Frog on Pharmac
December 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarFrog has an interesting post on Pharmac. I disagree with Frog about banning advertising and the conspiracy theory about the drug companies writing the story in the SST about Pharmac and drugs it won’t fund.
However I do agree that the Pharmac model is fundamentally a good one, and the best way to get further drugs funded is to increase the budget for medicines (which National is doing) rather than try and reverse Pharmac decisions on particular drugs.
There is always a limit though to the ability of the public health system to fund every medicine we would like. This is why I think peopel should be encouraged to have their own health savings accounts which can be used to meet exceptional health care costs. The Singapore model is one worth investigating.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“However I do agree that the Pharmac model is fundamentally a good one, and the best way to get further drugs funded is to increase the budget for medicines (which National is doing) rather than try and reverse Pharmac decisions on particular drugs.”
And so your take on the promise to fund Herceptin is …?
[DPF: Not one I would have made]
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Herceptin IS funded allready.
Just not for one small segment , where the only trial was done for a 9months of treatment , but a new a new study is underway for this segment where the the course of treatment is something like 13 weeks.
One up the drug companies nose who can often suppress results that dont suit their marketing plans
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Personal health savings accounts “used to meet exceptional health care costs”????
I don’t think you understand the principle of insurance David. There are very very few
New Zealanders who could possibly afford “exceptional health care costs”. That is why
a collective savings scheme (we call it tax, ACC, or other health insurance system)
is needed. Every day I use tens of thousands of dollars worth of disposable health care equipment in
just one or a few patients. The majority of my patients cannot pay this in any way.
Neither can they save that much even over decades. Society must decide. Let them suffer, often increasing the financial burden to themselves or the State; or let them die.
I think right wingers have to be comfortable either with letting the poor suffer and die or using the “collective” health care system. Your call.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“I do agree that the Pharmac model is fundamentally a good one”
Last year a medication didn’t work for me and my GP rang the pharmacy to see what else was available. The one I had tried was the *only one* of its class available in NZ, although others are cheaply available overseas. Basically I was poked.
How can the Pharmac system be a good one when it prevents me from buying the medicines I need? If Pharmac didn’t have a monopoly the pharmaceutical companies woud be able to respond to demand. Socialism doesn’t bring equality, apart from causing everyone suffering.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
According to one of the specialists on the breast cancer control group (Oz & NZ) the trial is the one they are funding.
The world standard is the one they won’t fund.
The decision is financial though no one will tell the truth even the tame doctors at Pharmac.
You may have seen the periodical letters from the head of Pharmac in the papers, they are porkies but so cleverly written they state facts but don’t state that the treatment banned is what the specialists have said is the standard and should be used.
It is a clever porkie pie.
getting 16 odd people in two countries to counter it appears to be difficult.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Pharmac
Restricting the supply of expensive drugs to people who can afford them so that they don’t need to be funded for people who can’t afford them is a completely F##ked model.
Why must everything in NZ be all about bringing everybody down to the lowest denominator.
Bloody failed socialist models – it’s time they were gone.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
burt just read your health insurance contract ( for non acute care) youll find it limits plenty of procedures and medications.
All insurance whether its for health or any other liability allways has limitations on liability.
eg Cosmetic procedures , allmost allways excluded and so on.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
thehawkreturns
Bloody typical – a myopic lefty who thinks the options are status quo or doom and gloom.
State as funder funder and state as provider might be the same thing in little ol socialist backwater NZ but the two things do not need to be one in the same.
You might need to go a long way in NZ to find people who seriously think that a collective funding model is a stupid idea but ask any of the thousands of people on (or kicked off) a waiting list if they think the state as a monopoly provider is a good idea.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
and as for calling the 9 month herceptin treatment for a small group ‘ world standard’ is laughable. Must have earned a PR company plenty to come up with that one.
The results of the drug company trial for that one were so marginal is the real reason Pharmac gave it a miss.
If the benefits were overwelhming then the funding would have followed.
Any way allmost no medicines have benefits as good as lifestyle changes, or for example no smoking, the benefit ratio is up in the region of 30:1, while a lot of expensive medicines barely get to the 2:1 and if they got to 3:1 it would be seen as a wonder drug
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
jacob van hartog
There is more than 1 choice for health insurance, options within each provider. Separate costing models and options. But yes because Pharmac have a monopoly on the provision of medications it’s the limiting factor.
