From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps attacking National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except perhaps for the amount.
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only if >you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps attacking >National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives >millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >perhaps for the amount.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 21:28:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only >>if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps attacking >>National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives >>millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >>perhaps for the amount.
Just had a quick scan through Stuff and the Herald websites (Sunday
morning, 3/9). No mention of Labour's free dental care announcement.
That is about as much attention as is deserves - its yesterday's news.
Labour are clearly signaling that they have achieved nothing
significant enough in the last 6 years to remind us about, in seeking
another term. So far, they are campaigning based solely on sound-bite >policies they think will be popular. With their proven track record
in policy delivery (not) and their delivery of policy (3-waters) that
was never mentioned prior to the last election, Labour deserves the
bums-rush I hope it gets.
--Once more they are treating New Zealander's like idiots. Fact is we are not idiots and such a policy is transparently shallow.
Crash McBash
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 21:28:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only ifJust had a quick scan through Stuff and the Herald websites (Sunday
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives >millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >perhaps for the amount.
morning, 3/9). No mention of Labour's free dental care announcement.
That is about as much attention as is deserves - its yesterday's news. Labour are clearly signaling that they have achieved nothing
significant enough in the last 6 years to remind us about, in seeking another term. So far, they are campaigning based solely on sound-bite policies they think will be popular. With their proven track record
in policy delivery (not) and their delivery of policy (3-waters) that
was never mentioned prior to the last election, Labour deserves the bums-rush I hope it gets.
--
Crash McBash
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >> perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >many things in life.Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
NZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What utter political bullshit! Very much like typical Labour sycophants Rich!
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
. . .
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps attacking >> National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives >> millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >many things in life.
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only >>>if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives >>> millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >>> perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >>many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wantsYou do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had a shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
NZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset.
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had a >shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >>>> perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >>>many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset.
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this is one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more politely.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had a >>shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and >>>>>only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour >>>>>gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >>>>> perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >>>>many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot debate in a meaningful and open way.(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dentalNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset. >So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier tan the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant >round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this is >one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more politely.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had a
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and >>>>>>only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour >>>>>>gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >>>>>> perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >>>>>many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow >millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you >followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot >debate in a meaningful and open way.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dentalNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems >>>What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset. >>So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier tan the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant >round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this is >one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more politely.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had a
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and >>>>>>only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour >>>>>>gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut except >>>>>> perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >>>>>many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow >millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you >followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot >debate in a meaningful and open way.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dentalNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems >>>What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset. >>So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for millionaires, right?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant >>round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this >>is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had >>>>a
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and >>>>>>>only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour >>>>>>>gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut >>>>>>>except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in >>>>>>many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and >>>>>far more staff needed to check all the rules.
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>>>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more >>politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow >>millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you >>followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot >>debate in a meaningful and open way.
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligibleNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems >>>>What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset. >>>So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children >>>(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting onNothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the supposed tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
about?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for >millionaires, right?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant >>>round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this >>>is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you had
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff and >>>>>>>>only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour >>>>>>>>gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut >>>>>>>>except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>>>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and >>>>>>far more staff needed to check all the rules.
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>>>>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more >>>politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow >>>millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you >>>followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot >>>debate in a meaningful and open way.
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children >>>>(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >>>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. HowNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>>>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems >>>>>What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy mindset.
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments, >>>>but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run >>>>a bureaucracy . . .
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >>weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the supposed >tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a >similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try >isn't it?
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for >>millionaires, right?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant >>>>round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this >>>>is
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you >>>>>>had
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff >>>>>>>>>and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour >>>>>>>>>gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut >>>>>>>>>except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does >>>>>>>>in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>>>>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and >>>>>>>far more staff needed to check all the rules.
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>>>>>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more >>>>politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow >>>>millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you >>>>followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot >>>>debate in a meaningful and open way.
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children >>>>>(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >>>>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>>>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments, >>>>>but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run >>>>>a bureaucracy . . .NZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>>>>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems >>>>>>What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >>>>>>mindset.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >>>weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a >>similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's >>see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try >>isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for >>millionaires, right?
