However it’s still not an actual cost-recovery basis
Any evidence for that statement?
I thought it was apparent from that page you linked: “Adjustments are made for age, ethnicity and also for the amount of specialist work provided to people outside the area.” That does not say “based on cost of specialist work provided to people outside the area.”
Also, found the article I was thinking of, here. The money quote, as it were: “ADHB receives about $2 billion a year to provide services to Auckland but also has to use its funding to develop and maintain services provided to patients across the country.”
The whole piece reads like ADHB is getting short-changed because it’s got a large and growing population to service but also has to provide services at the national level that aren’t being funded adequately.
ETA: Stuff’s article on it says “Auckland DHB’s region is experiencing rapid population growth and about 50 per cent of its patients are referred from other DHBs”, but ADHB isn’t getting 50% of its funding for non-resident services. And since non-resident services will be more expensive and specialised, the gap is even more significant.
Not true, sorry. Far too big a cost to wear. Check this page on ADHB’s retro website.
Interesting. However it's still not an actual cost-recovery basis, which is probably what was being got at by the ADHB person; funding for nationally-provided specialist services is insufficient, so money has to bleed through from the DHB funding.
Much like Auckland DHB, which provides tertiary services to the whole country but only gets funding based on the population of its board area.
Pretty sure they also get funding after the fact from the person’s local DHB. Still expensive to maintain clinical quality and suchlike for the only national service for many conditions. We are a small country.
Read/heard something from a senior clinician at ADHB that implied the capitation funding model means Auckland is having to wear the costs for the services it provides for DHBs nationwide. And even if there is some kind of "payment" going on, it probably doesn't reflect actual costs.
we have to fundraise to pay for some of them
That's a common refrain. Starship had to do fund-raising in order to add operating theatres and improve facilities for patient privacy. Health funding across the country is in pretty dire straits, courtesy of the current regime's policies.
take the local hospital board here in Dunedin, it essentially provides service to the bottom 2/5s of the South Island – but it’s reimbursed at the same per-capita rate as elsewhere
Much like Auckland DHB, which provides tertiary services to the whole country but only gets funding based on the population of its board area. So Starship, as an example, is funded for Auckland's population but is the only dedicated paediatric facility in the entire country. Likewise transplants of anything except kidneys, which only happen in Auckland. And if a government decided to fix that anomaly, we'd get more whinging from outside Auckland about how Auckland was getting all the money; it would also sort out the issue you raise vis Dunedin, but I doubt there'd be any satisfaction outside Auckland if Auckland was also getting more money.
The breathless support for the East-West foreshore-obliterating motorway is, although unsurprising, depressing. As with all the other Roads of Dubious Significance, the economics of and alternatives to will remain completely unexplored, with NZTA's "TINA" narrative repeated unquestioned.
police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers
to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens
Citizens. Every time, citizens. Not civilians. Massive difference.
As a principle it is sound, but it is very definitely not what you have been arguing.
But they are still civilians by definition
By whose definition? The definitions of civilian I can find all include both police and military personnel as the exceptional class, and many also include fire fighters. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross, promulgators of the laws of armed conflict, bundle police and military together into what they call “arms carriers”.
ETA: NZ Fire Service personnel, by popular intra-service choice, refer to “members of the public” when discussing non-uniformed members of society. A suggestion that the nomenclature be revised, with “clients” or “customers” as possibilities, was widely derided and thus dropped. Uniformed protectors of society at large see themselves as groups apart, and the police are far from alone.
Unclear from the Herald article exactly what he requested, suspect it was “personal information” held about him by Police. This wouldn’t be covered by OIA, but the Privacy Act instead.
Presumably it wasn’t a simple request for his own criminal record because he would know that already.
As best I can piece it together, he sought information for the purposes of research and was then informed that he's blacklisted/banned/whatever. At that point he requested a copy of his record to try and figure out the reason for the refusal, since the refusal was sheeted home to his allegedly-questionable associations.
According to a legal opinion he cites, the original information requested should have been available to anyone who submitted the appropriate request under the auspices of the OIA. The information originally requested was not his criminal record.
I am of the opinion that this all stems from the attitude that we, the public, are referred to by the police as “Civilians”. This presumes that the police are not “civilians” but some kind of elite military unit, this is not what the police are but how they think of themselves.
They may not be an "elite military unit", but they are uniformed officers of the Crown, sworn and empowered to enforce the law, including using deadly force if necessary. They are not Joe or Josephine Public, and pretending that they are just like you is supremely naive. For better or worse, they are a power apart from all the rest of the citizens of this country.