Great that rich people can’t buy the drugs that they need because if they could poor people could demand them too – we simply couldn’t have a population getting benefits from real choice – shit next thing they will expect operations before they die on waiting lists…. madness.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Pharmac tries to use cost benefit analysis for its funding decisions. But that seems to offend people: it explicitly favours drugs that are low cost and have high impact, which is things like statins. Expensive drugs that are needed by a few people, like herceptin, don’t get funded.
And even if Pharmac had ten times its current budget, they would still have to make a call about what to fund.
This to me is the great untalked-about debate in health care: we have to make choices. No matter what the system, be it free market, socialised medicine or any of the multitude of alternatives in between, they all require someone to decide what to do and what not to do and that decision has to be done within a fixed funding cap, because it is impossible to fund everything.
Yes, we could spend more and treat more people, but there would still be the marginal case, usually someone very sick and very deserving, who would not get treated.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Even privatised medicine is not exempt. In USA the HMO’s exercise strict managerial control over its doctors to keep overall costs down and this would include managing overall prescription costs.
A Wizard of Id strip (I think it was there) illustrated the point:
Boss – and what qualifications do you have for an executioner.
Applicant – I was a financial controller for a HMO.
Boss – That’s good enough – you re hired.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“thehawkreturns”
“I think right wingers have to be comfortable either with letting the poor suffer and die or using the “collective” health care system. Your call.”
Sounds like you are a Quack then lad (sorry “Health Professional”). So what are your fees and what is your income and do you give a HUGE discount to the “poor people” so they won’t be forced into the arms of the filthy capitalist health insurance industry. Perhaps YOU could suffer so that more could live? Maybe give up your boat or Audi or forgo the kids private school education. Your call.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Johnboy
You sound like a classic policies of envy socialist. So what if ‘thehawkreturns’ is a Dr, so what if he has an Audi, so what if he sends his kids to private school. It’s his money and he should be allowed to decide what his priorities are. Personally I would rather that Dr’s in NZ were well paid so they stayed here rather then punish them for earning more than a toilet cleaner and encourage them to leave the country.
The issue here is that “nobody” is allowed the “good drugs” because we can’t afford them for everybody who might benefit from them. It’s a bit like saying that since we cannot run the public health system without long waiting lists that we won’t allow private health cover. We simply couldn’t have some people being saved with timely operations when others are dying while they wait for the monopoly state provider. As we don’t stick our heads in the sand that badly over physical health care I don’t understand why it’s necessary for medicines.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Don’t call me a fucking socialist you prick. Read my fucking post and the one from “theturkeyreturnsforstuffing”. The quack is the bloody socialist! I don’t care if he owns a yacht to rival Paul Allens as long as he does not pop up here bleating about how he spends shitloads of our money saving the fucking poor and how we are all a pack of bloody rightwing wankers cause we don’t give him more.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Johnboy
Sorry about that, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. thehawkereturns certainly sounds like a socialist, I did wonder why one socialist would be going off at another socialist but when you started suggesting he give up things that he might choose with his own income I made the wrong assumptions about you.
My apologies, I can’t think of much worse than being called a socialist when you are not one. Sorry.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Thehawkreturns:
“I don’t think you understand the principle of insurance David. There are very very few New Zealanders who could possibly afford “exceptional health care costs”. That is why a collective savings scheme (we call it tax, ACC, or other health insurance system) is needed”
Actually this statement is only partially incorrect.
We could have a system of catastrophic heathcare insurance cover based on the cost of the care in any one year in relation to the policy holder’s income. It would mean that as incomes rise and the costs of some treatments/drugs fell, citizens would carry more of the costs of their own healthcare.
We have no “savings” based healthcare in the public sector. This year’s public healthcare is provided by this year’s tax receipts or ACC levies paid.
And that is a big problem. The Government’s future liabilities for healthcare for our aging population will result in either more aggressive rationing, or less services for all or will see the public health system broken. It will definately require all of us to work until a much older age.
As for Pharmac – it’s a socialistic solution that results from our socialised healthcare system. There are increasing numbers of drugs available in other first world health systems that are not available here. Even between Australia and New Zealand, there are NZer’s on drug regimes in Australia would could not return to NZ even if they wanted to because their drugs are not available here. They are health exciles.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Thats OK burt we all get the wrong end of the stick at times I could have been a bit more clear I guess. I just get really pissed off when I read drivel like his about how the poor are starving to death or suffering because of right wing policies while he undoubtably is doing much better than the average Joe by sucking on the state tit. What I was saying is if it upsets him so much let him take a pay cut to help the sad cases don’t blame it on everyone else.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
DPF “However I do agree that the Pharmac model is fundamentally a good one, and the best way to get further drugs funded is to increase the budget for medicines (which National is doing) rather than try and reverse Pharmac decisions on particular drugs”
It’s not just about increasing the budget. The Pharmac culture needs to be changed fast.