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you >>>>>>had
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff >>>>>>>>>and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps >>>>>>>>>attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut >>>>>>>>>except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that >>>>>>>with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and >>>>>>>far more staff needed to check all the rules.
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make >>>>>>assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate. >>>>>
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more >>>>politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow >>>>millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you >>>>followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot >>>>debate in a meaningful and open way.
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their children >>>>>(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >>>>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>>>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments, >>>>>but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run >>>>>a bureaucracy . . .NZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger >>>>>>>bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems >>>>>>What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >>>>>>mindset.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to >>>everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >>>weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a >>similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's >>see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as itDo not be so silly.
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for >>millionaires, right?
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and >>>>>>>far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate. >>>>>
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more >>>>politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >>>>>>mindset.
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >>>>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>>>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments, >>>>>but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to >>>everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >>>weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why >>>quibble about a small addition to that list?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a >>similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-payGordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as itDo not be so silly.
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers ><jmschristophers@gmail.com> wrote:Of course not, just as they have failed to deliver every other major promise for the last 3 years.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for >>> > >>millionaires, right?
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyunpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >>> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If >>> > >>>>>>you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major >>> > >>>>>>>>>stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour >>> > >>>>>>>>>keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then >>> > >>>>>>>>>Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax >>> > >>>>>>>>>cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it >>> > >>>>>>>>does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do >>> > >>>>>>>that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity >>> > >>>>>>>and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to >>> > >>>>>>make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate. >>> > >>>>>
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases >>> > >>>>and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly
more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or theirNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs aWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >>> > >>>>>>mindset.
bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many
problems
children
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >>> > >>>>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>> > >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >>> > >>>>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>> > >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to >>> > >>>>>run
a bureaucracy . . .
allow
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that >>> > >>>>you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still >>> > >>>>cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >>> > >>>weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>> > >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>> > >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done >>> > >>a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, >>> > >>let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth >>> > >>a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free >>>dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for >> > >>millionaires, right?
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and >> > >>>>>>>far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate. >> > >>>>>
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more >> > >>>>politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >> > >>>>>>mindset.
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental >> > >>>>>care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track >> > >>>>>changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments, >> > >>>>>but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a >> > >>>weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a >> > >>similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers ><jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyround about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases >>> > >>>>and this
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>> > >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major >>> > >>>>>>>>>stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour >>> > >>>>>>>>>keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then
Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax
cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it
does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>> > >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do
that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity >>> > >>>>>>>and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
you
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to
make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >>> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an >>> > >>>>unpleasant
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly >>> > >>>>more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will >>> > >>>>allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or theirNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a >>> > >>>>>>>biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many >>> > >>>>>>>problems
mindset.
children
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to
run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that
you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still >>> > >>>>cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >>> > >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>> > >>>about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done
a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >>> > >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, >>> > >>let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth
a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >>> > >does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free
dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental >services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services overOf course not, just as they have failed to deliver every other major promise for the last 3 years.
the next few years.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers >><jmschristophers@gmail.com> wrote:Of course not, just as they have failed to deliver every other major promise >for the last 3 years.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyround about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases >>>> > >>>>and this
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >>>> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an >>>> > >>>>unpleasant
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major >>>> > >>>>>>>>>stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour >>>> > >>>>>>>>>keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then >>>> > >>>>>>>>>Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax >>>> > >>>>>>>>>cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it
does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>> > >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do >>>> > >>>>>>>that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity >>>> > >>>>>>>and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
you
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to >>>> > >>>>>>make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate. >>>> > >>>>>
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly >>>> > >>>>more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will >>>> > >>>>allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or theirNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a >>>> > >>>>>>>biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >>>> > >>>>>>mindset.
