My ward results: 2686 votes, or 62% for the Labour Suit, on a turnout of less than 25%, meaning 15%, or 3 in 20 residents wanted this councillor.
Me? I voted for all of them, but undoubtedly the fact that I care enough about the democratic process to partake but register my distaste and non-acceptance of the status quo for what is offered yearly will be counted as little more than a "spoilt vote", and probably not even reported.
Depressing.
10.4.12
Politics 2.0
This is a post a long time coming, but following The Good Dr. North's post this morning I promised, in the comments, to post some contrarian discourse and it it here; partly so I can chalk up the number of posts on my completely atrophied blog and so, maybe, some folks can pick these ideas up and the meme can spread. In any case I believe they might get purchase at this event.
But as Doc. North points out the current constitutional wrangles that are preventing Obamacare from taking hold are indicative of a system, faulty as it is, that works.
I addressed my concerns with these comments on the forum but a brief breakdown by the numbers.
1. The very fact that we see these types of constitutional assaults constantly suggests that the political elite have no problem regularly taking a squat on any piece of paper we put in front of them as a defence, irrespective of how old that piece of paper is.
I feel, by and large, the problem has come about because, if the American experience is anything to go by, the document, with its myriad amendments, feels less like an enduring, physical icon of freedom and more like a rule book hastily annotated with a biro.
2. To verge mildly into pedant-territory the US President (and his Vice President) aren't actually elected to their post by plebiscite. Historically the trend is with the electorate but not always.
In any case what we see in elections is the lightest-weight scum rising to the top of a very, very low lying latrine; I don't see how adding a new echelon to our current rotten state will help.
3. This point I largely agree with, bar the constitutional bit which I mentioned above.
And I think this leads handily into what I feel would work better.
My central thesis is thus: much of politics, politicians, leaders, conquerors and despots is about imposing rules, laws, bye-laws, petty patronage and picking winners; this is all happening in a world in which the very foundations of our society change on a daily basis.
As a libertarian I believe strongly in negative liberties; freedom to do as thou wilt up to the point where it interferes with someone else's means of doing just that - whilst I am certain we would all be much better off if we could live like this I have come to accept that the human condition is much too powerful to allow us all to live in peace, an over-riding passion for interfering in others' lives' and generally thinking a situation isn't made better by tweaking it till its purple and falling off.
I would say that, in a theatre of ever-changing views and opinions of an increasingly distant electorate (whether due to opulence or to a political system that distances the electorate from any fundamental control of how they are governed) we need a system that is as accepting of the fast pace of society. Secondly, in order to overturn the incumbent system that thrives on the status quo and a disinterested plebiscite it needs to be simple and easy to engage with.
That is why I propose the following: the only elements contained in any british constitution should be fundamentally reductive - ideally the following:
The purpose of the above may not appear immediately obvious but I still believe it addresses many of the current shortfalls, particularly the final point on sunset clauses on all laws; we are still working in regulatory frameworks, under laws designed to protect us from crimes that can no longer exist (or are not effectively covered under existing laws) or are poorly written and have unintended consequences that have existed for decades in a world changing at an ever increasing pace - if history, ancient and recent, has taught us anything it is that governments ossify and kill real growth; particularly when they grow distant from their original purpose (as a trade-off of some freedoms to enjoy the others more effectively) and we need to address this.
Incumbent governments would no longer enjoy the vast autocratic power and ability to build new layers of laws on bad old ones; there would be a very limited time to debate adding a new sedimentary layer of waffle to the statute books rather than correct older laws; environmental laws double taxing consumers and acting beyond their necessary scope? Repeal or amend it accordingly, minimum pricing turns out to be an asinine idea that impoverishs, miserabalises the poor? Let it die after a term.
What's more this would appeal to the natural rationality in the public; to take stock of what your doing when it isn't working is at once one of the most innovative and smartest aspects of human thinking that has seen us to the top of the food chain - you can convince people of all creeds to take stock of decisions they make a lot easier than showing them where they went wrong - you could just as easily be wrong too.
