What the article or the tax system?
Printable View
Haha no thanks:scared:. But i fully support him getting the euthanasia bill over the line despite M barry's attempt slowing the process and drag it out.They will both be remembered for that for very different reasons.One honourable and one despicable imo.
Yes a good article and on the money.
I must admit I like the balance we have in NZ.
Would like more to help poverty but it will not be helped by increasing taxes .
We need to increase economic activity to provide aid(not money) to help lift families-especially kids in adverse circumstances affecting their health and futures .
Banning oil and gas exploration is just one of the many current policies that will backfire.
I guess Jacinda had to pacify the greens
Congrats to d seymour getting this through by a decent majority. Im sure NZ will agree.
Vickers proud after euthanasia vote
Doctors aren't keen to perform it. It goes against their ethics. The palliative care speciallists don't want it either. So the professionals who deal with these issues everyday have been ignored by an MP (and all those who voted for it) who is only in parliament by an accident of MMP.
Much like abortion. The vast majority of the country's abortions are done by a handful of people, bloodsoaked to the elbows. Overseas abortionists have high turnover and suicide rates. Conscience finally gets to them in the end. I wonder whether Seymour has one?
Im speaking for a majority. Long time coming and about time. Nobody but nobody has the right to force someone to suffer. We all want a good death.Also was disgusted at some people pretending they had valid reasons against when they were actually only religious ones, no compassion there.
No not when some one is terminal and their pain cant be managed for example, no place at all.
The Bill has nothing to do with religion. Not one iota. People of a religious persuasion are still allowed to have a view that aligns with their beliefs
That statement may now be written:
People have the ability to maintain a view, & now also make a choice, that aligns with their beliefs, their situation and themselves...
That is the point I am trying to make. If people of religious persuasion and view think that euthanasia is a good thing they can vote accordingly. If they think it is a bad thing they can vote accordingly. (of course there are many other variables at play when people make decisions but that is up to them)
To vote, protest or rally against something, demanding your belief (secular or not) upon others when the outcome does not effect you is the epitome of bigotry.
It does happen though, but perhaps less so than in the past. Husband of a close work colleague (next desk) died in his 50s a few years back and was one of those few with pain that could not be well managed. A huge amount of effort went into managing but not very successful. Just terrible. Ok, sample of one, but terrible for all concerned. For weeks, fortunately not months.
Getting his highly controversial Bill through third reading is a significant achievement for a single MP. Mr Seymour deserves credit for that.
Loved his rebuttal today in Parliament - ‘It’s alright, Grandpa’ to Winston 🤣
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12337324
ACT Party candidate Nicole McKee believes New Zealand's laws should be rooted in policies that recognise the democratic rights to think, speak and behave in a legal and unobstructed way, which sounds fair.
But only for some people because she wants “electronic income management” for some beneficiaries. Instead of getting welfare payments in cash, these beneficiaries would get an electronic card that can’t be used to buy alcohol, tobacco or casino chips. So some people will be restricted in how they can spend their money. No freedom for them, according to ACT.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...overnment.html
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/acts-seym...nger-man-alone
It's hardly 'their money' when it's taken by legislation from a working taxpayer and given to them. Restricting purchase of certain things, particularly casino chips, seems perfectly reasonable.
I think my party vote will go to Act in September. No point in an electorate vote in my seat. Labour, NZ First, and Greens are all definitely out this time round.
It will cost heaps and is more red tape.
their insurance policy is poorly thought through too. imagine taxing people more in a recession and less in a boom. act is bad at economics.
The actual working people ideally should not pay a cent more in their income tax.
I think that is a great approach. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's mine and other hard working tax payers that give them this money out of compassion. For them to then throw it away is spitting in the face of the giver. Some (as she points out) beneficiaries have shown they cannot cope with the money given to them so this policy will actually help them and their families. You say it cost more to administer but think of the health and other services savings that this will ensure. Thanks for pointing this out Moka, I may just have to stick with Act this time around although Judith does warm the cockles.
To be honest, I do like the concept however you're right, it could cost more. If that's the case then as an alternative, the policy could be rolled out for those who haved repeatedly required emergency benefit supplements whom the budgeting service of Work & Income deem to need additional assistance.
I haven't had a chance to look at the insurance policy yet.
