Letters: Property investors, private health patients, Pharmac and democracy

To address the housing issue Parliament has the mandate to make firm decisions, writes Scotty Yates. Photo / File

All benefits to property investors

Murray Higgs (NZ Herald, February 24) highlighted how unjust it is that property investors claim interest as a tax deductible item. Those struggling to own and live in their own home can't claim the tax deduction. They service the mortgage with already taxed income.

Yet another benefit to a property investor is their ability to borrow. They offer banks multiple security with the number of tenanted homes. Easy to buy yet another property. But a private home owner may only be able to offer the security of servicing the interest by two incomes. Then the issue if one contributor's income is threatened. Perhaps pregnancy or illness. The ability to service the mortgage is halved and access to a loan perhaps lost.

Then there is the further issue of the high prices of the homes. Their worth is market driven and influenced by scarcity. The money tied up produces no wealth nor ongoing employment for the country.

Time too to address those holding untenanted homes with gardens as a wasteland. A blight on the neighbourhood. Retaining ownership to realise a capital gain. And those retaining ownership and living elsewhere. They are wastefully denying a resident of NZ to live in that space. Increasing the scarcity of homes. Places like Vancouver are tackling these issues.

To address the housing issue Parliament has the mandate to make firm decisions. And the banks to be socially more responsible in requiring larger deposits by investors, and being more supportive to homeowners.

Scotty Yates, Remuera.

Going private

The Herald (February 25) carried a story about a misleading study into private health insurance by the University of Otago.

It says, "Private health patients are costing New Zealand's public health system up to $11.5 million a year." The implication is that the public health system would be better off without the private system costing that. This is not correct.

In most cases the private operations are carried out without the need for subsequent admission to the public system. If private health care did not exist, all costs now paid for privately would have to be paid by the public system.

Take one case I know of. A patient who had health insurance developed cancer. The operation was done with health insurance in a private hospital, but because the operation was lengthy (seven hours) and the patient was elderly and had underlying health problems, the patient needed three weeks post-operative care in a public hospital, because the private hospital didn't have those facilities.

If everything had been done in the public system, it would have cost that system in addition a seven-hour operation together with several years of specialist appointments to check that the cancer had not returned.

Stuart Macfarlane, Remuera.

Cost reduction

The Ministry of Health study showed that only 2 per cent of private inpatient events had a subsequent admission to a private hospital, claiming a cost of $11.5m to the public system. Did the ministry also conduct a study showing the benefit of reducing costs to the public system by those paying for private health care? Now that would be a different headline altogether.

June Kearney, West Harbour.

Thrift policy

The very sad passing of lung cancer patient Julie Moon represents one of many hundreds of vulnerable patients that die prematurely in NZ, the direct result of Pharmac preventing access to standard of care treatments.

This tragedy is another reminder New Zealand is in denial about the vital role of precision medicine, for example; targeted therapies and immunotherapy treatments for lung cancer, which are life changing for patients and their family/whānau.

Poor medicines access cannot simply be explained by lack of wealth. New Zealand is not a poor country, yet it is far behind many OECD nations with similar public health funding systems and wealth.

The reality: Pharmac is an instrument of government, and its thrift culture is the result of thrift policy settings by successive governments regarding pharmaceutical investment. All the while our health leaders and Cabinet members pledge to be guided by equity and committed to delivering world class cancer care in NZ.

NZ continues to deny the efficacy and the important role of modern medicines, to delay reimbursement. When prescribed at the right time, precision medicines keep even our most vulnerable well much longer and reduce pressure on our already overburdened health system.

NZ is a third world nation when it comes to providing access to standard of care treatments for lung cancer (and other cancers). I do not believe anyone who has lost a family member, or a loved one (prematurely) due to lack of access, believes this is acceptable. Yet sadly, this tragedy plays out many times every day in NZ and is a reminder why a robust and independent review of Pharmac (including its legislative framework), must be attended to as a matter of priority.

Philip Hope, Chief executive, Lung Foundation New Zealand.

Sleeping on it

There was an interesting juxtaposition in the NZ Herald yesterday. A page 11 side column notes that the Government has passed new law under urgency, taking power to resist apartheid wards away from ratepayers, hence removing democratic rights and principles. Then much of page 12 is devoted to the "Fight for Democracy in Myanmar".

New Zealanders sleep on while our Government increasingly eliminates our chances of an egalitarian and peaceful future.

Fiona Mackenzie, Whangaparāoa.

Class act

Jo Bowler's plea for reinstating evening classes (NZ Herald, February 22) is in the category of "How did we let such a valuable concept lie dormant for so long?"

When I worked at Glenfield College in 1984 we had more than 4000 night school students, the second highest roll in New Zealand at the time, some attended by more than one generation of the same family, in an astonishing range of subjects.

Their abandonment in 2009 deprived thousands of Kiwis of this chance at extra education, most times teaching new skills, sometimes refreshing old ones in preparation for a return to the workforce, sometimes just recreational, but every one fulfilling a real need.

With the Covid disruption, this is exacerbated, and now there is a growing economic need also.

Let's hope someone in Government can realise that for relatively small investment, using existing facilities during their idle time, and paying teaching staff small part-time contract hourly wages, this is a way to reap high returns in enhancing lifestyles, community stability and workforce enrichment. Improving mental health and lessening poverty can be advanced by a simple restoration of a Kiwi tradition that lasted for more than 60 years.

This could be a vaccine for loneliness and eroded lifestyles.

Dave Norris, Mangawhai Heads.

Finger-pointing

Auckland Council never shirks from audacity as shown by criticising the salaries of Auckland Museum staff. At least get your own camp sorted first before going after others and, in sharp contrast, those at the museum probably are well qualified and worthy of their remuneration — unlike most of those who supposedly represent us and waste money like it was water.

Paul Beck, West Harbour.

Pay inequity

Clearly, Auckland Museum needs about 45 staff, paid over $100,000, to make the very many important decisions, while the other 150 staff on less than $100,000 have to execute the mundane tasks like customer service, heavy lifting and overall maintenance.

With roughly one in four staff members earning in the over $100k bracket, it makes you wonder what sort of efficiency, task-spreading and peer relationship there is in this Auckland institution.

If one out of every four salaried staff members are considered to be worthy of $100k salaries and three out of every four earn considerably less than the quarter of earners in the top echelon, then the very many high-end earners must have some seriously rare qualifications — or, are totally useless at what they need to achieve, and just reap the gold while the other 75 per cent digs for it!

René Blezer, Taupō.

Short & sweet

On boxing

So, boxing is an activity in which two men try to damage each other so comprehensively that one finally falls unconscious to the floor with brain damage. Just exactly how is this a sport?

John L R Allum, Thames.

On guns

I note according to today's report (NZ Herald , February 25) that 12 guns including pistols and, it would seem, a machine gun were seized from a gang. It seems the Government's firearms buyback scheme is working well (well they didn't have to pay for those 12 guns).

John Waymouth, Taupō.

On trees

One of the most dangerous and prolific WMD (weapons of mass destruction) is the chainsaw.

Rosemary Simmons, Papatoetoe.

On passports

There is nothing new about a vaccination passport. In the seventies an "International Certificate of Vaccination" was required for many destinations. The purchase of an airline ticket was conditional to the presentation of a certificate or passport.

A.J. Berg, Taupō.

On houses

The Goverment's Progressive Home Ownership Scheme apparently housed just 12 families in seven months. Lotto has done better than that.

Larry Tompkins, Waiuku.