How does a party that believes in the power of nanny state to the extent that she can increase life expectancy, work constructively alongside parties that purport to be the parliamentary opposers of her? (notwithstanding that National doesn't properly comprehend what nanny state is and throws the term around expediently.)
Tariana Turia is at it again.
The gap in life expectancy between Maori and non-Maori is like an epidemic wiping out 10% of the Maori population, according to the Maori Party.
“If bird ‘flu killed one in ten of New Zealand’s population, a national emergency would be declared. There would be crisis plans put in place, trained personnel and resources redeployed and public spending redirected until the emergency was over,” said Health spokesperson Tariana Turia.
“There is an equivalent disaster taking place in Aotearoa right now. The latest life expectancy figures show Maori people have 10% shorter lifetimes than non-Maori...
...It is utterly appalling, and a national disgrace that this country does not expect that tangata whenua should live as long, or as well, as others, but we have come to regard this situation as normal and it barely rates a mention in the news.
“These terrible discrepancies in Maori health do not get the priority they deserve. Successive governments have drawn up Maori health strategies and action plans, but they have not been given sufficient urgency and importance.
Her approach to life is vaguely similar to the approach socialists take to money. There is only so much of it to go around and those getting more do so at the cost of those getting less. It's a nonsense. Just as Maori as a whole could earn more, invest and save more, so they could increase their life expectancy.
I could probably increase my own life expectancy if I ate better, drank less, exercised a bit more and went to bed earlier. But the truth is I want to enjoy my life on my terms. So do those individuals who just happen to have Maori ancestry. If anybody is robbing us of extended lives it is ourselves.
But Tariana wants more taxpayer money spent on denying that reality. That people actually make their own choices - good or bad. In fact she patronises 'her people' by suggesting that it is somehow the lack of government action - and by implication, spending - that is robbing them of life itself; that without government telling them, they can't draw constructive conclusions themselves. I wonder when she is going to grow up and in doing so, allow her adherents to.
GRAHAM ADAMS: Seymour's opponents need better arguments
38 minutes ago
6 comments:
In fact, the 'government' is spending millions telling us on our TV every night that we need to stop smoking, eat better (especially feed our kids better) exercise more, stop drink driving (and drinking to excess) and that it's not OK to use violence.
All of these things are included in the list of reasons why some people have a shorter life expectancy than others.
Linda
And you point is exactly right Lindsay. No one will ever stop smoking, exercise more or eat better food unless they want to. Money spent on tryign to "teach" them otherwise is wasted.
Brian Smaller
"I could probably increase my own life expectancy if I ate better, drank less, exercised a bit more and went to bed earlier. But the truth is I want to enjoy my life on my terms."
Eloquent.
"So do those individuals who just happen to have Maori ancestry. If anybody is robbing us of extended lives it is ourselves."
Delinquent.
It's worse than you think. Some Kiwi health researchers explicitly advocate massive wealth redistribution so as to achieve equality in life expectancy. See my post up at EconLog a couple of years back.
If there's one thing that is certain - that is life is terminal.
Nothing, not even Tari's soapboxing, will change that.
Longevity is not the issue, it is quality, and no govt can legislate quality of life.
It's past time they stoped trying to, and people stopped expecting them to.
These are personal choices - long may that continue.
Neo-girl
Money spent on tryign to "teach" them otherwise is wasted. ...
These are personal choices - long may that continue.
Not with a socialist health system.
First you must remove that - even as a "safety net". Or otherwise, well we all pay and its much cheaper to pay for TV ads for seatbelts and non-smoking than it is to pay for the hosiptals.
What's the only solution in the long term? Not to pay for the fucking hospitals for fucking bludgers
Post a Comment