Such a system is already in place, except more restrictive. It is the Young Parent Payment for teen parents, and could easily be rolled out to others, especially those not coping, as you suggest Zaphod. The scheme combines support, financial management, responsibilities and rewards for meeting them. There is a limited amount of pocket money with no strings attached.
It is expensive to run. But it was an early initiative of the last government's social investment programme, where data indicated that teen parents were the group most likely to stay on benefit for the longest. The programme is designed to cut that off at the pass.
Something is working as teen parent numbers here are half that of 10 years ago. Various reasons for that, no doubt.
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/pr...t-payment.html
Interesting how some people think that taxes are still “their” money when it is received by the government. Try telling Inland Revenue that it is still your money. Legally it is beneficiaries’ money and they are entitled to spend it however they like just like any other New Zealander. Excessive control of people like ACT are proposing leads to dependency. People need the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them.
My first thought about an employment insurance fund was more funds for very well paid fund managers to manage. Lucky them, helping the rich get richer. And always a risk if it is not well managed and in a recession when you really need the money its value has gone down suddenly.
It is their money, once their eligibility has been determined. There are certainly some people on here who think that beneficiaries are second-class citizens and inferior to themselves, and should be treated accordingly. Interesting that you say that hard working tax payers give them this money out of compassion. That is not how it is legally, but the ideology is still reflected in the word “beneficiary” receiving something from a “benefactor.” Beneficiaries should be grateful for whatever small crumbs they are given. What about human rights and equality?
I don't get to decide what is spent on defence and other areas I consider a waste. Why should you have a say in this small area. It's a focus on a quite trivial issue when there are more important things.
I didn't decide it, it's a fact given it's a low percentage of total crown expenses. social support for the working age population is low here.
We will likely need to transition to a form of affordable basic income in time given the technology changes which are coming. Again its easily affordable with a sovereign wealth fund :)
A classic from Seymour that obviously got a big rant back from Winnie:
@dbseymour
Winston Peters’ swansong promise to slash immigration is tragic. Peters himself will soon be retired and will require a care worker to help him get dressed and go for a walk. He’ll discover that such facilities can’t function without migrant workers.
$1 million for one person. Some people have too much money to waste. :\
He doesn't though. He's eligible for appeal which may well succeed.
Related to the super issue, and a good article:
Quote:
Opinion: Winston Peters' $320k court bill shows legal access is only for the rich
Lawyer Graeme Edgeler says the Peters superannuation leak case shows just how broken the litigation system is, leading to a less democratic society.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-winston-peters-320k-court-bill-shows-legal-access-only-rich
We need a crack legal team to investigate the Act donation arrangements.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12348961
You will be pleased to know that he has to pay the $320,000 personally.
He is appealing but still has to pay first.
I would expect there will be more twists and turns in this saga.
Pretty cunning mve of Seymour bringing onboardthe entire pro gun voters,theanti 1080 voters,the anti DOC voters,and many assorted rednecks, a sorry motley crew imo.
duplication
Enlightening euthanasia bill debate between David Seymour & a Palliative Care Doctor representing the Palliative Care medical profession who have taken the unusual step of jointly signing a letter saying the bill is leaky & would expose thousands of NZ'ers to being put in an extremely vulnerable position.
Seymour awful, a complete jerk, arrogant & full of hubris, talking over the top of and patronising an obviously deeply caring medical specialist who has devoted 25 years to looking after people at end of life stage.
It is obvious Palliative Care needs more funding rather than euthanasia being the solution to an underfunded area of medicine.
All ACT seem to care about are the costs of everything, they don't seem to value anything.
After watching this, I'll be reversing the way I was intending to vote on this bill.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...r-motives.html
Then again you might wonder why any doctor would wish to see someone in real suffering be forced to live through a long painful death against their will. I thought Seymour's views on the Nation showed compassion. I'm not sure why the doctor wants to inflict her views on anyone, when the only thing she can change is adding a little extra life, and a lot of pain. She didn't show a compassionate side.
I must say I find it difficult to believe anyone would change their mind because of anything the doctor said. She may have lifted some out of the undecided camp, but to actually change anyone's mind ...... unbelievable.
In real practice, doctors don't force people to live through long painful deaths against their will.
Think of it this way, if a specialist say an engineer with 25 years experience in a particular field told you a bridge was unsafe, but a politician said its fine, who would you believe?
If a doctors with 25 years experience in this field, supported by far the majority of medical specialists also in this field, says this bill is unsafe, I don't think it would be very wise to ignore them & support the opposite view of a politician with no experience & a vested interest in getting his bill passed.