And it is naturally reductive in the size of the state, encouraging a naturally happy medium of social and economic freedom and oppression which would naturally adapt to the nature of our culture - no government will focus on the minutiae of reactive politics, the preferable size or shape of fruit and veg or want to intrude into people's personal business without just cause if they become the government who then allows actual criminals en masse walking free because they didn't table a review of a particular law in their parliament - ultimately it would focus the mind of what must be some very bored mps.
The argument for a smaller, better state which reacts to a changing world in a measured and controlled way by naturally reviewing and discarding laws as they become obsolete and tweaking them as they go is an idea that is sellable to the public and a simpler way of getting the state to do its job and stay off our collective backs; no need for rebellion, blasé political manifestos from minority parties or unreasonable demands for fundamental changes in the makeup of our political system - just a call to add a use-by date on our political elites and, more importantly, their laws.
Bad ideas tend to outlive there creators - lets put an end to that.
But as Doc. North points out the current constitutional wrangles that are preventing Obamacare from taking hold are indicative of a system, faulty as it is, that works.
In a system riddled with faults, this principle is a shining beacon, and one which we would do well to follow, but to make it happen, we need some baseline changes. First of all, we need a formal, written constitution (approved by a national referendum), and a Supreme Court charged with defending it. No longer can we trust politicians to honour our informal constitution.
Secondly, I would suggest, we need an elected prime minister. That is not wholly linked with the above, but it seems to make sense. On the US lines – and recognising the predominant role of the prime minister in our system – we should as a nation elect our premier, who should not then be an MP, and nor should any of our ministers.
Thirdly, we may assert that no law shall be passed without the active consent of our parliament (requiring thereby a vote), and that no treaty or other device shall obtain which prevents parliament amending, changing or even rejecting a law or a proposal for a law – and that no law, even when passed, shall stand unless also it is constitutional.
I addressed my concerns with these comments on the forum but a brief breakdown by the numbers.
1. The very fact that we see these types of constitutional assaults constantly suggests that the political elite have no problem regularly taking a squat on any piece of paper we put in front of them as a defence, irrespective of how old that piece of paper is.
I feel, by and large, the problem has come about because, if the American experience is anything to go by, the document, with its myriad amendments, feels less like an enduring, physical icon of freedom and more like a rule book hastily annotated with a biro.
2. To verge mildly into pedant-territory the US President (and his Vice President) aren't actually elected to their post by plebiscite. Historically the trend is with the electorate but not always.
In any case what we see in elections is the lightest-weight scum rising to the top of a very, very low lying latrine; I don't see how adding a new echelon to our current rotten state will help.
3. This point I largely agree with, bar the constitutional bit which I mentioned above.
And I think this leads handily into what I feel would work better.
My central thesis is thus: much of politics, politicians, leaders, conquerors and despots is about imposing rules, laws, bye-laws, petty patronage and picking winners; this is all happening in a world in which the very foundations of our society change on a daily basis.
As a libertarian I believe strongly in negative liberties; freedom to do as thou wilt up to the point where it interferes with someone else's means of doing just that - whilst I am certain we would all be much better off if we could live like this I have come to accept that the human condition is much too powerful to allow us all to live in peace, an over-riding passion for interfering in others' lives' and generally thinking a situation isn't made better by tweaking it till its purple and falling off.
I would say that, in a theatre of ever-changing views and opinions of an increasingly distant electorate (whether due to opulence or to a political system that distances the electorate from any fundamental control of how they are governed) we need a system that is as accepting of the fast pace of society. Secondly, in order to overturn the incumbent system that thrives on the status quo and a disinterested plebiscite it needs to be simple and easy to engage with.
That is why I propose the following: the only elements contained in any british constitution should be fundamentally reductive - ideally the following:
- An expansion of officials who derive their power and livelihoods via plebiscite.
- An unreserved right to recall any elected officials.
- Sunset clauses and dates on all future laws, by-laws and statutory instruments and a retrospective element on existing laws set to the end of the next parliament.
The purpose of the above may not appear immediately obvious but I still believe it addresses many of the current shortfalls, particularly the final point on sunset clauses on all laws; we are still working in regulatory frameworks, under laws designed to protect us from crimes that can no longer exist (or are not effectively covered under existing laws) or are poorly written and have unintended consequences that have existed for decades in a world changing at an ever increasing pace - if history, ancient and recent, has taught us anything it is that governments ossify and kill real growth; particularly when they grow distant from their original purpose (as a trade-off of some freedoms to enjoy the others more effectively) and we need to address this.