In the recent SST ariticle Herceptin is refered to as the “poster child of Pharmac’s funding dilemmas”. But it’s worse than that . The Pharmac decision to fund 9 weeks was a muddled, blinkers on and not based on the facts. It shows their ASOLUTE BLOODY ARROGANCE.
The Pharmac heirachy need to pull their heads in and start to listen to the researchers, health professionals and most im0ortantly THE PEOPLE.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Pharmac decided (for a mix of evidence-based and financial reasons – in a situation of limited resources, any wise decision must take both factors into account) that a shorter course of Herceptin is the better option. Some cancer sufferers and their supporters disagreed with this (for the understandable reason that they were worried this might, possibly lessen their chances of surviving). So they made a lot of noise. National then caved to this noise and promised a special, one-off dollop of cash to buy more Herceptin (and only buy more Herceptin, no matter what Pharmac’s opinion on the matter). So when DPF says “the best way to get further drugs funded is to increase the budget for medicines (which National is doing) rather than try and reverse Pharmac decisions on particular drugs”, we can assume he is criticising this decision?
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
wdaldy
The Auckland Women’s Health Council put out a very good note in April last year observing that on the clinical evidence available, funding a nine week course of Herceptin was the right thing to do. A copy is here: http://www.womenshealthcouncil.org.nz/docs/April_2007.doc
And at the risk of sounding anti-democratic, I don’t think that Pharmac should start listening to “the people” when it makes clinical decisions. Our elected representatives should listen to the people, that is there job. But in matters of science and economics, I would like the technical decisions to be made openly, transparently and accountably by scientists and economists.
This is especially the case in highly emotive matters like the rationing of very expensive medical care. Our scare resources should go where they can be the most effective, not where they will buy the greatest silence.
Vote:December 1st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
# burt Says:
> Great that rich people can’t buy the drugs that they need because if they could poor people could demand them too
Um, actually they can.
You can legally be prescribed any drug that is approved by medsafe. If it is not approved by pharmac, all that means is that it is not subsidised, so you have to pay the full cost. I’m on a medicine that falls into this category myself.
It’s not ideal, but you should check your facts before saying it isn’t allowed, because it is.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 am
Heath Savings Accounts incorporate “catastrophic” insurance for unexpected, high cost, illnesses. Singapore is an excellent example.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 am
I seem to have to log in at least 3 X to post anything, is this normal?
george bowling
Vote:I’ve sent your post and link to the oncologist I spoke to, as far as I know they are ethical and not in the pay of the pharmacuticals.
I’ll post their reply as I get it, as there are only 100+ odd of them (rad and chem) in the country, you’d hope they would get it right.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 am
DPF said: I disagree with Frog about banning advertising…
Why DPF? What useful purpose is met by permitting drug companies to advertise directly to the public?
I would have thought that only creates pressure public pressure on health professionals to unnecessarily prescribe drugs (yes, I’d like to still be able to stay hard for hours too, but it’s not really necessary and it’s just natural that as men get older things decline somewhat in that department), or to prescribe more expensive drugs when cheaper and equally efficacious generic substitutes.
Drug company advertising direct to the public would be fine if the consumers or their insurance companies were footing the bill (not that I advocate that, I might add) – but they are not. The taxpayer is. The drug companies’ advertising creates a cost to the State, so I think it entirely appropriate that the State prohibits, or at least highly regulates, it.
[DPF: I do not believe in banning the public from being informed of information that has passed the strict advertising codes around medicines. And I do not accept the advertising increases the overall drug bill. Some drugs are not subsidised, and in some cases people just change their type of drug]
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Frog,
“..so I think it entirely appropriate that the State prohibits, or at least highly regulates, it.”
That would leave the much more dangerous and highly dubious Alternative Medicine industry free rein to promote it’s products to the public. That’s basically an abuse of rights and sensibility.
Secondly, banning advertising by drug companies would simply shift their big budgets more firmly to the back offices of the health authorities and medical profession. They are already there of course, and the same people advising Pharmac also attend overseas conferences care of the drug companies. At the moment the system is corrupt, but probably as good as it gets.
Third, the drug companies do indeed inform through advertising and ensure that the public is aware of products that are of benefit. Products that a closed medical system would prefer to ignore because of cost or loyalty to another generous drug company benefactor.