Your previous post claims the doctor on the nation changed your mind. Now you've decide to quote the majority of doctors. (wherever you got the idea that the majority oppose it) Why did you wait until The Nation to change your mind? I doubt you were ever in support of euthanasia, and that's fine - but just say so without all the b/s about changing your vote.
There are things which can be done to manage pain for the 6 months time window of this bill.
Those in chronic long term pain would not be helped by this proposal. Not a fan of the spokesperson either so will be voting against but yes for cannibas (two plant per household limit).
Not liking the spokesperson must be the best reason I've ever heard for opposing this bill. Well done. Presumably you don't think much of anyone you've ever known, barely existing in extreme pain, either. Make them suffer - keep in mind you don't like 'the spokesperson'. Tell them that at their bedside.
What problem will it solve given it's 6 months and either they will recover or die anyway? Plus as I said the pain can be managed in that timeframe rather well or kept in a medical coma for that time.
I'm sure medical experts know more and we should listen to them preferably.
Whoa...take a deep breath before you start shooting from the hip & jumping to conclusions. No need for the crude personal attacks.
If you listen to the interview, Dr Donnelly the Specialist Palliative Care doctor states..."the Palliative Care Nurses NZ, Hospice NZ & the Palliative Care Doctors of NZ, are all deeply concerned about the risks this act has in it.".... "everyday we look after people who are dying, people who are extremely vulnerable."
1700 doctors have signed a petition against the bill, and the way I see it, it would be foolish to ignore all of this advice from dedicated specialists working in this field.
As I said, prior to seeing this interview, I was going to vote for the bill, but I'm inclined to follow the advice of specialists and dedicated people who work in palliative care rather than my own preconceived ideas.
As a person presently undergoing cancer treatment myself I previously thought euthanasia would be a very good option to have, but I can also now imagine how vulnerable you might feel, and I also know from direct observation those working in the palliative care field do not 'let people die long painful deaths against their will', in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
If you don't see it that way, that's fine, just vote for the bill, but please don't presume you know what I am thinking and less of the personal attacks just because you disagree.
Fair enough, but I there are a large number of health professionals with the opposite view. I remain surprised that one program influenced your opinion - which is not a personal attack. I have a number of nurses in my circle of acquaintances, and they overwhelmingly support the bill, most having spent many years nursing end of life patients. It took me a long time to decide what to vote, and had decided I would abstain, but after further consideration I have decided it's unfair to withhold my support from anyone opting for that choice. I have settled on yes. I have met and spoken to Seymour, and I like him. He's certainly intelligent and I don't see the arrogance that you do - but that's just our personal viewpoints. Best wishes with your treatment.
All good, cheers.
I'm finding it a difficult decision & can see arguments both for & against, not so much against euthanasia but the way the bill is written.
I suppose the two things which got to me were the arguments 1) the safeguards in the way the bill is presently written as not being considered safe enough or workable by many in the palliative care sector.
2) like a jury decision, needing to be 100% certain the bill in it's current form is not ever going to result in any suffering or injustice to anyone in an extremely vulnerable position.
However, I'll continue to think about it.
I didn't want to appear as mean or nasty. I apologize if you felt I meant to come off that way.
If Euthanasia is made legal, there is going to be less of a need for palliative care. Less palliative care equals less money (e.g. government subsidies, funding etc and also private money) given to anyone involved with providing palliative care.
adjective: palliative (of a medicine or medical care) relieving pain without dealing with the cause of the condition.
adjective: pecuniary relating to or consisting of money.
The fact that the palliative care doctor arguing with Seymour is involved with a private healthcare facility has it's ownership structured in a way through a systematic series of holding companies ultimately ending up in the Channel Island's, a known tax haven. If she wasn't involved with this organization I would have kept my mouth shut.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/23-...cal-care-laws/
The End of Life Choice bill is safer than many of our current critical care laws.
A lot of the recent focus from opponents has been on how we can’t be absolutely certain that the act will be safe. How it isn’t entirely “watertight.” Quite reasonably, people will wonder and worry about those sorts of claims. But how worrying are they?
What’s a lot more dubious is the idea that this is a unique or particular risk for assisted dying, that can only be addressed by banning it altogether.
The main risks that opponents have been pointing to seem to be:
That doctors can’t predict with absolute accuracy that someone is within six months of death.
