Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60695	2005-08-10 03:59:00	Cynical broadband conversation	jonp (7517)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
379967	2005-08-12 00:16:00	Just not true, I'm very surprised and saddened out resident lawyer of all people should claim that to try to score a political point. The real truth is that Ruth Dyson, Associate Health Minister announced the rest home subsidy and asset testing changes that came into force on 1 july 2005, in Parliament on 2 April 2003. I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree Terry. Asset testing and the resulting anxiety for older people is at the heart of our practise. That is why I took particular note of this promise - I can still see Helen Clark saying (TV news) that rest home fees would be removed if elected, while campaigning in 1999. Grey Power followed this up in the succeeding years but were met with vague promises that it was being costed etc etc and other legislation took precedence. And in the end, 6 years later, rest home fees were not removed - the goal posts were simply adjusted. Again a fudged/broken promise. I don't like dishonesty by any politician, of any party. I'm appalled at Donna Awatere Huata. I'm disgusted by John Tamahere. I admire Helen Clark but cannot respect her selfserving political manoeuvering. Power at all costs.	Winston001 (3612)
379968	2005-08-12 00:24:00	Incidentally, despite my work which involves advising people to avoid asset testing if legally possible, I personally believe that people should pay at least part of their rest home care. So the current $150,000 compromise may be a reasonable solution. Otherwise, we have the situation where ordinary taxpayers are expected to support aged parents so that those parent's children can receive their inheiritance. You may not be suprised to learn that much of the pressure to avoid asset testing comes from the children, not the parents.	Winston001 (3612)
379969	2005-08-12 00:55:00	Seems a contradiction to me...I admire Helen Clark but cannot respect her selfserving political manoeuvering. Power at all costs. How do you admire someone who can't respect?	Cicero (40)
379970	2005-08-12 01:13:00	Pedant. :lol:	Winston001 (3612)
379971	2005-08-12 01:15:00	I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree Terry. Asset testing and the resulting anxiety for older people is at the heart of our practise. That is why I took particular note of this promise - I can still see Helen Clark saying (TV news) that rest home fees would be removed if elected, while campaigning in 1999. Grey Power followed this up in the succeeding years but were met with vague promises that it was being costed etc etc and other legislation took precedence. And in the end, 6 years later, rest home fees were not removed - the goal posts were simply adjusted. Again a fudged/broken promise. I don't like dishonesty by any politician, of any party. I'm appalled at Donna Awatere Huata. I'm disgusted by John Tamahere. I admire Helen Clark but cannot respect her selfserving political manoeuvering. Power at all costs. What are you strongly disagreeing with Winston? The Parliamentary record is fact. The date I gave is fact, so your statement of silence over asset testing and rest home care subsidy, and the implication it was suddenly introduced before the election is just not true. For those associated with rest home care and/or those who have relatives in care then the rule change that took place on 1 July has been well known and talked about for over the last two years. I agree the changes could have been brought in earlier, but I thought a lawyer woulkd have been more precise in the language used.	Terry Porritt (14)
379972	2005-08-12 02:37:00	No worries Terry. Drspy's point is that we cannot trust politicians. In a small country like New Zealand that is sad. If they were honest, which used to be the case, and were upfront when election pledges couldn't be met for good reasons, the public would understand. For example Tamahere should have announced the payment he received, with his explanation. Having been caught out 2 years or more later, he should have resigned as an MP. But Helen Clark wouldn't have that because of the governments thin majority. Instead he was given garden leave and then forgiven. Moral turpitude has no consequence in the Labour party. By comparison ACT kicked Huata out. Mark Sainsbury has been reviewing past promises against the actual deeds on TV1 at 7:00pm. Most enlightening. We need more journalists to do this.	Winston001 (3612)
379973	2005-08-12 03:08:00	No worries indeed T.Don't come round here wanting exactitude. :thumbs:	Cicero (40)
379974	2005-08-12 04:02:00	Right oh, lets all be pals again :thumbs: Just to set the record straight, just in case the red flag is brought out again, my stance as a pinko libertarian ( :) ) is that people should pay for their old age and care as far as they are able to do so . It is quite wrong IMHO for people who can afford to pay to expect the taxpayer to support them in care, and then to hand over inheritance to their children . Remember the furore over a past prime ministers' wealthy mother receiving subsidised care because of a family trust? That was at the height of the debate over asset testing, and National declaring people over 65 were no longer sick but senile, so didn't therefore qualify for long term care, and were asset stripped . Where the social responsibility and mutual support comes in, is to give assistance to those who cannot help themselves for whatever reason . Edit: blush . . . I've recently filled in the form for subsidised care for my 95 year old mum, mind you there's not much left now . How did all this get into a thread about Telecom?????????	Terry Porritt (14)
379975	2005-08-12 04:35:00	How did all this get into a thread about Telecom?????????My fault, I commented on labor vs national communication policy, then bit back when Circero defended national. Oh.. and I Did email national (again) about their telecomunications policy, It is "still to be announced". -Qyiet	qyiet (6730)
379976	2005-08-12 04:40:00	Yes we have rather OT'd the topic. All part of the fun. And I meant no offense with The Red Flag. After all, only some of us would even understand the allusion. The rest home expense is a real connundrum. In the past the cost was paid by the taxpayer. Recently older people protest that they died for our country, paid taxes for their future care etc etc and deserved to be looked after in their old age. Its a fair call. But in fact older people paid tax for their own parents care. There was never a fund being built up for them. The confusion arises because years ago sixpence in the pound was taken as social security tax. Unfortunately it was spent as soon as it arrived, not set aside. The other problem, a bit like funding university education, is that healthcare means many more people need care - instead of conveniently dying in their 70s. Just as there are many more students to educate. We just can't afford it as a country anymore.	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5