Also, Pharmac does not operate in isolation but interacts strongly with Central Govt, the Minister of Health, Medsafe, ACC, DHBs (in particular) and Pharmacovigilance (12 groups that I can see), Optimal Use Activities and the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmac may produce very good outcomes on it’s mission of buying the most cost effective drugs, but it does so in spite of the groups that interact with it and which may be compromised by other objectives and back office influence.
Indeed, it’s not that long ago that Sandra Coney of Pharmac’s own customer group wrote to the health charities and threatened their general Ministry of Health funding if they were seen to be criticizing Pharmac.
JC
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Health savings accounts, the model that dubya is so keen on.
Interesting model, if one is born with ongoing heart problems one is totally fucked.
But, it will help to drop tax levels and that is the most important thing.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/30/the-truth-about-health-savings-accounts/
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
DPF, JC: Have you read the 2003 report by Professor Les Toop, Dr Dee Richards, Professor Tony Dowell, Professor Murray Tilyard, Tony Fraser, and Assoc. Professor Bruce Arroll from the Departments of General Practice at Christchurch, Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland Schools of Medicine that recommends:
It’s rather long, but I’ve blogged about some of its key findings here.
Any comments?
[DPF: I have read the report. And there are reports from Doctors that support DTCA incidentially. DTCA does make life harder for GPs, but I am not convinced restricting information to patients is an appropriate response. I would rather focus on making sure advertising is accurate and not misleading, rather than ban it]
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
“Any comments?’
Sure- how about this? If these people are those behind NZ’s present joke of a system, bogged down by top heavy and clueless management and with staff plagued by politically correct racist bullshit, and waiting lines so long people frequently die before they get treatment, they should shut the fuck up. Obviously they don’t have a clue.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Redbaiter, “these people” are medical academics – they have nothing to do with management in the MoH or DHBs.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
“Redbaiter, “these people” are medical academics – they have nothing to do with management in the MoH or DHBs.”
OK fine. So what they say has no importance. I can live with that.
Look, health is a big issue, but why are there people out there who want to give government the responsibility when anyone with half a brain can see that anything government touches turns to shit??? Current system as exhibit no 1.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
‘Baiter, your logic astounds me. If they were management they would have been “top heavy and clueless”. When it’s pointed out they are not management, “what they say has no importance”.
So only those who are top heavy and clueless say things of importance!!!
Mind you, from what I’ve seen of your contributions, logic has never been their strong point.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
George Bowling & jacob van hartog
reply
The 9 week course funded was based on a small subset analysis that was not designed to look at the question of herceptin and not using current standard chemotherapy. With so few numbers the results make a very strong case for further study as there may be a case for shortened duration and the timing of the herceptin with chemo may also be important – but the truth is only the 1 yr schedule has robust stats from trials and is the only schedule that has internationally been established as standard treatment.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
“Mind you, from what I’ve seen of your contributions, logic has never been their strong point.”
Toad, you poor poor little deprived of a real education, completely indoctrinated with eco-Marxist ideology, totally devoid of critical thinking skills example of why NZ is so far up shit creek without a paddle, let me help you understand what’s being said here-
You suggested these people had something to say that was important. I asked who they were, and suggested that if they were part of the present management team, their credibility was under a shadow. You said no, they were not anything to do with present management but were a team of “medical academics”.
What you’ve done here Toady is gone from one extreme to the other. Whereas health management is a joke, there’s one field of endeavour in NZ that is equally if not more of a joke, and that is academia. The self defeating soviet style actions that are “recommended” by these anti-market commie stooges is proof enough of this.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
‘Baiter, I don’t know anything about the politics of the report’s authors, but if you really think that New Zealand’s Schools of Medicine are full of commies then you’ve been reading far too much Trevor Louden. Unless, of course, you ARE Trevor Louden.
BTW, I’m not defending management in the DHBs and MoH either. I actually agree that it is top-heavy and often makes some pretty inept decisions.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Redbaiter,
Milton Friedman was an academic. So was Freirich von Hayek. J.S. Mill served as Lord Rector of the university of St Andrews for 3 years.
Those bloody anti-market commie stooges, what with their fancy books attacking centralised planning and in support of individual freedom. Oh, wait … something seems to have gone wrong with this simple world view. Why can’t life be simple?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“if you really think that New Zealand’s Schools of Medicine are full of commies then you’ve been reading far too much Trevor Louden’
Trevor Louden is a hero who brings truth and shines light. He does the job that journalists once used to do, before its real practitioners were replaced by socialist indoctrinees, knuckle dragging flunkies brainwashed in the Stalinist political camps that some people call journalism schools.
