On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:18:13 PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea
just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has returned to a similar management structure as all the other government departments.

--
Crash McBash

The good side of the reforms. Yes. But we're still desperately short of trained staff for the frontline. Wonder when/if that will ever change under the current government...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea
just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has >returned to a similar management structure as all the other government >departments.

NZ is has a population smaller than many overseas cities. Having more than one management organisation is idiotic. Even the difficult geography does not justify it.
So a reasonable change.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea
just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has
returned to a similar management structure as all the other government departments.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 21:24:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:18:13?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea
just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has
returned to a similar management structure as all the other government
departments.


--
Crash McBash

The good side of the reforms. Yes. But we're still desperately short of trained staff for the frontline. Wonder when/if that will ever change under the current government...

Don't hold your breath John B - after 5 years that is an issue
unaddressed as it was before then. However the bloated management
structure from 20 separate fiefdoms is to be destroyed. As long as it
actually happens this will be one of the few times this Labour
government has actually delivered.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea
just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has >>returned to a similar management structure as all the other government >>departments.

NZ is has a population smaller than many overseas cities. Having more than one >management organisation is idiotic. Even the difficult geography does not >justify it.
So a reasonable change.

I am glad you recognise that, Tony. It was introduced under the silly
mantra of competition and dealing with local needs - and underneath
that the hope that the private sector would thrive. In reality all
areas want similar services, and have similar needs. The private
sector did not want to cover enough services to eliminate the need for
public services.

Now we need to apply the same arguments to some aspects of local
authorities - we have found that few are large enough to make any sort
of effort over clean water provision, or stormwater systems, or
disposal of sewage - engineering solutions will require different
approaches in some regions however, so a regional approach makes
sense. National's arguments over water are just reactive to try to
slow down addressing problems, and an unwillingness to admit that they
have been wrong and the government correct.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea >>>just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has >>>returned to a similar management structure as all the other government >>>departments.

NZ is has a population smaller than many overseas cities. Having more than >>one
management organisation is idiotic. Even the difficult geography does not >>justify it.
So a reasonable change.

I am glad you recognise that, Tony. It was introduced under the silly
mantra of competition and dealing with local needs - and underneath
that the hope that the private sector would thrive. In reality all
areas want similar services, and have similar needs. The private
sector did not want to cover enough services to eliminate the need for
public services.

Absolute nonsense.

Now we need to apply the same arguments to some aspects of local
authorities - we have found that few are large enough to make any sort
of effort over clean water provision, or stormwater systems, or
disposal of sewage - engineering solutions will require different
approaches in some regions however, so a regional approach makes
sense. National's arguments over water are just reactive to try to
slow down addressing problems, and an unwillingness to admit that they
have been wrong and the government correct.

Even worse nonsense - you are talking about co-governance again - he puapua and the destruction of New Zealand democracy. Go push your barrow where people are gullible.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:00:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea >>>just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has >>>returned to a similar management structure as all the other government >>>departments.

NZ is has a population smaller than many overseas cities. Having more than one
management organisation is idiotic. Even the difficult geography does not >>justify it.
So a reasonable change.

I am glad you recognise that, Tony. It was introduced under the silly
mantra of competition and dealing with local needs - and underneath
that the hope that the private sector would thrive.

Completely incorrect. The health reforms that introduced the DHBs
were intended to give locals the administration and control of
taxpayer-funded healthcare through elected boards. This was always a
failure and the reason it was done was because it was part of an
ideology decreed by Labour under Helen Clarks leadership.
Participation in board elections (done at the same time as local body elections) was much lower than local body election rates - those that
voted stopped when they had go to the end of local body voting rather
than also voting on DHB candidates.

There was no level of competition involved, which is totally
consistent with Labour ideology then and now.

In reality all
areas want similar services, and have similar needs. The private
sector did not want to cover enough services to eliminate the need for
public services.

Now we need to apply the same arguments to some aspects of local
authorities - we have found that few are large enough to make any sort
of effort over clean water provision, or stormwater systems, or
disposal of sewage - engineering solutions will require different
approaches in some regions however, so a regional approach makes
sense. National's arguments over water are just reactive to try to
slow down addressing problems, and an unwillingness to admit that they
have been wrong and the government correct.

Start your own thread Rich. This one is about how bloated the DHB
structure was with 20 different fiefdoms now consolidated back to a conventional government department with a large number of
redundancies.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-03-31, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

I have always supported the removal of DHBs and this is why:

https://tinyurl.com/3w32bvyt

Note all are non-medical, non-frontline staff. It gives a clear idea >>>>just how bloated the DHB structure was for no good reason. Health has >>>>returned to a similar management structure as all the other government >>>>departments.

NZ is has a population smaller than many overseas cities. Having more than >>>one
management organisation is idiotic. Even the difficult geography does not >>>justify it.
So a reasonable change.

I am glad you recognise that, Tony. It was introduced under the silly >>mantra of competition and dealing with local needs - and underneath
that the hope that the private sector would thrive. In reality all
areas want similar services, and have similar needs. The private
sector did not want to cover enough services to eliminate the need for >>public services.

Absolute nonsense.

Totally correct. Health measures are for the individual, not the city/area.
It is difficult at time to keep this in mind as it is often necessary to
make a few assumptions.

The people of South Auckland will have different needs those South Westand in Westland. Country folks will have different needs to those in the cities.

The DHB were set up on the idea that local people will be able to express
their needs to someone body who is local. Not someone who would not know the needs from his/her/she/he/them/etc sub culture they live in.

The DHB failed in most part because the people could not care about the structure, what they wanted was a good health system. Not to get all
political about it by having to vote. So the check and balance was not functional.

Now we need to apply the same arguments to some aspects of local >>authorities - we have found that few are large enough to make any sort
of effort over clean water provision, or stormwater systems, or
disposal of sewage - engineering solutions will require different >>approaches in some regions however, so a regional approach makes
sense. National's arguments over water are just reactive to try to
slow down addressing problems, and an unwillingness to admit that they
have been wrong and the government correct.

Even worse nonsense - you are talking about co-governance again - he puapua and
the destruction of New Zealand democracy. Go push your barrow where people are
gullible.

Or at least include the con side of it. That is the damage inflected to Democracy of this country.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)