2.9 billion to landlords . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
They have an investigative
process that continually assess how they can get the best results
using all the money they are allocated. They also assess what
medications work best, which is why the experts had to tell the
politicians that some of the drugs they listed were no longer the most
effective - all the politicians were doing was limiting the amount of
drugs they could buy at a given price by giving an advantage to the
suppliers in a competitive market. Still, that was yet another
learning experience for the government team . . . - they may in fact
have delayed some purchases by going public with their instructions.
Political waffle. The fact is that Pharmac have chosen not to fund
cancer treatments and that has been fixed despite the fact that no
timeframe was promised.
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Apart from a new development on Pharmac independence on drug funding
which I do not support, this is solely a political beat up used
against the Government.
What new development is that, Crash?
You are not that thick Rich -your question is clearly politically
framed as you well know that the 'new development' has been well
framed in this thread.
No, there has been no documented change in protocols and operating
methods for Pharmac. You referred to a "new development on Pharmac
independence on drug funding" - the current government has not changed
the normal way in which Pharmac operates - in fact they now appear to
understand why that method is desirable for the good of the country.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Pharmac has been going for many
years, and for all that time they have been dependent on the amount
and timing of money they are allocated, and that is perhaps better
understood by both the public and the politicians now. What is
surprising is that Luxon's minders do not appear to have remembered
that John Key did the same sort of stupid promise before his party was
elected some years ago. we have been told that, on average, Pharmac is
able to buy medications at an average of about 10% to 15% lower than
other similar sized countries though - that demonstrates that at
times the power of the collective can take advantage of an
uncoordinated and scattered market - it does seem that National are
happier with cartels and monopolies that they can control - working in
a free market is not something they have much knowledge of, and that
is one of the lessons the article is applauding the government for
having (again!) learned.
I agree that National have been very poor in targeting the funding for
cancer treatments. Either you are ignoring what I have said earlier
in this thread or choosing to ignore it in order to advance your
anti-National rhetoric.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
have made any permanent changes to the way in which governments over a
long time have wanted Pharmac to work. There is in fact hope that,
having done this years ago by John Key and now again with Luxon, the
message may get through to them so they don't do it again.
You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are
some simple facts here.
The most important are -
This government is funding treatments that all previous government's failed to
do.
_Every_ Government does that
OK then in that case you have no grounds for complaint. Well done - you agree
that the government has done well.
It does not of course mean that.
Yes it does.
Post by Rich80105
the current government interfered
with the system because they did not understand it
That is deliberately simplistic.
Post by Rich80105
- despite having
made the same mistake years ago when John Key thought it may be a good
idea. They could halve the Pharmac budget and still some new medicines
may be funded, purely through old drugs being replaced by new versions
- are you trying to say that reducing Pharmac's budget is a good
thing, Tony?
Don't be a pratt - the government did a good thing and you hate it. That is the
fact.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
- drugs and medications being provided
through Pharmac are constantly changing - and some of those promised
by the current government may never be funded - between the
electioneering promise and the discovery they were not funded in the
budget, drugs had changed, and most effective value for money was not
in all of the drugs that had originally been promised.
Post by Tony
You ignore the huge good that a change of heart by a government can do - you
should be celebrating that but no, you cannot bring yourself to do that, that
needs honesty.
I agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so
quickly left them with little option, but their reversal will indeed
have been cause for celebration by many New Zealanders.
If only other government's had done the same, in particular the last one who
never corrected any of their numerous errors and stupid racist decisions.
The previous government did no make the mistake of trying to do the
job Pharmac have been asked to do - what mistakes regarding Pharmac
are you claiming that the previous government made, Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a fig
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
What rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
Clearly you have no shame Tony - you cannot even apologise for being
wrong and insulting at the same time . . .
I was neither wrong or insulting. You are a charlatan and a liar.
You are also a baby - unable to determine the difference between politics and
reality.

Loading...