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many
problems
children
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>>> > >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>> > >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to >>>> > >>>>>run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that >>>> > >>>>you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still >>>> > >>>>cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>>> > >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>>> > >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done >>>> > >>a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >>>> > >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, >>>> > >>let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth >>>> > >>a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >>>> > >does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free >>>>dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers <jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:Labour are only promising basic dental care Rich! In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyround about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> > >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >> > >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >> > >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >> > >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >> > >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >> > >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Which is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersLabour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyround about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> >> > >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >> >> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >> >> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >> >> > >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >> >> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >> >> > >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >> >> > >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >> >> > >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >> >> > >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Which is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersLabour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >> >> > >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to >> >> > >>>everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >> >> > >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why >> >> > >>>quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >> >> > >does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us
closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one
time but has given up on . . .
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so
upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersOf course not, just as they have failed to deliver every other major promise >> for the last 3 years.
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts >> >>> > >>for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyround about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases >> >>> > >>>>and this
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> >>> > >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. >> >>> > >>>>>>If
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major >> >>> > >>>>>>>>>stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour >> >>> > >>>>>>>>>keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and
then
Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a
tax
cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as >> >>> > >>>>>>>>it
does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >> >>> > >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to >> >>> > >>>>>>>do
that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity >> >>> > >>>>>>>and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
you
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier >> >>> > >>>>>>to
make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned
debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >> >>> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an >> >>> > >>>>unpleasant
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly >> >>> > >>>>more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will >> >>> > >>>>allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or theirNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >> >>> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a >> >>> > >>>>>>>biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little >> >>> > >>>>>>boy
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many
problems
mindset.
children
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free
dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents.
How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to
track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >> >>> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and
rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy >> >>> > >>>>>to
run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness
that
you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still >> >>> > >>>>cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen >> >>> > >>>to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >> >>> > >>>about?
the
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have
done
a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >> >>> > >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, >> >>> > >>let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but
worth
a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >> >>> > >does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide
free
dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the
electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
Of course, only the hopelessly naive and unrealistic would have taken Labour's >assurances at face value. Hence their inevitable disappointment and resentment,Yup, that does not include me but does include about two thirds of those that voted - more fool them.
and their inability to refrain from banging on about it.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Which is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersLabour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >> >> >> > >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to >> >> >> > >>>everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >> >> >> > >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why >> >> >> > >>>quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >> >> >> > >does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for
younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us
closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one
time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?!
The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so
upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12 AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate. >>>>>
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little boy >>>>>>mindset.
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to >>>everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why >>>quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-payGordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >does in many things in life. "Do not be so silly.
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?The electorate gets the government it deserves.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 06:39:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you name one major promise they delivered.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers >>><jmschristophers@gmail.com> wrote:Of course not, just as they have failed to deliver every other major promise >>for the last 3 years.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts >>>>> > >>for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Tonyround about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases >>>>> > >>>>and this
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. >>>>> > >>>>>>If
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>then
Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as >>>>> > >>>>>>>>it
does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants >>>>> > >>>>>>>everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do >>>>> > >>>>>>>that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity >>>>> > >>>>>>>and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
you
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to >>>>> > >>>>>>make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned
debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care? >>>>> > >>>>So my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an >>>>> > >>>>unpleasant
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly >>>>> > >>>>more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will >>>>> > >>>>allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their >>>>> > >>>>>childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card. >>>>> > >>>>>>>Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a >>>>> > >>>>>>>biggerWhat problems? There is another example of your devious little >>>>> > >>>>>>boy
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many >>>>> > >>>>>>>problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free >>>>> > >>>>>dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How >>>>> > >>>>>many public servants would be needed to track new children, to >>>>> > >>>>>track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible >>>>> > >>>>>people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules >>>>> > >>>>>that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to >>>>> > >>>>>run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that >>>>> > >>>>you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still >>>>> > >>>>cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to >>>>> > >>>everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local >>>>> > >>>libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to >>>>> > >>>a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why >>>>> > >>>quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the >>>>> > >>supposed
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on >>>>> > >>>about?
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have >>>>> > >>done
a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact. >>>>> > >>As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, >>>>> > >>let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but >>>>> > >>worth
a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it >>>>> > >does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide >>>>>free
dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the >>>>>electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental >>>services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
They have indicated that there are limits on the support for dental
issues - they will only pay for a limited but defined range of dental
work, and will be phased in over a number of years. You have however
failed to identify any failures to deliver.
