Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >costings)?
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 areCite.
in the final approval stages
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations fromNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which they obviously like.
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmacThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - doMeaningless comment.
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any costings)?
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any costings)?
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local services - its all about money
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyNeither.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for >prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Nonsense. No evidence provided.Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade >>which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
You are making that up, all of it.It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
The funding is clear - read the article.So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free >>prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for >>prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
No need - you failed to make any sense and I know you are a geriatric.They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free >>prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >apologise, Tony . . . .
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does thatNo need tp repeat somethimjg so stupid. You have no evidence of any such thing so you are lying still.
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>costings)?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free >prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for >prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions >to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to >>continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free >prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for >prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>quite a large group of people.
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to apologise, Tony . . . .They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed beSo who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free >> >prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for >> >prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a smallSo your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt toI am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John BowesMore sarcasm like that simply proves that you have nothing beyond abuse and lies.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >>> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade >>> >which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get >>donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for
every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
free
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for >>> >prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has >>never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their >>employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
prescriptions
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I >>once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in
this ng!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:More sarcasm like that simply proves that you have nothing beyond abuse and >lies.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>>> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>>> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >>>> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>>> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>>> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >>>> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade >>>> >which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>>> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>> >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get >>>donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for
every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >>thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive >>>> >free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>>> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >>>> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has >>>never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their >>>employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >>number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
prescriptions
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be >>considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I
once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in
this ng!
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >> >> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >> >> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >> >> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >> >> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >> >> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >> >> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!
The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed bemeet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >> >> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >> >> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in 2019.
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . WhatI have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >> >> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >> >> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >> >> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >> >> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >> >> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >> >> >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >> >> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >> >> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >> >> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as
some that support National - National have shown time and again that
their donors expect something back . . .
The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed beSo who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >> >> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >> >> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >> >> >>quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in 2019.
I have posted references - here is one again: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >> >> apologise, Tony . . . .They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >> >> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >> >> >>off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >> >> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >> >> can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >> >> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
does that say about you and your leader Tony?
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>> >> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>> >> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>> >> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >>> >> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>> >> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>> >> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>> >> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>> >> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >>> >> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!
I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>> >> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>> >> >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >>> >> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >>> >> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!
The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as
some that support National - National have shown time and again that
their donors expect something back . . .
The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed bemeet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>> >> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >>> >> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>> >> >>quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >>> >> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in 2019.
I have posted references - here is one again: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >>> >> >>off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >>> >> can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
does that say about you and your leader Tony?
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 19:51:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo lie but you are the only one that lies. I do not. What I posted was not a lie. Period.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:More sarcasm like that simply proves that you have nothing beyond abuse and >>lies.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>>>> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>>>> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>>>> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >>>>> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>>>> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>>>> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>>> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>>>> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >>>>> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >>>>> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>>disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>>>> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>>> >>services - its all about money
trfade
which
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >>>>> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >>>>> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >>>>> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get >>>>donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar >>>>for
every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and >>>possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >>>thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive >>>>> >free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >>>>> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>>>> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >>>>> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>>>> >>quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay >>>>> >for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >>>>> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has >>>>never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their >>>>employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >>>but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may >>>also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >>>number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to >>>forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >>>>> apologise, Tony . . . .They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>>> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >>>>> >>off the list?
prescriptions
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >>>>> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >>>>> can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich! >>>There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to >>>assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be >>>considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
I do attempt to call you and others on lies when I see them. So when
you said: "Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes
will receive free prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount
any family will pay for prescriptions in a year will be capped at
$100. As is the case today.", I called you on that lie - you knew that >everyone gets free prescriptions at present, and that National were
going to take that away from many who need that support - but you of
course merely tried to deflect away from your lie - you have not
apologised for what was almost certainly a deliberate error. It is
you that lies. Tony, and then refuses to admit it when caught.
I noted you carefully avoided talking about Luxon's instinctiveOff tolpic/ Piss off and start your own thread.
framing of debate in terms of benefiting employers if workers refused
to be vaccinated against Covid - just in case you thought that was
sarcasm, here is the evidence: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402099/national-floats-hard-line-policies-on-social-welfare
Fundamentally, National exist for their donors, then other businessOff topic.
owners, whereas Labour work to improve life for everyone. They know
that without profits businesses cannot continue, so during Covid they >provided subsidies to companies to assist them continue to pay
workers, which in turn meant that there was money to spend and company >profits went up. Some of that came back to government of course as
taxation, but we did better than other countries both in not losing as
many lives, and not losing companies and employment. That meant we
recovered more quickly economically, and is meaning that we are coming
out of recession ahead of many other countries as well.