Incumbent governments would no longer enjoy the vast autocratic power and ability to build new layers of laws on bad old ones; there would be a very limited time to debate adding a new sedimentary layer of waffle to the statute books rather than correct older laws; environmental laws double taxing consumers and acting beyond their necessary scope? Repeal or amend it accordingly, minimum pricing turns out to be an asinine idea that impoverishs, miserabalises the poor? Let it die after a term.
What's more this would appeal to the natural rationality in the public; to take stock of what your doing when it isn't working is at once one of the most innovative and smartest aspects of human thinking that has seen us to the top of the food chain - you can convince people of all creeds to take stock of decisions they make a lot easier than showing them where they went wrong - you could just as easily be wrong too.
And it is naturally reductive in the size of the state, encouraging a naturally happy medium of social and economic freedom and oppression which would naturally adapt to the nature of our culture - no government will focus on the minutiae of reactive politics, the preferable size or shape of fruit and veg or want to intrude into people's personal business without just cause if they become the government who then allows actual criminals en masse walking free because they didn't table a review of a particular law in their parliament - ultimately it would focus the mind of what must be some very bored mps.
The argument for a smaller, better state which reacts to a changing world in a measured and controlled way by naturally reviewing and discarding laws as they become obsolete and tweaking them as they go is an idea that is sellable to the public and a simpler way of getting the state to do its job and stay off our collective backs; no need for rebellion, blasé political manifestos from minority parties or unreasonable demands for fundamental changes in the makeup of our political system - just a call to add a use-by date on our political elites and, more importantly, their laws.
Bad ideas tend to outlive there creators - lets put an end to that.
4.4.12
Related To My Last Post...
Disclaimer: I am not a smoker, just consistent in my being pissed off at freedoms being poo-pooed on by our freedom-loving coagulation.
Master Snowden has a wonderful anecdote on his recent experiences trying to traverse the new "tobacco shutters" that have sprung up at every major supermarket across Britain; a similar thing has been seen at my local ASDA, Tesco and Morrisons lately, but as I don't (at least haven't for a decade or more) smoke I have not had the privilege of being denied tobacco from any of these establishments.
That said I am naturally all for this and, as with my last post want to see it applied elsewhere.
Yes I think this might work in the tupping, grot and saucy movie industry too.
I mean after all men do sexually assault women; all the time in fact, the news is rife with stories, and I'm guessing most men got the idea that women were all up for it from sexually charged literature and films giving that obviously false impression. Clearly this is entirely down to what people have access to and not down to the individual in question and we should puta stop to it so I put forth the following suggestions for your consideration:
I'm certain this idea will protect children and women alike from the dangers of passive grot-enjoyment; it'll be several years before third-hand grot enjoyment is eliminated but those crested uplands are on the horizon.
Master Snowden has a wonderful anecdote on his recent experiences trying to traverse the new "tobacco shutters" that have sprung up at every major supermarket across Britain; a similar thing has been seen at my local ASDA, Tesco and Morrisons lately, but as I don't (at least haven't for a decade or more) smoke I have not had the privilege of being denied tobacco from any of these establishments.
That said I am naturally all for this and, as with my last post want to see it applied elsewhere.
Yes I think this might work in the tupping, grot and saucy movie industry too.
To be enjoyed, but from behind a piece of white MDF.
I mean after all men do sexually assault women; all the time in fact, the news is rife with stories, and I'm guessing most men got the idea that women were all up for it from sexually charged literature and films giving that obviously false impression. Clearly this is entirely down to what people have access to and not down to the individual in question and we should puta stop to it so I put forth the following suggestions for your consideration:
- We place a 6ft tall barrier along the route through Spencer Place in Leeds with a 1ft gap at the bottom so punters can see the ladies of I'll reputes' legs and pick one on that basis; I know we run the risk of exciting sexual ardour by showing the legs but by god man, we aren't living in North Korea.
- The top shelf front bracket gets higher; I would suggest at least reaching the ceiling. It's contents can only be accessed by answering a number of elaborate questions to identify if your a sex fiend, a pervert or a 15 year old boy with a libido the size of a walrus.