Now you are not just going totally off topic but being stupid as wellIt is you that is off topic. Covid was not a promised deliverable - or do you know something we donT"
- of course there are quite a lot of policies which have been
delivered for the benefit of many New Zealanders. The first of those
is of course Covid - despite there being over 3,200 cases in the last
week and 11 deaths; that is still a lot lower than had the government
not encouraged vaccination, and lowered deaths earlier through the >lock-downs. The response to the adverse weather events has also been
good - although a lot of work is still ahead of us. Despite the
continuing pressure of Covid, we have retained a large percentage of
the regrettably aging workforce that was inherited from the National
years, and a good wage settlement agreed with nurses, and another
agreement in process for doctors.
Unlike National, we have had excellent economic management; and we canWhat nonsene, every word.
be confident that Labour will deliver on election promises - Willis
has largely disappeared in the last few days since it was shown that
her numbers for money from foreign purchases, and money from overseas >gambling sites were both nonsense - she is however now aware of vpn's! >Speculation is that if National do get into government she would not
be Finance Minister . .
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 05:21:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Which is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersLabour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for
younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us
closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one
time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?!What uncosted policy, John Bowes?
The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so
upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
And we still do not have a correction / apology / revision of policy
from National over the nonsense over-estimates of income from
foreigners purchasing property at 15% extra, (now that Willis has
asked about problems from treaties with foreign governments) or from
getting taxes from overseas gambling platforms (now that Nicola Willis
at last understands what a vpn does . . .)
How big is that hole? At least $130 million? Higher?
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:29?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 05:21:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:What uncosted policy, John Bowes?
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Which is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersLabour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
the next few years.
will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for
younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us
closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one
time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?!
The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so
upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
Free basic dental care for the under 30's1
https://www.google.com/search?q=vpn+meaning
And we still do not have a correction / apology / revision of policy
from National over the nonsense over-estimates of income from
foreigners purchasing property at 15% extra, (now that Willis has
asked about problems from treaties with foreign governments) or from
getting taxes from overseas gambling platforms (now that Nicola Willis
at last understands what a vpn does . . .)
wtf is a vpn?
Chris Luxton appears to have decided that he is no longer concerned
How big is that hole? At least $130 million? Higher?
Nowhere near the size of Robinsons hole you mendacious ywit!
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:29?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 05:21:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:What uncosted policy, John Bowes?
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>> >> >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersWhich is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it >>> >> will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for >>> >> younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:Labour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental >>> >> >> services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over >>> >> >> the next few years.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax >>> >> >> >> > >>cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question >>> >> >> >> > >>>>in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which
matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National
tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible
complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much
nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>care?
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most >>> >> >> >> > >>>>cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very >>> >> >> >> > >>>>slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy >>> >> >> >> > >>>>will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires orNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>little boy
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>many problems
mindset.
their children
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their
parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a
bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the
silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you >>> >> >> >> > >>>>still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available >>> >> >> >> > >>>to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use >>> >> >> >> > >>>local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, >>> >> >> >> > >>>listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. >>> >> >> >> > >>>Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained >>> >> >> >> > >>about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you
rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour >>> >> >> >> > >>have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable >>> >> >> >> > >>fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be
offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely >>> >> >> >> > >>but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, >>> >> >> >> > >as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not! >>> >> >> >>
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can
provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the
electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one >>> >> time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?!
The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying >>> >to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy fromIn 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes >>> >> >than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so
upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are
just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!
Free basic dental care for the under 30's1
Try here: >https://www.google.com/search?q=Cost+of+Labour+free+dental+care+under+30
Which leads to: >https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_commits_extend_free_dental_care
and: >https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/02/labour-pledges-free-dental-for-under-30s-if-elected/
and: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497233/election-2023-labour-s-free-dental-care-promise-good-step-but-has-some-challenges
Hipkins has said that the increase from those currently eligible would
have a higher cost (about 1.75 times the current allowance for
children), recognising that many in their twenties and thirties are
starting to experience larger problems through neglect at earlier
ages. There are also costs associated with expanding the education of >dentists.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vpn+meaning
And we still do not have a correction / apology / revision of policy
from National over the nonsense over-estimates of income from
foreigners purchasing property at 15% extra, (now that Willis has
asked about problems from treaties with foreign governments) or from
getting taxes from overseas gambling platforms (now that Nicola Willis
at last understands what a vpn does . . .)
wtf is a vpn?