That doctors can’t determine with perfect accuracy that someone is competent, or that they aren’t being pressured.
I’m willing to concede both of these points. It probably is impossible to be perfectly certain about either of those things. But that’s not in any way particular to the EoLC Act.
We don’t know the precise figure, but a 2017 article in the British Journal of Anaesthesia claimed that treatment withdrawal decisions account for 60% of deaths in critical care.
If we were being honest, we’d have to admit that very few of those decisions were 100% certain or “watertight”.
When a doctor makes a call that a tumour or aneurism isn’t operable; that a patient isn’t suitable for dialysis or transplant; that aggressive treatment isn’t appropriate or that life support should be withdrawn from a patient with no chance of recovery – these are all judgment calls.
The End of Life Choice Act has better safety features than any of those decisions. While we can refuse life-saving treatment even if it would restore us to perfect health, assisted dying will only be an option for those who are close to death already. Maybe doctors can’t always say with total accuracy that they’re within six months of death, but it’s a pretty major safeguard over and above those other life-ending choices.
https://www.wakefield.co.nz/speciali...nnelly,-sinead
Dr Sinead Donnelly works at Wakefield Hospital. The article said that “a televised debate on the upcoming euthanasia referendum turned nasty, when one participant accused the other of basing her objections on religion, not facts”
Interesting that the hospital was started over 80 years ago by a Catholic order of nursing sisters.
There has been a hospital on the present Wakefield Hospital site in the Wellington suburb of Newtown for over 80 years. Lewisham Hospital was owned and operated by a Catholic order of nursing sisters. The name of the hospital was changed to Calvary Hospital in 1953 and the Mary Potter Hospice operated at the hospital until 1990.
In December 2015, Evolution Healthcare (a privately owned Australian and New Zealand private hospital operator) acquired 100% of Acurity Health Group Ltd (NZ). Evolution Healthcare continues to focus on supporting staff, VMO engagement and developing the staged expansion plan for Wakefield Hospital.
https://www.acurity.co.nz/about-us/our-history
I am more interested in the claim about the ownership structure, specifically this "The fact that the palliative care doctor arguing with Seymour is involved with a private healthcare facility has it's ownership structured in a way through a systematic series of holding companies ultimately ending up in the Channel Island's, a known tax haven".
When asked what their top priorities would be on getting to parliament, one of the new ACT MP's said,
defeating communism,
property rights,
& loosening the gun laws.
Scary, sounds like he belongs in Trump's America.
No more salaries than are already paid. Thankfully with national and act we have a loud voice calling out the numerous failings of the labour government to deliver, almost anything!
Incredible the power of stardust but the failures of labour to deliver will undo the new government and we shall soon enough see the leader follow her dream outside the party.
John only scraped in because his opposition was hopeless. I think the situation is changed now that lots of returning expats/migrants becoming eligble to vote.
They have 35-45 seats as the "strong oppostion"..
Maybe they can hold themselves to account and not change leader or think that Trump-lite is a good platform.
That is almost incomprehensible gibberish, the returnees are cashed up, they’re not going to like socialist policy stealing their hard earned.
Jacinda is already embarrassed by her party inability to achieve anything, she’ll be gone before the second term is over, further failure to deliver will finish her political capital if she doesn’t.
That is a cynical comment.
Have a read of the "Smaller Government Bill" to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 100 and reduce the size of the executive from 31 to 20. ACT proposed this.
Reducing the size of the public service and the size of parliament has been a key ACT policy since inception.
You may remember the referendum (non binding) in 1999 to reduce the number of MPs to 99 had 81.5 percent in favour and 18.5 against... that is an overwhelmingly mandate for this to be implemented but other than NZ First and ACT all the other parties absolutely ignored this referendum.
You can call plenty of parties "troughers" but ACT is certainly not one of them.
Relatively speaking that's not a huge value for debt-free assets. We are already going to punish the younger generations through massive intergenerational debt, and now we're suggesting that we should also tax those generations on any potential assets they inherit from their parents because they supposedly wealthy. The only people who will benefit from a policy like this will be accountants, lawyers, and the immigration services of foreign countries.
Who would have thought me and David Seymour on the same page regarding a current issue. Not much influence from the opposition benches though.
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/1075...onetary-policy
I am surprised he didn't suggest the free market setting interest rates but I suspect this type of libertarianism would upset his voter base.