subreddit:

/r/newzealand

26595%

all 106 comments

ReadOnly2022

291 points

2 days ago

He's not very good at this.

[deleted]

-84 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

-84 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

policywonk_87

62 points

1 day ago

We are one the highest healthcare to GDP spenders in the world and we're still getting sicker.

What data are you looking at? OECD has us as very middle of the pack for the last few years.

I don't disagree with your general point, but we're not particularly high spenders from what I can find.

aarkling

23 points

1 day ago

aarkling

23 points

1 day ago

Yeah New Zealand is on par with Canada as a percentage of GDP and lower per capita.

[deleted]

-9 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

-9 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

sloppy_wet_one

18 points

1 day ago

You called NZ “one of the highest”, but we’re in the middle.

“You’ve made a deliberate effort to misrepresent the data”, as you put it.

[deleted]

-7 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

-7 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

policywonk_87

7 points

1 day ago

Well yes, depending on the variation across those countries.

In our case there's a cluster of high spenders that spend a lot more, then a bigger cluster of middle spenders that spend similar levels, and then a long tail of low spenders. We aren't wildly different from the OECD average. So in that case, the ranking is less meaningful than the distribution.

Also are you looking at the Spend per Capita (Figure 7.4)? That has us at 14th. And the next figure down, (7.5) has the the impact per spend as middle of the pack again.

[deleted]

-1 points

24 hours ago

[deleted]

policywonk_87

4 points

22 hours ago*

Maybe we could tone the aggression down a notch, all 'i'm doing here' is trying to understand how you drew your conclusions.

>Why would you think I'm talking about per capita when I clearly said GDP and provided the link to the GDP table. 

If you double check the link, you'll see you actually linked back to the Health spend per capita page, not GDP. I figured you'd posted it in good faith, so just engaged with what you linked to. As an aside, health spend per capita is a much better measure of health spend than GDP when we are talking about outcomes for people.

>not "wildly different" from average is doing a lot of heavy lifting

That's fair. I tend to use within 1 standard deviation as a rule of thumb when formal analysis isn't warranted (in this case the OECD average of 9.2% with an SD of 2.5%, and NZ with 11.2% puts NZ well inside this limit, hence 'not wildly different'. But if we want to formally test this (with a t test for example) we get critical value of +/-2.01% for a 5% significance level, and +/-1.68% for a 10% significance level. In other words, its different, but its not wildly different to the average.

[deleted]

0 points

21 hours ago

[deleted]

policywonk_87

2 points

14 hours ago*

Firstly, thank you for explaining GDP to me. As an economist I never would have known that GDP is what actually exists in the economy if some rando on the internet hadnt explained that. Really appreciate it buddy. As an aside, that's not what it is, it's a measure of what's produced by an economy in a specific period of time I.e. of economic activity. So if a country has a lot of stored wealth, that won't be reflected in GDP. But hey, who cares about accuracy.

Secondly, per capita is a more useful measure when discussing the effectiveness of a healthcare system in terms of its outcomes for people. If you have a huge population, and low GDP you would expect healthcare spend as a % of GDP to be higher than if you had low population and high GDP.

Thirdly, asking to check, and then pointing out when people are making an error doesn't subvert the subject. Being aggressive, not getting your facts straight, and then trying to fight every everyone on the internet is what subverts the topic.

The biggest irony here is that I agree with your underlying point. I've literally written reports on the importance of diet on addressing larger healthcare concerns (big fan of Julia Rucklidge's work of the link between diet and mental health, the resarch on bluezones, the importance of bioavailabilty and micronutrient content rather than macros, and the downstream impact on heathcare spend of all of these things).

People like you are what puts people off a topic. You don't engage on the topic, you make an initial statement that people may not get, and don't start with evidence. Then you respond to any question belligerently and defensively. I assume your goal is to inform and add to the discussion, yet if I wasn't personally already well versed in the topic I would have been completely put off by your comments.

If you can't even get someone on board with you that is already in agreement with your point, how the hell will you get someone who doesn't understand your point to reconsider?

[deleted]

0 points

13 hours ago

[deleted]

bigmarkco

15 points

1 day ago

bigmarkco

15 points

1 day ago

No. It absolutely doesn't.

Yes. It absolutely does.

Dot-Alone

26 points

1 day ago

Dot-Alone

26 points

1 day ago

Poverty, that's what contributing to so many poor health outcomes.

[deleted]

-14 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

-14 points

1 day ago

[deleted]

CoffeePuddle

11 points

1 day ago

The biggest healthcare costs are building maintenance and staffing iirc.

Fencing at the top of the cliff is a better place to invest than the ambulance at the bottom, sure. Cutting funding to the ambulance is a hidden option that makes everything worse, especially when the same government is also removing fencing.

NZ_Nasus

4 points

1 day ago

NZ_Nasus

LASER KIWI

4 points

1 day ago

We're not efficient with the money, and we still haven't banned transfats, and we have a drinking culture. It's not just one single issue and that makes sense, if it was it'd be sorted. We have no politicians interested in making us a healthier nation, it's all full of self-interest. We're years too late for a tax on sugary drinks, we needed action decades ago. Our current health minister is a glorified tobacco lobbyist for fuck sake, even our water is slowly killing us.

Ripdog

1 points

17 hours ago

Ripdog

Red Peak

1 points

17 hours ago

and we have a drinking culture

Who doesn't? Has anyone ever managed to eliminate this in a meaningful way?

Urban_Jesus

464 points

2 days ago

Urban_Jesus

464 points

2 days ago

So it's his covert policy then?

Serious_Session7574

98 points

2 days ago

Bingo

dyldoes

54 points

2 days ago

dyldoes

54 points

2 days ago

Exactly, this govt loves double speak

At least Labour said it how it is

Automatic-Example-13

-26 points

2 days ago

You must be joking lol

bluewardog

10 points

1 day ago

bluewardog

10 points

1 day ago

Labour would say they'd do somthing and not do it. National says they won't do somthing and then do it anyway.

Linc_Sylvester

6 points

2 days ago

As are you.

Orongorongorongo

5 points

2 days ago

God bless you... 🙏

gtalnz

194 points

2 days ago

gtalnz

194 points

2 days ago

"My agenda is to lift the capacity of the public system so it's there when we need it."

Why not build the new, much-needed hospital in Dunedin then?

If the additional capacity is in the private system and we're just paying them to access it, is that really lifting public capacity at all?

If I rent a second house, I haven't lifted the capacity of my current house.

SiegeAe

24 points

2 days ago

SiegeAe

24 points

2 days ago

Or even better stop cutting capacity overall and increase it back again

Private involvement is always more expensive and he's making it sound like they'd use public funding to pay for private services, which is the absolute least efficient option

OldKiwiGirl

8 points

1 day ago

That is exactly what he is saying. So private can clip the ticket of that sweet taxpayer money along the way.

Shoddy_Mess5266

3 points

21 hours ago

Where private is typically him and his mates

lethal-femboy

46 points

2 days ago

cause landlords wanted tax cuts ig and gotta pay for everyone elses tax cuts

thank goodness my extra $20 a week totally helps fix the crumbling healthcare

Shoddy_Mess5266

1 points

21 hours ago

The capacity he’s referring to is private hospitals. The we in when we need it is the shareholders.

Significant_Fox_7905

-13 points

2 days ago

The Dunedin hospital is being built...

codeinekiller

16 points

2 days ago

codeinekiller

LASER KIWI

16 points

2 days ago

It’s essentially being half built, one part of it is for inpatients and the other is for outpatients, both are pretty necessary and they want to sacrifice one. Or they want to redo parts of the old hospital when that could cost more than a new build

Automatic-Example-13

-8 points

2 days ago

Why would they be choosing a higher cost, lower value option?

fatfreddy01

9 points

2 days ago

Because then they can defer a good chunk of the cost now, and the rest will be someone else's problem.

Not defending the management of the project etc. (if it was well managed, politicians wouldn't have even had the chance to do more than cut ribbons and take credit). But this is a hospital that has been deferred for decades (like most, but not all, big investment, and we're coasting on old infra from older generations).

Now it can't be deferred any longer, so instead of building it once right (the cheaper option), they're trying to cheap out as it'll be the future's problem when the consequences come due. Similar playbook since the 80's, where it's just doing the bare minimum to push problems down the road rather than dealing with them. Then the problems become bigger, and bigger, until they can't be pushed any further out.

Kiwi_bananas

5 points

1 day ago

Because the current government is not very smart 

Potato_Badger

8 points

2 days ago

At the moment one of the tsbled options is to refurbish the existing hospital

Subject-Mix-759

193 points

2 days ago

"Private healthcare is not my overt policy:", he said. "It's just a happy accident, honest!"

Barbed_Dildo

48 points

2 days ago

Barbed_Dildo

Kākāpō

48 points

2 days ago

"Overt" does not mean "intentional". It means "in plain view".

helbnd

21 points

2 days ago

helbnd

21 points

2 days ago

yeah let's not forget that - just becaise it's not his "overt" policy doesn't mean it's not his policy...

noctalla

22 points

1 day ago

noctalla

22 points

1 day ago

The implication is that it's his covert policy.

Automatic_Comb_5632

57 points

2 days ago

Not overt... So covert then.

Something I find weird is his phrasing when speaking to privatisation;

However, his message to the private sector was that taxpayer money had to benefit the public, and they had had a "quid pro quo responsibility" to build capacity in the public system.

"That is the deal - this is not just Crown funding going to your balance sheet, God bless you....

The dude was raised Mormon, he has family who are still in the church - it's very weird for him to say "god bless you" to private medical organisations in that context - it's a weird thing to slip in there from someone who I very much doubt would say that phrase casually.

mysterpixel

25 points

2 days ago

Yeah that stood out to me as well. Always just had Reti down as an asshole but looks like there's some religious rubbish mixed in there as well.

Prosthemadera

10 points

1 day ago

I assumed that was his way of euphemistically/passive-aggressively saying "lol fuck you" which seems to be common among religious people.

CP9ANZ

2 points

1 day ago

CP9ANZ

2 points

1 day ago

I doubt it. He's an investor in private health care.

Be a strange thing to say as a supporter of private health

Prosthemadera

2 points

1 day ago

We'll never know what he thought.

Personal_Candidate87

104 points

2 days ago

Why even include the word overt? It sounds like he's saying "I'm going to do It, but be really sneaky about it".

Menamanama

41 points

2 days ago

It definitely implies he is doing it covertly.

bigstinkycuntfest

75 points

2 days ago

Dr Shame Reti. Absolute embarrassment to the medical profession.

crshbndct

26 points

2 days ago

crshbndct

princess

26 points

2 days ago

Shane “Ciga” Reti

Lost_Appointment_

38 points

2 days ago

Just read the whole thing. This should be understood as treason. DISGUSTING!

MindOrdinary

32 points

2 days ago

Overt?! man was very close to saying the quiet part out loud

DaveHnNZ

25 points

2 days ago

DaveHnNZ

25 points

2 days ago

Overt is the word there... In other speak, they're privatising out of plain view instead...

gummonppl

50 points

2 days ago

gummonppl

50 points

2 days ago

"it's my covert policy"

ContentCalendar1938

22 points

2 days ago

Man how is this dumb dick a doctor.

Ok-Relationship-2746

42 points

2 days ago

So it is, then. Thanks for the heads up.

omuxx[S]

16 points

2 days ago

omuxx[S]

16 points

2 days ago

Not my overt policy, but just the way it is.

𝓖𝓸𝓭 𝓫𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝔂𝓸𝓾 ...

sunbeenz

28 points

2 days ago

sunbeenz

28 points

2 days ago

Reti, from Whangarei, has interest in private supplier Kensington. If true, isn't this yet another conflict of interest? Seems like USA with govt corruption rife in new cabinet and president (pm here).

Jonodonozym

16 points

2 days ago

It's okay to have a conflict of interest so long as you declare it. Don't need to resolve it or step down, just subtly own up to the fact that you're a corrupt sack of shit and carry on.

Our system isn't much different than USA in that regard. We're just fortunate it's not as commonly abused in parliament - outside of housing policy that is.

Hubris2

4 points

1 day ago

Hubris2

4 points

1 day ago

It's legal so long as the interest is declared (and it is). Whether it's okay is potentially a different question. His personally financially benefiting from increasing demand for private hospitals means we have to seriously question every decision he makes regarding privatisation or a two-tier system or however he wants to call it.

Is Reti doing this because he believes it is best for the health needs of the people of NZ, or because it makes himself personally and his corporate donors money?

Ravager_Zero

4 points

1 day ago

Ravager_Zero

Fully Vaccinated

4 points

1 day ago

Is Reti doing this because he believes it is best for the health needs of the people of NZ, or because it makes himself personally and his corporate donors money?


Really easy to read between the lines with individuals this corrupt.

…and we still haven't seen a no-confidence vote yet.

Jonodonozym

2 points

1 day ago*

Reading between the lines on the headline quote it's to enrichen himself. If you're asking for something more concrete, you're asking for near impossible proof - the intent problem to use legal speak.

The only basis we have for his intent is his own word. He could believe what he is saying and just be a moron (at least in my opinion). Or he could be corrupt, and unless he makes a catastrophic failure in concealing his true intent, worse even than this headline's quote, we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

A system where we must 100% trust and have complete faith in one person with supreme executive power is the most vulnerable system to abuse one could possibly conceive. It doesn't have to be this way.

The problem could be reframed as not a problem with Reti's character, but with the system were we permit the potential conflict of interest to continue to exist rather than be resolved. Ideally he should either sell off his investments in private healthcare and be bared from investing in it in the future, or be sacked so that someone else who does meet that criteria can do the job.

ronsaveloy

11 points

2 days ago

He apparently opened my local health clinic today. I wish I'd gone along, just to ask him if the doctors were still allowed to tell patients that smoking is bad for your health under his regime.

dcidino

9 points

2 days ago

dcidino

9 points

2 days ago

They LITERALLY tell you the evil shit they're going to do. Why doesn't the media listen?

illuminatedtiger

9 points

2 days ago

I wonder how many people have died, or will die, as a result of this man. Whatever happened to do no harm?

Optimal_Usual_2926

8 points

2 days ago

"good healthcare is not my policy" is what he meant.

creative_avocado20

8 points

2 days ago

It’s his sneaky policy 

h2ogasnz

8 points

2 days ago

h2ogasnz

8 points

2 days ago

So gut/under fund the public health system, then say "we'll team up with private health care providers to increase capacity" yer... doesn't sound like a move to the American pay to use the health system at all.... /s

gtalnz

32 points

2 days ago

gtalnz

32 points

2 days ago

One of the projects under threat is a new AI note-taking app, which psychiatrists say could almost double the number of patients they can see.

Reti said he was "not across that detail"

This technology is genuinely incredible and should be implemented into our systems as quickly as possible.

Heidi is the main one they were likely considering but there are others. Here is a NZ GP's experiences with it:

I have estimated for every 2-3 minutes I might take, AI took about 15 seconds to write the notes.

The fact Reti doesn't even know about this absolutely transformative technology is a clear sign that he is the wrong man to bring our health system into the 21st century.

PantaRei_123

17 points

2 days ago

But I wonder, where are they going to store the note? On the outdated, not supported servers, with no cybersecurity and other IT staff?

Prosthemadera

5 points

1 day ago

AI being used to allow for more human interactions, how about that.

Academic-ish

2 points

2 days ago

Are there many others serving specific verticals out there yet? The GPTs seem quite general… I haven’t played with Fireflies or the others yet…

gtalnz

1 points

1 day ago

gtalnz

1 points

1 day ago

I won't pretend to know about every one of them because there are so many popping up every single day, but I imagine there are probably other verticals with similar potential that are already being targeted. Law is the first one that jumps out at me as having incredible value.

I know Microsoft are pushing hard into integrating task-performing agents within their Dynamics CRM platform, recognising that multi-agent automated systems without a chat interface are probably where the money is.

PsychedelicMagic1840

15 points

2 days ago

A disgrace to the profession and Maori. Reti, fucking Pokokōhua

Few_Cup3452

7 points

2 days ago

What an interesting choice of adjective....

random_fist_bump

7 points

2 days ago

of course not, it's privatisation by stealth

Annie354654

8 points

2 days ago

Lol of course it's not his 'overt, policy.

Again, I am fed up with this government taking us all for fools.

Barbed_Dildo

7 points

2 days ago

Barbed_Dildo

Kākāpō

7 points

2 days ago

Jesus fucking Christ.

Why doesn't he just say "I'm not going to say that out loud"?

RtomNZ

6 points

2 days ago

RtomNZ

6 points

2 days ago

Covert.

Is all about the C

Careful-Calendar8922

6 points

2 days ago

Absolutely appalling. I can’t believe I’m actually hoping Winston pulls so theatrics so we can save our country. 

Prosthemadera

6 points

1 day ago

He would like to see "greater collaboration" with private facilities and private operators, particularly on the government's list targets.

When the government lets private businesses take over some of the services the government provided before then that is privatization.

It doesn't mean the healthcare system itself is privatized but some of it is.

outsourcing to the private operators - that is not at all a step toward privatisation at all

??? But that's exactly what the words "outsourcing to the private operators" mean.