Google is again your friend, John.
You revolt me.Chris Luxton appears to have decided that he is no longer concerned
How big is that hole? At least $130 million? Higher?
Nowhere near the size of Robinsons hole you mendacious ywit!
about any hole from Grant Robertson.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:29?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 05:21:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:What uncosted policy, John Bowes?
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersWhich is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it >> >> will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for >> >> younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:Labour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental >> >> >> services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over >> >> >> the next few years.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax cuts for
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question in an unpleasant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I think. If you
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental care?
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy will allow
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super Gold Card.What problems? There is another example of your devious little boy
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children, to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc. Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters, as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not! >> >> >> >> https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one >> >> time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?! >> >The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich are just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!In 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so >> >> upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
Free basic dental care for the under 30's1Try here: https://www.google.com/search?q=Cost+of+Labour+free+dental+care+under+30
Which leads to: https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_commits_extend_free_dental_care
and: https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/02/labour-pledges-free-dental-for-under-30s-if-elected/
and: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497233/election-2023-labour-s-free-dental-care-promise-good-step-but-has-some-challenges
Hipkins has said that the increase from those currently eligible would
have a higher cost (about 1.75 times the current allowance for
children), recognising that many in their twenties and thirties are
starting to experience larger problems through neglect at earlier
ages. There are also costs associated with expanding the education of dentists.
And we still do not have a correction / apology / revision of policy
from National over the nonsense over-estimates of income from
foreigners purchasing property at 15% extra, (now that Willis has
asked about problems from treaties with foreign governments) or from
getting taxes from overseas gambling platforms (now that Nicola Willis
at last understands what a vpn does . . .)
wtf is a vpn?https://www.google.com/search?q=vpn+meaning
Google is again your friend, John.
Not surprising considering Robertsons predilections....
How big is that hole? At least $130 million? Higher?
Nowhere near the size of Robinsons hole you mendacious ywit!Chris Luxton appears to have decided that he is no longer concerned
about any hole from Grant Robertson.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:29?AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 05:21:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:33:03?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT), John BowesWhat uncosted policy, John Bowes?
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:29:49?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>> >> >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), James ChristophersWhich is a very good start to integrating all health services, but it >>> >> will take quite some time - it has of course already been started for >>> >> younger children and young people; this extends it - and brings us >>> >> closer to the ideal of equal opportunity that National espoused at one
<jmschri...@gmail.com> wrote:Labour are only promising basic dental care Rich!
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:48:12?AM UTC+12, JohnO wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 17:04:46 UTC+12, Tony wrote:Indeed - and of course Labour are not going to provide full dental >>> >> >> services to all under 30s even as they introduce some services over
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:59:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyDo not be so silly.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 22:59:00 -0000 (UTC), TonySo based on that logic there is nothing wrong with alleged tax
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:26:43 -0000 (UTC), TonySo my admonishment worked, you have now asked the question
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Sep 2023 23:01:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz>You do not deserve to breath. How dare you suspect what I
wrote:
On 2023-09-02, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>> From Labour - well actually free basic dental care, no
major stuff
and
only
if
you are under 30.
I have no issue with the principle but I question why
Labour keeps
attacking
National about the supposed tax cuts for millionaires
and then Labour
gives
millionaires free basic dental care. The same result
as a tax cut
except
perhaps for the amount.
Answered your own question. It is the amount which >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>matters, as it does
in
many things in life.
Administration costs are also relevant - I suspect Tony
wants
everything means tested - at great expense. National >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>tried to do that
with social welfare, and we ended up with incredible >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>complexity and
far more staff needed to check all the rules.
think. If you
had
a
shred of honesty you would ask me - but no, it is much >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>nastier to make
assumptions. You are a disgrace and incapab;le of reasoned
debate.