- DVDs will naturally have white covers and plain DVDs which give no indication as to there contents.
In fact it be best to package these up at random in packs with blank DVD cases; that way potential perverts are forced to buy large numbers of Blank DVDs until they find one, potentially giving up in the process and instead recording a nice episode of Gardeners World or A Place in the Sun instead.
or they could tape Fireman Sam for the kids.
I'm certain this idea will protect children and women alike from the dangers of passive grot-enjoyment; it'll be several years before third-hand grot enjoyment is eliminated but those crested uplands are on the horizon.
27.3.12
Forget A Minimum Alcohol Price, Let's Put A Minimum Price On Paid-for Tupping
Yorkshires finest sex workers of Spencer Place
I've been thinking a lot about this minimum pricing lark and I've reached a conclusion; I like it. I fact I like it so much I can think of a number of other area we could apply it to:
- Receding hairline matt varnish.
- Vaseline intensive care eye-lid moisturiser.
- Cocaine and related products.
- Samuri swords.
For as you know a minimum price will have the following effects:
- it dissuades frivolous uses of those products it's applied to, leading to a much snazzier kind of user.
- it leads to better quality product as providers of poorer versions quickly go under.
Examples:
Receding hairline matt varnish
Ye gods the light! It burns!
VIC eye-lid moisturiser
Moisture. SO MUCH MOISTURE!
And clearly the last 2 examples never saw anything crop up as a consequence of raising the minimum price to, say, ooh 5 years in jail minimum.
Oh.
Well never mind that I have a rather elegant proposal we could apply minimum pricing too which would kill 2 (fat) birds with one stone.
We legalise prostitution and apply a minimum price for services rendered by sex workers; I can see it now (or hypothesise on the impact as my wife doesn't let me out after dark; it's scary out there) - beautiful, scantily clad maidens fair wandering the darker reaches of Leeds' Red Light District scanning for work, Roxanne will put on her red light tonight.
But wait Tom it just won't be that way you say? Why not - surely higher quality poontang will be in the offing if we raise the minimum price Bertha charges versus some lithe eastern European competition; it'll be safer too - the bottom-dwelling echelons of the market for sex will no longer have the cash to partake, prostitutes will be cleaner and safer as their violent cheapo-stinko punters disappear.
What do you mean that will put Bertha on the dole? She was on there already - why does it matter if she can't afford that Sky TV anymore? She was already finding it difficult to attract punters as it was, particularly since you banned smoking in her work place.
And wait your telling me those violent, dirty disease riddled punters just found other ways of getting rowdy, assaulting folks, drinking alcohol hand gel and sniffing glue? What - they managed to shack up with one another?
Then,
For what reason do you think pricing the violent, unwashed masses out of the drinking market will have an impact on their behaviour?
And even if it did why would you allow the purveyors of alcohol to keep the artificially raised profit from this activity?
There is no economic justification for creating a minimum price; there is no legitimate moral argument ultimately - your just spreading the misery on the lowest earners from the top.
But, by forcing the revenue onto the industry, which will see some companies who went for premium product not affected by minimum pricing, whilst killing other groups who sold alcohol to the lowest paid (and I believe we would be lucky to see this be neutral in aggregate on the alcohol industry) you create the least good, most destructive justification of them all: a political one.
Raising taxes is always unpopular, artificially raising prices further along the supply chain (whether it be money, booze, fags...) mitigates the effects of that unpopularity, moving it onto other groups (read big alcohol/tobacco/finance etc.)
Time we started focusing blame where due.
24.1.12
The Left Have Set The Bar
But Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg said on Tuesday he was a "strong supporter" of the cap, as were the "vast majority" of people, because it was "fair to say you can't receive more in benefits than if you were to earn £35,000 before tax".
And for one of those rare fleeting moments Mr. Clegg is right.
Still when all is said and done the question I will be asking to my mp Rachel Reeves and what I urge you to ask your own mp and assorted lefties will be this:
If £26,000 is not enough in take-home benefits to support those on welfare then why is it more than ample for a taxpaying worker?