So your lying on small things does not change reality Tony, but your >unwillingness to admit your own mistakes, and your willingness to lieI have never lied here and you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.
about the government and your tendency to attack the poor does make
you a bit of a pariah as far as some who read nz.general are
concerned.
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >>>>> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? >>>>I
once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped >>>>up in
this ng!
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:01:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>>> disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to >>>> >> >>leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>>> >> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>>> >> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>>> >> >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>>> >> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>> >> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>>> >> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >>>> >> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >>>> >> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!
I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>>> >> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>> >> >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >>>> >> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >>>> >> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >>>> >> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!
The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as
some that support National - National have shown time and again that
their donors expect something back . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed belying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you >>>> >> state?"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >>>> >> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes >>>> >> >>there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>>> >> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >>>> >> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>>> >> >>quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >>>> >> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say >>>> >> meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >>>> but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in 2019.
I was responding to John Bowes who regards Tony as his Leader.
I have posted references - here is one again: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >>>> >> apologise, Tony . . . .They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>> >> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >>>> >> >>off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >>>> >> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >>>> >> can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >>>> >> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
does that say about you and your leader Tony?
You are not replying to a question that was not posed by Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your Period has no relevance to this discussion. You have not admitted
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 19:51:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo lie but you are the only one that lies. I do not. What I posted was not a >lie. Period.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:More sarcasm like that simply proves that you have nothing beyond abuse and >>>lies.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to >>>>>> >>leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to >>>>>> >>fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>>>>> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."They are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>>>>> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need, >>>>>> >>as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>>>>> >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a >>>>>> >>large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>>>>> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>>>> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>>>>> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >>>>>> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for >>>>>> prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >>>>>> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>>>disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or >>>>one of his assistants would have been following . . .
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free >>>>>> >trfade
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from >>>>>> >>Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to >>>>>> >>continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>>>>> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>>>> >>services - its all about money
which
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they >>>>>> prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >>>>>> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >>>>>> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary >>>>>> inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to >>>>>> believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >>>>>> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get >>>>>donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar >>>>>for
every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and >>>>possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >>>>thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged, >>>>but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >>>>but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may >>>>also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive >>>>>> >free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >>>>>> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes >>>>>> >>there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>>>>> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >>>>>> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>>>>> >>quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay >>>>>> >for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >>>>>> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say >>>>>> meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are >>>>>> lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you >>>>>> state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has >>>>>never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their >>>>>employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >>>>number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to >>>>forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have >>>>apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>>>> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >>>>>> >>off the list?
prescriptions
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend. >>>>>> So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >>>>>> apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >>>>>> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >>>>>> can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich! >>>>There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to >>>>assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be >>>>considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
I do attempt to call you and others on lies when I see them. So when
you said: "Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes
will receive free prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount
any family will pay for prescriptions in a year will be capped at
$100. As is the case today.", I called you on that lie - you knew that >>everyone gets free prescriptions at present, and that National were
going to take that away from many who need that support - but you of
course merely tried to deflect away from your lie - you have not
apologised for what was almost certainly a deliberate error. It is
you that lies. Tony, and then refuses to admit it when caught.
Off tolpic/ Piss off and start your own thread.
I noted you carefully avoided talking about Luxon's instinctive
framing of debate in terms of benefiting employers if workers refused
to be vaccinated against Covid - just in case you thought that was
sarcasm, here is the evidence: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402099/national-floats-hard-line-policies-on-social-welfare
Off topic.
Fundamentally, National exist for their donors, then other business
owners, whereas Labour work to improve life for everyone. They know
that without profits businesses cannot continue, so during Covid they >>provided subsidies to companies to assist them continue to pay
workers, which in turn meant that there was money to spend and company >>profits went up. Some of that came back to government of course as >>taxation, but we did better than other countries both in not losing as
many lives, and not losing companies and employment. That meant we >>recovered more quickly economically, and is meaning that we are coming
out of recession ahead of many other countries as well.
I have never lied here and you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. >You are a serial liar and we all know that. Even you.