So you are not denying that you prefer means testing dental
care?
in an unpleasant
round about sort of way. I am opposed to means tests in most
cases and this
is
one of those cases. Well done for agreeing to debate very >>> >> >> >> > >>>>slighly more
politely.
Completely idiotic comment. The fact is that Labour's policy
So explain how you would prefer to stop millionaires or >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>their childrenNZ Superannuation is a good example, as is the Super GoldWhat problems? There is another example of your devious >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>little boy
Card.
Targeted assistance sounds good until you realise that >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>needs a bigger
bureaucracy - which is why National gets itself into so
many problems
mindset.
(we are talking about people under 30 after all) getting >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>free dental
care, without linking children to the income of their >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>parents. How
many public servants would be needed to track new children,
to track
changes in income levels for the purposes of identifying >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>eligible
people? Sure it may be easier than the various sanctions >>> >> >> >> > >>>>>and rules
that people had to go through under National to get welfare
payments,
but even you cannot pretend that it does not take a
bureaucracy to run
a bureaucracy . . .
will allow
millionaires to benefit - that was my point, not the
silliness that you
followed up wih. Despite your sl;ight improvement above, you
still cannot
debate in a meaningful and open way.
Millionaires benefit from a lot of things that are available
to
everyone - they can go to a school, a public hospital, use >>> >> >> >> > >>>local
libraries, go to public parks and beaches, drive on roads, >>> >> >> >> > >>>listen to a
weather forecast, make a complaint to the police, etc; etc.
Why
quibble about a small addition to that list?
cuts for
millionaires, right?
Nothing different is necessary. The Labour party complained >>> >> >> >> > >>about the
If you do not propose anything different; what are you
rabbiting on
about?
supposed
tax benefits that National proposes for millionaires. Labour
have done a
similar thing, can you please concentrate on that inescapable
fact.
As for rabbiting on, can you suppress your urge to be
offensive for, let's
see.
just one day - you might be a better person for it, unlikely
but worth a try
isn't it?
Gordon already answered that "It is the amount which matters,
as it
does in many things in life. "
Can you address the question I asked or not. My guess, is not!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300964165/live-thousands-of-senior-doctors-dentists-striking-over-pay
And against the above, Labour would have you believe they can >>> >> >> >>provide free dental care to all under 30s? How fucking dumb do they think the
electorate is?
The electorate gets the government it deserves.
the next few years.
time but has given up on . . .
So where are the mobile dental clinics Labour promised six years ago?! >>> >The current policy is just another election bribe by Labour who are trying
to stay ahead of ACT in the polls! A particularly callous one!
Not upset Rich. Just loving the way you accept an uncosted policy from >>> >Labour but get your nickers in a knot if National does the same. You Rich areIn 2024 if they can find the dentists and if they can get more votes >>> >> >than ACT in October :)If you really think that is a potential issue why are you getting so >>> >> upset at the great policies Labour is promising?
just a typical Marxist hypocrite, like your Labour/Green masters!
Free basic dental care for the under 30's1
Try here: >https://www.google.com/search?q=Cost+of+Labour+free+dental+care+under+30
Which leads to: >https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_commits_extend_free_dental_care
and: >https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/02/labour-pledges-free-dental-for-under-30s-if-elected/
and: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497233/election-2023-labour-s-free-dental-care-promise-good-step-but-has-some-challenges
Hipkins has said that the increase from those currently eligible would >have a higher cost (about 1.75 times the current allowance for
children), recognising that many in their twenties and thirties are >starting to experience larger problems through neglect at earlier
ages. There are also costs associated with expanding the education of >dentists.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vpn+meaning
And we still do not have a correction / apology / revision of policy
from National over the nonsense over-estimates of income from
foreigners purchasing property at 15% extra, (now that Willis has
asked about problems from treaties with foreign governments) or from
getting taxes from overseas gambling platforms (now that Nicola Willis >>> at last understands what a vpn does . . .)
wtf is a vpn?
Google is again your friend, John.
Much like Rich and his feral left wing pos and Labour are doing to mainstream NZ! :)You revolt me.Chris Luxton appears to have decided that he is no longer concerned
How big is that hole? At least $130 million? Higher?
Nowhere near the size of Robinsons hole you mendacious ywit!
about any hole from Grant Robertson.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:02:41 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,287 |