Divvy up that figure into 2 people working and you get a minimum £13k income untaxed that Labour and associated peers say is desperately not enough to support a household; current standard tax free allowance is ~£6.5k for most folk.
So why is it ok to tax twice as much income from a hardworking taxpayer as it is to cap double that in benefits to someone who isn't working?
Blogging light for the foreseeable future; work heavy. Will try to get more in but money and patience in short supply. Stay safe and eyes open!
7.12.11
1.12.11
How To Cut The Public Sector Pay Bill, Give Them More Money To Pay For Higher Pension Contributions & Reduce Headcount
No, Not Via The Jeremy Clarkson Method
It seems everybody is doing it these days; my wife did it yesterday; it seems highly likely my work colleagues will be doing it next Friday and it is not entirely out of the question that my wife may be called to do it again in the very near future without resolution: I am of course talking about having some sort of naughty intercourse with a loved one despite the thrill being long gone.
Or striking due to pensions; I cant remember which as I have had very little sleep in the past few days.
In both cases my view on the subject has changed little (my feelings on the content of the arguement on both sides are a different matter): the government has been keen to kick this particular ball into the long grass well into the future for decades and a considerable ratcheting up of the public sector liabilities in terms of wages, pensions and perks is now being challenged by a massive financial crisis in major part caused by the kind of intervention perpetrated by those self-same civil servants. However, those civil servants did sign a contract in good faith with their paymasters with a view to getting a particular benefit in return for the sweat of their brow; if there paymasters wanted to change the terms of their pay for new employees then that would be fine but that is not what is being offered: as this BBC Q&A on the pension strikes shows what we actually have is an attempt to change the goal-posts midway through.
Irrespective of what libertarians think of the public sector pay, scope and conditions (here is an excellent example) I cant help but think we should see this from a contractual point of view - they offered a service for which the expected returns are now being renegotiated; however you feel about the supposed fore-knowledge of those self-same unions and workers about the likelihood of their fields continued expansion and the ability to meet the ever increasing wage and pension bill, the coercive autocracy that Labour became (ever was?) that perpetrated this massive expansion knowing full well that history would regard them as heroes and the incoming conservatives as monsters stealing milk and pensions and stuff and would forget about the actual detail such as the former government having no credible plan to pay for any of it or the actions of a few rogue bankers intent on derailing the whole socialist utopian exercise by employing cutting-edge financial instruments that mainly focused on the financial powerhouses of black men in string vests' - for the record I think it's a combination of all 3 of the above (the bankers in question being central bankers, not, as is obviously assumed, entirely at the doorway to commercial banks, though undoubtedly not helped); you need just look at the asinine suggestions of union leaders over the last few years - government has Ponzi'd all our pension contributions away on Cherie Blair's human rights law firm and Gordon Brown vanity projects? Pension fund has been scuttled by poor pension investment vehicles? I know! Soak the rich! shut down global trade! charge people for sending/receiving spam! To me that sounds like a good reason to linch your paymasters, not rob the productive and successful.
Anyway, coming back off tangent, how do we solve the problem? I have a 3-point plan on how to deal with the problem that is both elegant, simple, non-fattening and would prove almost universally popular by all but the most left-wing, swivel-eyed sociopathic, diversity mung-bean, poy-dance coordinator (so am guessing about half of them): it would enable:
- The public sector by and large to get a pay increase.
- Enable them to also afford the new pension contributions being asked for.
- Reduce the overall headcount of some of the British public's least favourite aspects of the public sector with little or no fuss from the remainder.
My idea?
The public sector pay average as of January this year out-stripped the private sector at £23,660 compared to £21,528 (and I am certain this figure doesn't take into account the other perks such as the final salary pension schemes etc. so the difference has some ancillary factors pushing this even higher); this means that net an average public sector employee takes home approximately £17,470 according to my shiny Listen to Taxman app on my iPhone; just short of £1500 a month spare. To give them a "happy" pay rise lets assume we match inflation - call it a 5% pay rise + 3% for the additional requested pension contributions for simplicity: that would mean the take home pay increase should be ~£1575 a month or an extra £1400 extra a year.
So again Tom get to your point - what's your idea?