So your lying on small things does not change reality Tony, but your >>unwillingness to admit your own mistakes, and your willingness to lie
about the government and your tendency to attack the poor does make
you a bit of a pariah as far as some who read nz.general are
concerned.
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >>>>>> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich?
I
once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped >>>>>up in
this ng!
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:25:55 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>2019. The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:01:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>>> disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or >>>> one of his assistants would have been following . . .
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to >>>> >> >>leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>>> >> >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >>>> >> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for >>>> >> prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!
I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from >>>> >> >>Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to >>>> >> >>continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they >>>> >> prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary >>>> >> inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to >>>> >> believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need >>>> >> structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >>>> >> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . . >>>
The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as >>some that support National - National have shown time and again that >>their donors expect something back . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >>>> thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged, >>>> but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >>>> but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may >>>> also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office withSo who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say >>>> >> meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are >>>> >> lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you >>>> >> state?"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >>>> >> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes >>>> >> >>there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in
You mean you were lying to John Bowes who finds you just a lying pos that supports Marxism in all it's feral glory! I have NEVER regarded Tony as my leader. That sort of lie is just typical of the lies you deny you tell Rich! Plus showing what a useless
I have posted references - here is one again: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What >>does that say about you and your leader Tony?
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >>>> number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to >>>> forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>> >> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend. >>>> >> So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >>>> >> apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questions >>>> >> Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps IMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >>>> >> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich! >>>> There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to >>>> assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >>>> >> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
You are not replying to a question that was not posed by Tony.I was responding to John Bowes who regards Tony as his Leader.
My question about why Nationals announcement was made at a private
hospital is a valid question - and I don't care who answers it; it may
have been a quiet signal to the private hospitals that National has
their concerns at heart more than public hospitals, but others may
have a different explanation.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 03:22:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo apology. I was not wrong and I did not lie. Your period is obviously at it's worst with a detruction of your government nigh.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your Period has no relevance to this discussion. You have not admitted
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 19:51:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo lie but you are the only one that lies. I do not. What I posted was not a >>lie. Period.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:More sarcasm like that simply proves that you have nothing beyond abuse and >>>>lies.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to >>>>>>> >>leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page >>>>>>> >>toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>>>>>> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>>>>>> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical >>>>>>> >>need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>>>>>> >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for >>>>>>> >>a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective >>>>>>> >>are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>>>>> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>>>>>> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >>>>>>> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for >>>>>>> prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are >>>>>>> >>in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>>>>disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or >>>>>one of his assistants would have been following . . .
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free >>>>>>> >trfade
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from >>>>>>> >>Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to >>>>>>> >>continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more >>>>>>> >>quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>>>>> >>services - its all about money
which
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they >>>>>>> prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >>>>>>> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >>>>>>> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary >>>>>>> inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to >>>>>>> believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need >>>>>>> structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >>>>>>> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even >>>>>>get
donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for >>>>>>dollar
for
every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and >>>>>possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . . >>>>>
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >>>>>thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged, >>>>>but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >>>>>but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may >>>>>also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with >>>>>lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited."Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive >>>>>>> >free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >>>>>>> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes >>>>>>> >>there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for >>>>>>> >>beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >>>>>>> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>>>>>> >>quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay >>>>>>> >for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today. >>>>>>> So who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say >>>>>>> meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are >>>>>>> lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you >>>>>>> state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has >>>>>>never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their >>>>>>employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >>>>>number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to >>>>>forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have >>>>>apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free >>>>>>> >prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>>>>> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >>>>>>> >>off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend. >>>>>>> So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >>>>>>> apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questions >>>>>>> Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >>>>>>> can help by asking in a different way.Meaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >>>>>>> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich! >>>>>There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to >>>>>assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be >>>>>considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
I do attempt to call you and others on lies when I see them. So when
you said: "Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes
will receive free prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount
any family will pay for prescriptions in a year will be capped at
$100. As is the case today.", I called you on that lie - you knew that >>>everyone gets free prescriptions at present, and that National were
going to take that away from many who need that support - but you of >>>course merely tried to deflect away from your lie - you have not >>>apologised for what was almost certainly a deliberate error. It is
you that lies. Tony, and then refuses to admit it when caught.
that you were wrong; the only option left is that you deliberately
lied and were caught.
