<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Health Dollars</title>
	<atom:link href="http://passthesource.org.nz/2010/01/25/health-dollars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://passthesource.org.nz/2010/01/25/health-dollars/</link>
	<description>Free software today</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2012 04:24:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nevyn</title>
		<link>http://passthesource.org.nz/2010/01/25/health-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-623</link>
		<dc:creator>Nevyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://passthesource.org.nz/?p=169#comment-623</guid>
		<description>The savings are a comparative thing. The &quot;savings&quot; in this case is the savings made by making the negotiations as a single body rather than each health board (all 26 of them) negotiating their own deal which would undoubtedly be a disaster.

However, given that they stated that they&#039;re heavily reliant on MS products and so, by implication, had to make a deal anyway shows a huge problem. In the short term, they&#039;ve got a deal. In the long term, they need to be spending in reducing that dependency if only, in my cynical state of mind, negotiate a better deal with MS.

The sad thing is, no one will even consider doing that. Instead, the MOH&#039;s got their MS licenses and when it&#039;s time to do a deal again, they&#039;ll most likely be showing us health dollars and a supposed win (though who&#039;s winning will still be a matter of debate).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The savings are a comparative thing. The &#8220;savings&#8221; in this case is the savings made by making the negotiations as a single body rather than each health board (all 26 of them) negotiating their own deal which would undoubtedly be a disaster.</p>
<p>However, given that they stated that they&#8217;re heavily reliant on MS products and so, by implication, had to make a deal anyway shows a huge problem. In the short term, they&#8217;ve got a deal. In the long term, they need to be spending in reducing that dependency if only, in my cynical state of mind, negotiate a better deal with MS.</p>
<p>The sad thing is, no one will even consider doing that. Instead, the MOH&#8217;s got their MS licenses and when it&#8217;s time to do a deal again, they&#8217;ll most likely be showing us health dollars and a supposed win (though who&#8217;s winning will still be a matter of debate).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guy</title>
		<link>http://passthesource.org.nz/2010/01/25/health-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-622</link>
		<dc:creator>Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://passthesource.org.nz/?p=169#comment-622</guid>
		<description>The &quot;silver lining&quot; is even less silver when you consider that at law a licence is usually, by default, transferrable. It is only non-transferrable because the licensor imposes that restriction. So allowing licence transfers is not really a &quot;concession&quot;, but simply the removal of an additional restriction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;silver lining&#8221; is even less silver when you consider that at law a licence is usually, by default, transferrable. It is only non-transferrable because the licensor imposes that restriction. So allowing licence transfers is not really a &#8220;concession&#8221;, but simply the removal of an additional restriction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