Simple: immeadiately reduce public sector pay by 6-8% and make the remaining income-tax free (NICs, student loans and pension contributions etc. remain).
The difference in the cut wage bill and the increased take home pay + pension contributions would be more than enough to keep the workers happy; you could then renegotiate new and recent starters' pension schemes with less fuss kicked up by those lucky enough to have a final salary pension, perhaps by ending national pay scales and paying new recruits weighted against their predecessor.
This also carries the advantage of making the public sector the most vocal group on the reserve to argue against increasing income taxation and high NICs - it would not be tolerated for long were the public sector wage bill to rise again and the issue of "fairness" would be thoroughly abandoned by those self-same groups with their massive advantage over taxation.
This also just makes sense; why on earth do we think it's a good idea to pay our employees only to take a portion of the cash back in order to pay other employees? Why not just pay them less, code them differently in the tax system and remove them altogether?
But what about the higher paid local council millionaires Tomrat I hear (myself?) scream? Fair enough - charge them a high rate of national insurance and/or remove any upper maximum take; failing that stop voting for spineless politicians and ask for real, bloody reform of the system that allows the mass looting of public finances. Similar rant but this time about QuANGOs? They aren't public sector bodies or the tax code doesn't apply - as such they are subject to whatever rules for taxation the rest of us put up with but would find themselves with all the problems of a rapidly reducing pension pot; the pressure will be on the government to fold them back in and reform/remove their role.
The only people who should be out of work at the end of this exercise should be a couple of thousand HMRC admin staff who are surplus to requirements as a large number of tax returns, PAYE forms and ancillary documentation will simply cease to be processed.
As far as I can see this government has missed a vital opportunity to argue for reform of the public sector by instead focusing on reduction of the bill they will always lose the latter arguement because without addressing the former civil servants will reduce at the coalface, not the back offices and executive suites; the managers are not going to vote for less management. All that is left to this current government if they want to make an impact is elegant, unarguable changes to the system that are both exercises in reform and compromises on the subject of money; a subject the state seems constantly fixated on.
23.11.11
Gah!!!
At work I now enter the period of the year when I'm trying to make sense of the ongoing chaos: what has been spent, what has been ordered and what has been requested and present it to all the people who pay my wages and decide if the whole thing is worth doing next year or not.
And I just had my laptop stolen from my car.
And as a security measure I've had IT account access suspended until a new one arrives; I've got to request desktop access in the interim.
My Christian patience is being tested this morning.
And I just had my laptop stolen from my car.
And as a security measure I've had IT account access suspended until a new one arrives; I've got to request desktop access in the interim.
My Christian patience is being tested this morning.
5.11.11
Yes Mr. Cameron But How?
 |
| Laugh it up. Assholes. |
David Cameron has said increasing UK contributions to the International Monetary Fund "does not put Britain's taxpayers' money at risk".
The PM said it was "in our interests" to support the IMF but stressed again that the money would not support a eurozone bailout.
Riiii'ght. So he can absolutely guarantee that te ex-French Finance Minister now head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, halining from the very country up to it's eyeballs in Greek-debt, will not be dipping her hands in the till to shore up her countries precarious financial failings?
And how, might I add are you going to stop this? You seem to be pretty sure of yourself that you can convince the G20 but the IMF is a transnational entity; it doesn't have to listen to a word you say - it is beyond your feeble control CastPig-Iron Dave, and what will you do when it hands the cash over to French banks? Reduce our contributions next time?
He also suggested any increase would not be put to a vote in the Commons.
So you know you are going to lose so you have decided mp's don't get a say? How very Blairesque of you.
When I asked my MP to vote for a plebiscite on our Eurozone membership the other week and was promptly told no I had promised her that I would make it a hobby, nay, a favourite past time to bring it to everyones attention in her constituency just how much she has cost us by her towing the party line, greasy-pole climbing actions and see if her less than 25% of the electorate will keep her in power.
What makes you think Mr. Cameron that I will any less easy on any of your candidates in Leeds? Most are in precarious positions as it is and I will see them lose to a Labour'ious candidate before I allow you to circumvent parliament.
You will pay for your promise breaking to the electorate in small cuts and I promise I will contribute to that humiliation.