Of course it is baffling tp you. You don't understand simple logic.Off tolpic/ Piss off and start your own thread.
I noted you carefully avoided talking about Luxon's instinctive
framing of debate in terms of benefiting employers if workers refused
to be vaccinated against Covid - just in case you thought that was >>>sarcasm, here is the evidence: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402099/national-floats-hard-line-policies-on-social-welfare
Nationals record for making statements that they later resile from (or >pretend to attract votes) is on topic - their deception regarding
paying for cancer treatments is another example of deceptive
behaviour; their policy regarding cancer treatments and prescription
payments are linked. Why you deny that your statement was wrong is as >baffling.
Off topic.
Fundamentally, National exist for their donors, then other business >>>owners, whereas Labour work to improve life for everyone. They know
that without profits businesses cannot continue, so during Covid they >>>provided subsidies to companies to assist them continue to pay
workers, which in turn meant that there was money to spend and company >>>profits went up. Some of that came back to government of course as >>>taxation, but we did better than other countries both in not losing as >>>many lives, and not losing companies and employment. That meant we >>>recovered more quickly economically, and is meaning that we are coming >>>out of recession ahead of many other countries as well.
I have never lied here and you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. >>You are a serial liar and we all know that. Even you.
So your lying on small things does not change reality Tony, but your >>>unwillingness to admit your own mistakes, and your willingness to lie >>>about the government and your tendency to attack the poor does make
you a bit of a pariah as far as some who read nz.general are
concerned.
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >>>>>>> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this >>>>>>Rich?
I
once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped >>>>>>up in
this ng!
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:25:55 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>It doesn't require an explanation. It was your fantasy, nobody else's
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:01:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I was responding to John Bowes who regards Tony as his Leader.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >>>>> disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or >>>>> one of his assistants would have been following . . .
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to >>>>> >> >>leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page >>>>> >> >>toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are >>>>> >> >>proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head >>>>> >> >>and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical >>>>> >> >>need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >>>>> >> >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for >>>>> >> >>a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most
effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will >>>>> >> >>National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any >>>>> >> >>costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >>>>> >> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for >>>>> >> prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 >>>>> >> >>are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're >>>>judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting >>>>Labours bullshit!
I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it >>>>seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid ofSo you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free >>>>> >> >trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from >>>>> >> >>Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to >>>>> >> >>continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance >>>>> >> >>more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local >>>>> >> >>services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they >>>>> >> prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity >>>>> >> industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to >>>>> >> set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary >>>>> >> inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to >>>>> >> believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >>>>> >> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even >>>>> >get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar
for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . . >>>>
the parasites will be good for NZ!
The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as >>>some that support National - National have shown time and again that >>>their donors expect something back . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >>>>> thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged, >>>>> but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >>>>> but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may >>>>> also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office withSo who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say >>>>> >> meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are >>>>> >> lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you >>>>> >> state?"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >>>>> >> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes >>>>> >> >>there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts >>>>> >> >>for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were >>>>> >> >>last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for >>>>> >> >>quite a large group of people.
receive free
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will >>>>> >> >pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case
today.
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has >>>>> >never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their >>>>> >employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid >>>>arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality >>>>nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made
some stupid claims in 2019. The stupidest came from your glorious misleader >>>>Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug
she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!
I have posted references - here is one again: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What >>>does that say about you and your leader Tony?
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >>>>> number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to >>>>> forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free >>>>> >> >prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >>>>> >> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut >>>>> >> >>off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend. >>>>> >> So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >>>>> >> apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster >>>>who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but
then he tends to lie as well!
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questions >>>>> >> Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I >>>>> >> can help by asking in a different way.Meaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >>>>> >> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich! >>>>> There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to >>>>> assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed >>>>measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel >>>>full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >>>>> >> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this >>>>> >Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you
popped up in this ng!
You are not replying to a question that was not posed by Tony.
My question about why Nationals announcement was made at a private
hospital is a valid question - and I don't care who answers it; it may
have been a quiet signal to the private hospitals that National has
their concerns at heart more than public hospitals, but others may
have a different explanation.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:57:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:2019. The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:25:55 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:01:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >>>> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not >> >>>> disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have to >> >>>> >> >>leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on >> >>>> >> >>delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through >> >>>> >> the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for >> >>>> >> prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
one of his assistants would have been following . . .
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!