Read what the “medical academics” said. The words you published above. If this is not an endorsement of soviet style government what the hell is??? Are you really so blind to the ways of the world, and so ignorant of history, that you cannot identify such language for what it really is??
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“Milton Friedman was an academic. So was Freirich von Hayek. J.S. Mill served as Lord Rector of the university of St Andrews for 3 years.”
..and the reason you know of them is because they were notable for the difference of their ideas. Sure there are exceptions you simpleton meat head. Without doubt though, education today from pre-school right through to tertiary is in a poor state and dominated by leftist social views. This crap about being taken over by market/ profit driven business interests is just so much far left propaganda. One only has to view the Stalinist behaviour/ speech codes that are in force, or the many organisations that have sprung up agitating for academic freedom, or the voting records and political support revelations of university staff to know the truth.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“Are you really so blind to the ways of the world, and so ignorant of history, that you cannot identify such language for what it really is??”
Are you really insane, or do you just act that way for kicks?
Government regulation of drug advertising bad, because this inevitably will lead to the mass incarceration of all political opponents in gulags, mass executions and one-party dictatorial rule.
Corporate shilling of medicines in a way that plays on peoples’ insecurities, without any concern for whether the medicine is (a) needed or (b) the best treatment available is good.
FYI: The latest edition of the Economist (albeit that this is newspaper and so is written by journalists – those leftist, indoctrinated scum!) reports (p81) that where a drug company funds a new drug trial, “only 3/4 of trials were ever published, and it turned out that those with positive outcomes were nearly 5 times as likely to be published as those that were negative.” In other words, drug companies actively suppress data that indicates their drugs don’t work.
But we can still trust the market, right? Informed consumers will know what is best for them?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Redbaiter,
“…and the reason you know of them is because they were notable for the difference of their ideas.”
Here’s your problem. If the education system is so (in)doctrinaire and monolithic that anything coming out of it is not even to be taken seriously, how do you account for such individuals (1) even being able to form their ideas in the first place, and (2) finding support and fame while operating within this system?
You are simply a lazy arguer. Deal with the issues, why can’t you. Or maybe you can’t …
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“Are you really insane, or do you just act that way for kicks?”
Have it your way. I’m insane. Therefore, I won’t read any more of you’re incredibly ignorant responses will I? Who really cares what an insane person has to say? Unless perhaps they’re as insane themselves.
“But we can still trust the market, right?”
What fucken MARKET??????
?????????????????????????????????????????
If big government regulating taxing interfering cronyist morons like you would ever get out of the road we might actually achieve that apparently unreachable state. One day.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
RB, ol’ pal.
You’re is a contraction of “you are”. You meant “your”
Someone needs a bit more Stalinist indoctrination at intermediate school level.
However, as there is no market at present, then why are you getting so upset at government regulation of drug advertising?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
‘Baiter said: Read what the “medical academics” said. The words you published above. If this is not an endorsement of soviet style government what the hell is???
Are you suggesting that every other country in the world apart from New Zealand and the United States have “soviet style” government, because no others permit DTCA of prescription-only pharmaceuticals. Hey, maybe then you have to admit that Helen wasn’t that bad after all – she kept this precious freedom for drug companies to peddle their wares when every other country bar one stayed on the “soviet style” path of banning it.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You are simply a lazy arguer. Deal with the issues, why can’t you. Or maybe you can’t …
For you I guess ‘dealing with the issues” means answering stupid questions predicated on false premises. What’s one standout personal characteristic of the people you refer to? They’re all fucken dead you fuckwit, meaning they were educated in a system a lot different to the one you attempt to defend today.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Toad, for you to suggest that soviet style thinking does not play a big part in government decision making in all western societies is an expression of ignorance that coming from anyone else would be remarkable. Of course we’ve been infiltrated by such believers. As for Klark, whatever she did, it was what she thought she could get away with at the time. The Long March is all about incremental change.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“You’re is a contraction of “you are”. You meant “your””
Oh yeah, spelling mistakes. Well you’ve already demonstrated how good you are at picking what’s important.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I just thought someone so critical of the present education system, as well as prepared to label opponent’s arguments “incredibly ignorant”, would value more highly such old fashioned values as spelling and accuracy. But I guess I had you wrong. You clearly are a relativist, post-modernist, “believe what you want ’cause it’s all true” kind of person. Perhaps your time in the Stalinist thought factories have had more effect than you realise?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Why AG, does every leftist alway seek in the end, to turn the discussion away from their ideology? I’ll tell you. Because you can’t fucken well defend it that’s why. So fuck off with your allegations of insanity, and your sneers and your arrogance, and your feeble and witless attempts to be clever and funny. You’ve got nothing. I can defeat any of you with half my brain tied behind my back.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is RB’s admission of defeat.