You and Osbo the Clown started out mediocre at best but at least in the right direction; you have now sold off all the savings made from your cuts for international recognition and praise by players who wouldn't sooner wipe their dog-shit stained shoes on you.
There is a reckoning coming.
16.10.11
One Before Bed
Have just finished watching Thursday's BBC Question Time in which Mark Littlewood from the IEA gave an impassioned defence of free market economics in a hall of question time's usual swivel-eyed left-wing lunatics.
What was particularly interesting was the rousing debate on the future of the NHS - it doesn't take much to raise the ire of the assembled state-paid paper shufflers, diversity coordinators & 5-a-day managers.
What was particular interesting was the widespread detachment from reality about the state of our healthcare; it soon degenerated into "no, the NHS's outcomes are better than [insert evil private/any other healthcare system]'s".
He pointed out that he was not going to bite into the usual canard of "you just want the NHS to be the US healthcare system" and pointed to other systems like Singapore's, only to be shouted down saying it was even worse.
Apparently the WHO disagree; it ranks Singapore at #6.
The UK? Number 18.
Emotionalism aside how about we go for reductionist's approach: we simply copy what the WHO's #1 healthcare system is doing: France.
So how does this system work then (note: links wikipedia, emboldened/underlined text my own)?
Oh wait:
What was particularly interesting was the rousing debate on the future of the NHS - it doesn't take much to raise the ire of the assembled state-paid paper shufflers, diversity coordinators & 5-a-day managers.
What was particular interesting was the widespread detachment from reality about the state of our healthcare; it soon degenerated into "no, the NHS's outcomes are better than [insert evil private/any other healthcare system]'s".
He pointed out that he was not going to bite into the usual canard of "you just want the NHS to be the US healthcare system" and pointed to other systems like Singapore's, only to be shouted down saying it was even worse.
Apparently the WHO disagree; it ranks Singapore at #6.
The UK? Number 18.
Emotionalism aside how about we go for reductionist's approach: we simply copy what the WHO's #1 healthcare system is doing: France.
So how does this system work then (note: links wikipedia, emboldened/underlined text my own)?
France has a system of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "best overall health care" in the world.[1] In 2005, France spent 11.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,926 per capita, a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.[2]Great so let's spend more money on healthcare! A chorus of praise for this action goes up amongst of Britains established medical monopoly!
Oh wait:
Most general physicians are in private practice but draw their income from the public insurance funds. These funds, unlike their German counterparts, have never gained self-management responsibility. Instead, the government has taken responsibility for the financial and operational management of health insurance (by setting premium levels related to income and determining the prices of goods and services refunded).[1]So the government operates a virtual monopsony on healthcare spending just not on healthcare provision ("we are willing to pay this for that treatment"). It also garners the costs back from people in a manner in which they only pay what they can afford, very progressive.
The French National Health Service generally refunds patients 70% of most health care costs, and 100% in case of costly or long-term ailments. Supplemental coverage may be bought from private insurers, most of them nonprofit, mutual insurers. Until recently, coverage was restricted to those who contributed to social security (generally, workers or retirees), excluding some poor segments of the population; the government of Lionel Jospin put into place "universal health coverage" and extended the coverage to all those legally resident in France. Only about 3.7% of hospital treatment costs are reimbursed through private insurance, but a much higher share of the cost of spectacles and prostheses (21.9%), drugs (18.6%) and dental care (35.9%) (Figures from the year 2000). There are public hospitals, non-profit independent hospitals (which are linked to the public system), as well as private for-profit hospitals.The average, reasonably healthy health consumer has to pay some of their costs, ensuring that that consumer is at least sensitive to the price of it, either in noticing which way their health premiums are going or how it hits the wallet if they have to pay the difference, and as we know human beings are very sensitive creatures - they want to command the maximum number of high quality goods or services they can with the resource available to them (this is actually the real definition of wealth - getting something more valuable in return for something less; in this case lower healthcare costs for same/better healthcare). Those who can't pay or will have chronic long term costs are fully covered.
Average life expectancy in France at birth is 81 years.[3][4]
And the state doesn't massive intervene in who provides the healthcare.
I think we could with that level of choice too; let's hope that Lansley's tome goes some of the way to providing that. Not holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)