I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to getNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from >> >>>> >> >>Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to >> >>>> >> >>continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
anything better, but they showed when last in government that they >> >>>> >> prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary >> >>>> >> inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to >> >>>> >> believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need
structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party >> >>>> >> donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . . >> >>>
The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as
some that support National - National have shown time and again that
their donors expect something back . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed be >> >>>> thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged, >> >>>> but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay", >> >>>> but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may >> >>>> also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office withSo who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say >> >>>> >> meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are >> >>>> >> lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you >> >>>> >> state?"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among >> >>>> >> >>those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes >> >>>> >> >>there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in
useless pos you are in reality!You mean you were lying to John Bowes who finds you just a lying pos that supports Marxism in all it's feral glory! I have NEVER regarded Tony as my leader. That sort of lie is just typical of the lies you deny you tell Rich! Plus showing what aI was responding to John Bowes who regards Tony as his Leader.
I have posted references - here is one again:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small >> >>>> number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to
They have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac >> >>>> >> >>funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend. >> >>>> >> So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time to >> >>>> >> apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questionsMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do >> >>>> >> >>they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps I
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich! >> >>>> There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that >> >>>> >> hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
does that say about you and your leader Tony?
You are not replying to a question that was not posed by Tony.
My question about why Nationals announcement was made at a private
hospital is a valid question - and I don't care who answers it; it may
have been a quiet signal to the private hospitals that National has
their concerns at heart more than public hospitals, but others may
have a different explanation.
Why did Hipkins announce one of his children was in hospital Rich? worry for the child or just a blatant political grab for a sympathy vote. Remember he's separated from his wife so doesn't get to see much of his children!
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes2019. The stupidest came from your glorious misleader Ardern when she claimed we wouldn't catch covid if we got the experimental drug she was forcing on us like the silly little girl she is!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:57:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:25:55 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:01:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:30:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:18:21?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Of course you did John Boyes - try about 11 comments down - it was not
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:They are either ignoring / overriding professional advice - or
Shane Reti said: "Under National, New Zealanders will not have toThey are ignoring nothing, merely providing funding.
leave the country, mortgage their home, or start a Givealittle page to
fund potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments that are
proven to work and are readily available across the Tasman."
and
"These treatments for those suffering from lung, bowel, kidney, head
and neck cancers will be available to all patients with clinical need,
as assessed by their doctors. National will focus relentlessly on
delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders."
Apparently they will pay for this by removing free prescriptions for a
large part of the working population.
Sounds good? Just think about these:
1. We have a system where decisions on which drugs are most effective
are made by scientists and specialists in that area - what else will
National do to ignore experts for a quick headline (But without any
costings)?
alternatively they are aware that they are through or nearly through
the approval process anyway, and they just want to charge more for
prescriptions again . . which is it, Tony?
Comment in :Cite.
2. I understand that of the 13 drugs, 11 are already funded and 2 are
in the final approval stages
https://twitter.com/DrShaneRetiMP/status/1693454724883005870
Where? All I saw was praise for the policy!
disputed even though this appears to be a discussion that Dr Reti or >> >>>> one of his assistants would have been following . . .
Are you talking about the one adverse comment by James Hurford? You're judging on ONE comment?! Typical of Labour shills like you. Just parroting Labours bullshit!
I was asked for a cite and gave one. You can look for others . . .
So you do acknowledge that National have developed structures and
They will certainly accept free trade if they are unable to get >> >>>> >> anything better, but they showed when last in government that theyNational do not hate competition, if they did they would hate free trfade which
3. It would be good to know whether they received donations from
Chemist Warehouse - they will again be able to use their size to
continue offering free prescriptions and get to market dominance more
quickly - National hate competition and see no value in having local
services - its all about money
they obviously like.
prefer a cartel - just look at what has happened with the electricity
industry - and they may be trying for a similar few suppliers able to
set rates to suit shareholders again with pharmacies . . .
It's about politics just like Labour's policy.Indeed - Labour are looking to help people cope with the temporary
inflation bulge we are starting to come out of; National appear to
believe that tax cuts are not enough for the wealthy - they need >> >>>> >> structures that deliver more to shareholders . . . and perhaps party
donors?
Oh come on Rich! You're like Labour just hating that Labour can't even get donor support even with idiots like Helen Clark offering dollar for dollar for every dollar donated by feral losers like you!
possibly policies that are designed to deliver to wealthy donors . . .