Thanks for playing.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I can defeat any of you with half my brain tied behind my back.
Vote:Online bondage sessions at Kiwiblog, eh? You kinky devil.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
“There is always a limit though to the ability of the public health system to fund every medicine we would like. This is why I think peopel should be encouraged to have their own health savings accounts which can be used to meet exceptional health care costs.”
Hold up – if the state can’t afford to fund a drug, what private individuals are going to be able to afford to save up for it?
Don’t you see this is why the proponents of public healthcare are afraid of privatisation – because they see it as a slippery slope towards a state of affairs where, if you can’t afford to pay for it, you die…
I for one am very much in favour of a “no-one gets left behind on my watch” approach to public health care and drug funding! Human life is far too precious to talk about in terms of “fiscal responsibility” or what “The Market” dictates…
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I’m with Ratbiter on this one.
it’s rather like water meters for me.
some things I’m socialist orientated towards and other things market driven.
Vote:problem for me is our very small easily monopolised market.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Anyone who wants the government to be a provider of health services is a reality denying dickwad. Name one thing government does well.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Oh great … now you’ve made Redbaiter come back out of his retirement, tie half his brain behind his back and deal to you commie scum Stalinist lefty f***wits. (Is there a thesaurus available for these sorts of terms?)
But then again, once you tie up half of what appears on all evidence to be half a brain, is there be enough left to sustain the vital organs? Any brain experts out there … what’s the minimum function required to keep RB’s heart beating? And more important, should the state pay to keep RB alive if his experiment in brain-bondage goes horribly wrong?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I ‘d pay him twenty grand to rip the heart out of shit for brains commo fuckwits like you AG and I would make a handsome profit selling tickets and the TV rights to the event. Now that’s capitalism in action buddy. Still I know he would do it for nothing just for the pleasure.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Do you need a hug? ‘Cause you could pay someone to give you one.
That’s capitalism, too.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Not from you maggot I will let you get your hugs for free from all your gay mates in the rainbow party.
ps: Just joking sweetie how much do you charge?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
You could offer your Mum $20 … give her a night off the streets.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
She died at the age of 91 three years ago you sad little needle dick. Get back to the stranded where wankers like you can indulge in the grand old socialist rite of circle-jerking
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I’m sure she was very proud of her son. Very, very proud. She raised him to be all class.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Voted National all her life lad and her proudest moment was when I stopped voting Labour (I used to because I detested Muldoon and I was young and stupid like you) and voted National again. Yes very very proud she was.
Vote:Now be a good little boy and fuck off as you are just a time waster.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
So you keep responding because you have time to waste? Sound like a beneficiary to me. Probably on the pension. Bloody parasite.
Oh well – 3 years of National/Act will soon sort you out.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“Sound like a beneficiary to me.”
Yawn. Same old same old unsubstantiated smears. So Stalinist. You people are made in a sausage factory.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Not unsubstantiated. He wastes time. QED. Right? Or are you rethinking your views on those who receive welfare?
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
It would be more helpful if the drug companies simply provided Pharmac with drugs to the value of their advertising budget instead of creating a demand for a drug with may or may not be effective for the health problem concerned.
Vote:December 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Frog,
Pharmac has an impressive rate of resistance to the pressure put on by advertising of drug companies.. although I wonder about those flavoured condoms…
Google means that there is no such thing as no advertising of a drug in any country like ours, rather it means that there’s an informed patient base which is doing the very best thing for a modern drug regime.. “pressure” means that the medical profession must justify it’s decisions, read the literature (and advertising) and make informed decisions on behalf of it’s clients. It also is one of the best ways of exposing the sometimes lousy drug availabilities of this country.
What is far more seductive and dishonest is some of the advertising of alternative medicines which keep genuinely sick people poor and away from proper medical care. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a place for AM amongst an informed population.
Just a word on Herceptin.. in the past decade I’m aware of just two major political interferences, Herceptin by National in 2008 and Beta Interferon for MS patients by Labour in 1999/00. Those are the only two cases I know of where the Govt has shown that it is actually in charge of Pharmac.
JC
Tryi
Vote: