https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-07-2024/the-government-has-discovered-pharmac-what-should-it-find-next
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
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."
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
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.
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon toAll pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
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 . . .
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.
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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
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?
The article then pointed out that it took some time for Luxon toAll pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:51:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
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?
treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
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 isAll pure, politically-motivated, speculation. The authors of the
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 . . .
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.
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.
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
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?
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, justThey 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.
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.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe NationalPharmac 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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:09:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:51:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
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?
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.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
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.
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.
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are some simple facts here.Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
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?
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 . . .
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
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.
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
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.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
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.
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.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:09:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are >some simple facts here.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:51:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote: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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
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. >>>>>
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?
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.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can
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.
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.
sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
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?
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 . . .
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
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.
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
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.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
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.
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.
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.I agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so
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
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK then in that case you have no grounds for complaint. Well done - you agree that the government has done well.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:09:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are >>some simple facts here.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:51:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote: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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
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. >>>>>>
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?
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.
They have shown that when evidence is inflicted on them they can >>>sometimes learn - that is a good thing, Crash, not a bad thing.
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.
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.
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
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?
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 . . .
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
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.
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may
well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
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.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
You are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a >>figWhat rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK then in that case you have no grounds for complaint. Well done - you agree >that the government has done well.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:09:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there are
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:51:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund >>>>>treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote: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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
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. >>>>>>>
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?
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.
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.
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.
Because they clearly did not understand first which medicines should
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?
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 . . .
Pharmac have been funding quite a number of cancer treatments, just
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.
not these particular ones, and without additional funding there may >>>>well be other treatments that would still have priority . . .
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.
I agree with you on that; but unlike you I do not believe National
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.
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.
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
The previous government did no make the mistake of trying to do the- 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.
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.
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, thatI agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so
needs honesty.
quickly left them with little option, but their reversal will indeed
have been cause for celebration by many New Zealanders.
Clearly you have no shame Tony - you cannot even apologise for beingYou are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a >>>figWhat rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:52:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes it does.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:02:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyOK then in that case you have no grounds for complaint. Well done - you agree >>that the government has done well.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:09:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:You can say anything you want and you will do so, repetitively, but there >>>>are
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:51:54 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:21:27 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:Yes I was. There was no timescale in the commitment to fund >>>>>>treatments that had never been funded by prior Governments.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:10:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:48:26 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote: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.
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:09:50 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
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. >>>>>>>>
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
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?
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It does not of course mean that.
the current government interferedThat is deliberately simplistic.
with the system because they did not understand it
- despite havingDon't be a pratt - the government did a good thing and you hate it. That is the fact.
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?
I was neither wrong or insulting. You are a charlatan and a liar.job Pharmac have been asked to do - what mistakes regarding Pharmac- drugs and medications being providedIf 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
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.
You ignore the huge good that a change of heart by a government can do - >>>>youI agree, discovering that they had forgotten an election promise so >>>quickly left them with little option, but their reversal will indeed
should be celebrating that but no, you cannot bring yourself to do that, >>>>that
needs honesty.
have been cause for celebration by many New Zealanders.
are you claiming that the previous government made, Tony?
Clearly you have no shame Tony - you cannot even apologise for beingYou are politicking your way into an untenable position - you don't give a >>>>figWhat rubbish - you just can't help being nasty, can you Tony
about people, just about dogma and political neo-religious faith.
wrong and insulting at the same time . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 06:56:47 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,819 |
| Posted today: | 1 |