Nothing of the bloody sort Rich! You just parrot Labours wail because it seems nobody but the unions and media want them back in power! Getting rid of the parasites will be good for NZ!
The reality is that Labour supporters do not tend to be as wealthy as >> >>some that support National - National have shown time and again that
their donors expect something back . . .
There are a lot of things National have never done - we can indeed beSo who is lying? If it is the case today how does what National say"Under National, superannuitants and those on low incomes will receive free
4. Some of those now having to pay for prescriptions will be among
those that were not able to afford to pick up prescriptions - yes
there are fewer now as they claim they will continue free scripts for
beneficiaries, and because we have less poverty than when they were
last in government, but it is still another kick where it hurts for
quite a large group of people.
prescriptions. For everyone else, the total amount any family will pay for
prescriptions in a year will be capped at $100." As is the case today.
meet the costs of the additional cancer treatments - or if you are
lying why would you bother when the current situation is not as you
state?
As usual you are when you twist the policy of a political party that has never locked down the country or forced people to be fired from their employment because they didn't follow the party's orders!
thankful they were not in government when the Covid pandemic emerged,
but I do recall Luxon says that he backed a policy of "no-jab-no-pay",
but that was back in November 2019 - how soon some do forget! You may
also have forgotten a record of National to not leave office with
lower government debt as a percentage of GDP than they inherited.
As usual you push bullshit! National wasn't in government when covid arrived so any claims like this from imbeciles like you Rich is in reality nothing but another lie with no facts to back you up! A lor of politicians made some stupid claims in
useless pos you are in reality!You mean you were lying to John Bowes who finds you just a lying pos that supports Marxism in all it's feral glory! I have NEVER regarded Tony as my leader. That sort of lie is just typical of the lies you deny you tell Rich! Plus showing what aI was responding to John Bowes who regards Tony as his Leader.
I have posted references - here is one again:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/402555/christopher-luxon-suggests-extension-of-no-jab-no-pay-policy
You will do anything to avoid answering the question though . . . What >> >>does that say about you and your leader Tony?
I have not lied, but I have acknowledged not being correct in a small
So your statement "As is the case today" was your lie then - time toThey have explained how they will fund it. By not providing free prescriptions
5. There is no indication as to whether they will increase pharmac
funding - will buying these drugs just mean something else gets cut
off the list?
to all, in other words using the money Labour was going to spend.
apologise, Tony . . . .
Only when you ever get around to apologising for your lies Rich!
number of posts - my memory is fairly good, but I have been known to >> >>>> forget some things and when that has been pointed out I have
apologised; strange as that may seem to you and Tony . . .
Rich without a doubt YOU are the worst liar in this group! The only poster who'd disagree with that fact is your little porn peddling mate Morrisy. but then he tends to lie as well!
There you go - mindless attacks in response to a measured attempt to >> >>>> assist those in need; but of course those in need are never to be
I am sorry you are having problems understanding simple questions >> >>>> >> Tony. Do I recall your saying you are an old age pensioner? Perhaps IMeaningless comment.
6. The announcement was apparently made at a private hospital - do
they just happen to specialise in these treatments?
can help by asking in a different way.
You're incapable of anything except lies and pointless sarcasm Rich!
considered in the minds of you and Tony - "Right", John?
Good fucking grief! What a good little pos you are Rich. Your supposed measured attempt to assist is nothing more than a left wing political spiel full of lies and half truths so typical of the garbage you post!
Why was Nationals announcement made at a private hospital? Does that
hospital offer treatment for cancer patients?.
Why do you persist in asking stupid and pointless questions like this Rich? I once thought there was no such thing as a stupid question till you popped up in this ng!
You are not replying to a question that was not posed by Tony.
My question about why Nationals announcement was made at a private
hospital is a valid question - and I don't care who answers it; it may
have been a quiet signal to the private hospitals that National has
their concerns at heart more than public hospitals, but others may
have a different explanation.
He wasn't asked. He posted it on Facebook! Despite his call for keeping his kids out of the political spotlight some years ago.Why did Hipkins announce one of his children was in hospital Rich? worry for the child or just a blatant political grab for a sympathy vote. Remember he's separated from his wife so doesn't get to see much of his children!He was probably asked. Open and honest - quite reasonable to explain
why the Prime Minister is suddenly not as available as previously.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:41:43 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |