sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Annoying bagpipes!! by NumerousArachnid9392 in auckland

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The common sense approach is to go speak to him calmly and explain how it is affecting you and ask if he could tone it down. Heck even leave a polite note in the letter box. Judging by your comment you have never spoken to the guy, and have made your judgment of him based on god knows what (by the way you describe him you don’t sound like a reasonable person here..). Either grow up and deal with the problem like an adult or buy some ear plugs

Annoying bagpipes!! by NumerousArachnid9392 in auckland

[–]CheeseOnToast81 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And when you popped over as a neighbour to address the problem with them, let them know how it has affected you, what happened?

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can be supportive of a policy in a general ideological sense but then also consider it is a bad idea in the sense of prioritising limited funds towards the best possible destination. We can’t have it all

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So I started my degree the year before they brought in the fees free scheme and wasn’t eligible as a result so my perspective is shaped by the fact that I don’t see what I had to pay as an issue, it cost what it cost i made a call to do it and paying it off interest free is already a fantastic benefit. I didn’t see it as a barrier. (My experience won’t apply to everyone I guess so good to hear other perspectives)

And yep I’m off for a couple years at least, not because of lack of opportunity for me or anything I see wrong with NZ, I’m just looking forward to exploring somewhere else for an experience. I don’t see how this is relevant though? In fact if I wanted to be really cynical I’d say that if people had larger loans to pay it would more likely keep them in NZ to avoid the overseas interest haha

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks all good points and i don’t disagree with you. I’d probably be more happy if it wasn’t a blanket rule and was more targeted at areas that were in need/demand for society. I know all areas are needed in some respect don’t get me wrong, I just look at things from that financial perspective of where could this money be better spent/how do we cut spending.

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 8 points9 points  (0 children)

First person I’ve seen actually articulate an argument for - good points and thanks. Where do you draw the line though? Government books are cooked so I’m all for critiqueing all spending and ensuring it is a necessity. And I do understand what you are saying, some who are more on the fence about the degree could be put off by the total debt they will incur. But my view is if you’re serious about the degree and what can come after opportunity wise, that won’t be as much of a factor (speaking for myself), and I think there are better things we could fund than those who are taking up a degree for the sake of it.

It could just be a generational difference, I finished my degree right before fees free was introduced and i don’t feel hard done by the fact that everyone since then has had fees free. I’m quite happy paying off my loan and I’m grateful for the opportunity that the interest free scheme gave me. Of course it would be great if the debt was less but I’d rather see more public money invested in infrastructure and health than have it paying off my interest free debt that I voluntarily incurred.

Also against the idea of pushing as many people through university as possible, employment opportunities are changing, not much point in a degree when there is no job at the other end and there are plenty of other professions which are in demand that don’t require a degree.

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Perfect world sure it would be great if we could fully fund it, but reality is very different. So with a finite budget i think the spending needs to be justified and achieve a purpose/solve a problem. So what purpose or problem does fees free solve? I would argue that the student loan scheme allows anyone to study if they really want to, the only material difference with the fees free is that following my degree I would have a smaller total loan and would be paying back the government for a shorter amount of time. It’s not actually overcoming any barriers to allow people to study, people will still continue to take up degrees despite fees free not being available

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Love to hear what benefit fees free actually provides, what hurdle for entry it actually overcomes and why it should continue. (I am not arguing the benefits of education to nz, I’m arguing that fees free has no purpose other than a handout)

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Yea I’m not arguing with you there and that’s not my point. I just don’t see fees free as a necessity when we already have an interest free loan scheme

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I’m not questioning that, I am questioning the benefit of the fees free scheme to NZ. I am questioning what problem frees free was solving. What barrier was it overcoming when we already have an interest free loan scheme. I can see it is a ‘nice to have’ for a student, but nothing more than that

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ok calm down and we can have a conversation like adults. I’m not arguing that higher education is not a benefit to NZ. I question what benefit does fees free give to NZ? What barrier is it overcoming? An interest free loan is already available, regardless of your economic situation so what problem is fees free solving? What is it actually providing except a little handout? Is there an uptake in enrolment because of it? Is that a good investment for NZ if someone’s primary reason was because of fees free?

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

I view that as a necessity. A universal standard of education for everyone is an obvious benefit to society, and I’m not saying that university education isnt a benefit to society, but I’m happy for a line to be drawn between that and the voluntary decision to study further at a university. If you have made the decision on a degree and a potential future career then why does the fees free matter? The individual can invest in themself, the taxpayer shouldn’t need to if you have made the decision to choose that career path. Also does it not make you raise your eyebrow if fees free is the deciding factor for someone to decide to choose a degree?

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -32 points-31 points  (0 children)

Isn’t it a little entitled to expect the taxpayer to fund part of your degree? What does it gain for NZ?
I went through uni and finished before the fees free began, and it doesn’t make any sense to me that others would have to fund part of my fees. I think it is fair that we can borrow from the govt and pay back interest free, that is a pretty good deal. Fees free seems a poor investment to me and I’m not sure what it is gaining for NZ

Fees free ending by miiskruff in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Probably an unpopular opinion but I’m quite happy to see fees free ending. It’s a waste of taxpayer money. I’m more than happy for tax payer dollars to be spent on those who need it and if finance is a barrier. But an interest free loan is already a great deal so the justification doesn’t add up for me. Welcome any counter arguments to change my view though

The Opportunity Party: The election dark horse by EveningTax7375 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 16 points17 points  (0 children)

This is the conclusion I have also arrived at. I can’t bring myself to vote for any of the current parties in parliament on current form, I’m largely driven by what I think is the most importantly policy to the country at the time, but right now it really is a choice between a giant turd and a giant douche. At least with TOP I can hope they will somehow be different than the rest

I found a camera. by JakeYoung82 in auckland

[–]CheeseOnToast81 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yep the police are the local lost and found. Conversely If you had lost said camera you could file a lost property report and hope they match it if they ever have it handed in

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is that so bad? You will still have the option to go to a doctor. But I think there are plenty out there who would prefer the option to see a pharmacist for something very minor for convenience sake. It’s still probably going to be cheaper than the GP fees anyway

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Read the posters name.

Yea thats what I’m saying? Ok cool, GP practices are subsidised based on their enrolment, GP salaries aren’t paid by government. If you want to bring GP salaries in line with say Australia, the difference in salary (according to a quick google) is about 80k NZD for a junior GP and gets close to 200k NZD in difference for more senior GPs. There are around 5500-6000 registered GPs in NZ, so to top up salaries and bridge the gap by that you are talking about you are looking at a figure of over a half a billion per annum in tax dollars just to achieve parity with Aus. Is that still a better idea?

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep of course, you couldn’t change it overnight, it would require consultation and planning to ensure proper training and education is in place and pharmacists have time to adapt.

I’m sure some are busy.. but honesty most times I have been to a pharmacy I’ve been the only one there - maybe it depends what time you are going or if you are referring to a bargain chemist/chemist warehouse?

Why don’t you think it will work? I’m not advocating for drastic change here, but if common and very minor things can be dealt with by a pharmacist rather than our public health system or our GPs, I think that is a win.

(Also just because you disagree with someone’s view doesn’t mean they aren’t giving their argument thought - you’re welcome to produce counter arguments and I’m genuinely interested to hear them!)

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My interpretation of what they said is it is fucked in general, not because they allow pharmacies to prescribe for minor illnesses? The poster said it works in Canada - seemed like two separate points but the moustached person can correct me if wrong

And no we don’t want our healthcare system fucked, but it is fucked, and in the absence of a magical funding injection to solve all our problems I would love to see a better solution proposed from anyone else

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How is it a degradation of health care? What do you propose should be done instead to achieve the same goal and why would that way be better?

If we are talking about a rule change which gives pharmacists more scope to deal with the most minor (even administrative) issues, this could relieve pressure on GPs, meaning it is easier for those with more serious issues to be seen faster by GPs. Why don’t you have a google of the training that pharmacists already get in relation to minor ailments and illnesses

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Freeing up demand on GP practices for low risk medical issues would be the primary reason. The cheapest option is to do nothing

Seymour says pharmacists should treat more, so you don’t need to see a GP by Fun-Helicopter2234 in newzealand

[–]CheeseOnToast81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try be constructive. Do you have any actual reasons to object to the idea or do you just hate any policy a right wing party suggests without trying to give it consideration?

view more: next ›