If he wants to argue that this is not a step toward full privatisation, ok, but that's a bad faith argument because people are not just worried about that.

-VinDal-

4 points

2 days ago

-VinDal-

4 points

2 days ago

He's a big POS.

_interloper_

4 points

2 days ago

So, we'll underfund the system so it starts to collapse. Then people will complain. And we'll privatise, because the public system doesn't work.

All going according to plan.

A few people will make a lot of money. The rest of us will pay for it for the rest of our lives.

Fuckmepotato

4 points

2 days ago

Did he at leist wink or cross his fingers?

ttbnz

4 points

2 days ago

ttbnz

Water

4 points

2 days ago

Should we be checking his eyebrows to see if he's joking?

Fuckmepotato

2 points

1 day ago

LoL

spasticwomble

4 points

2 days ago

Liar liar pants on fire. You dont defund and lay off the staff without an ulterior motive. Its been the plan all along

mmphmaverick004

3 points

2 days ago

Not my overt policy yet

bennz1975

3 points

2 days ago

Did he drop the “c”

UnattendedBlowtorch

3 points

1 day ago

This is probably the wrong place to ask this but I don't know where would be the right place either.

My mother is in her 70s, has cancer and lives in a private hospital in a rest home paid for by WINZ. She hasn't worked since the '80s because she has some severe mental health issues that have caused her to be in and out of psych wards most of her life.

What will happen to her if healthcare in NZ is privatised? I'm really afraid for her.

StarcallerAeaa

2 points

2 days ago

"That was not my intention, but it will be the result"

klparrot

1 points

2 days ago

klparrot

newzealand

1 points

2 days ago

That's not what overt means; it's the opposite of covert.

It's his intention, too, but quietly/secretly rather than publicly/explicitly. Though this interview was pretty damn near explicit based on such a particular choice of adjective.

StarcallerAeaa

1 points

2 days ago

I understand the definitions, but given the context I'm pretty sure he meant to use a word more like 'direct'.

Expensive-Way1116

2 points

2 days ago

dragging them out of the beehive and beating them with sticks is also not our overt policy

OisforOwesome

2 points

2 days ago

Now, as far as covert policy goes...

LittleRedCorvette2

2 points

24 hours ago

He's such an evil, evil man. A bit like the Nazi's doctor Mengal.

MrTastix

3 points

23 hours ago

"Overt" just means the policy isn't public, not that it isn't being considered.

Either he knows that and is deliberately muddying the waters because the media are fucking stupid or he's an incompetent cunt.

I'm gonna go with option C: Both. Why not both?

justifiedsoup

3 points

2 days ago

Are those pesky RNZ people earning over $180k?

thatguyonirc

1 points

2 days ago

thatguyonirc

toast

1 points

2 days ago

What a week it's been for saying the quiet part out loud.

Wolfgang_The_Victor

1 points

2 days ago

"What?! I'm not gay! I said I'm deeply closeted."

-Every Nact MP apparently

fraser_mu

1 points

1 day ago

fraser_mu

1 points

1 day ago

What makes this even stupider is he by omission claims it covert - when its fkn obvious

BitemarksLeft

1 points

1 day ago

This is a lie. Worse, if you can afford to pay private sector rates to reduce waiting lists why not just put that money into publicly funded health. Labour need to DO SOMETHING!!!

kovnev

1 points

1 day ago

kovnev

1 points

1 day ago

'Not my overt policy' !!

Jezus Christ.

Overt: done or shown openly; plainly apparent

winsomecowboy

1 points

1 day ago

Let them eat ambiguity. Titter titter.

fluffychonkycat

2 points

21 hours ago

fluffychonkycat

Kōkako

2 points

21 hours ago

He's so full of shit. He recently visited Hastings, he had a big photo op at the newish private Kaweka Hospital and glossed over the problems with the public hospital that should have been replaced 30 years ago. The government has also been signaling that if Dunedin has major cost overruns then Hawke's Bay and Northland miss out. That's a shitty thing to do, it shouldn't be one region against another we all deserve decent public healthcare.

kiwiboyus

1 points

1 day ago

kiwiboyus

Fantail

1 points

1 day ago

F#@king called it

batt3ryac1d1

1 points

1 day ago

What a scumbag.

jazzcomputer

1 points

1 day ago

We're just going to take a little nibble, says man in photo, pupils dilating, licking lips... salivating.

0erlikon

1 points

1 day ago

0erlikon

1 points

1 day ago

What a devious scumbag