Slashdot Mirror
UK Health Service Fears Huge Legal Fight Over Unwanted Contracts
DMandPenfold writes "The Department of Health is concerned that Fujitsu, CSC and BT would team up against it in a multibillion pound legal fight, should it decide to scrap the disastrous NHS National Program for IT. Fujitsu walked away from a £709 million contract in 2008, and remains locked in legal wrangling with the government over claims for the majority of the value. Today, MPs urged the government to seriously consider abandoning the program and therefore to consider terminating the remaining CSC and BT contracts, worth £3 billion and £1 billion respectively."
I read the summary and "disastrous NHS National Program for IT" reminds me of UK Taxpayers' Money Getting Wasted On IT Spending.
both sides are to blame here - government agencies are often really bad in project management and contractors are abusing this...
Summaries actually summarised the article, and not just reposted the first two paragraphs of it...
(The below is my opinion, not a summary of the article)
Basically, what has happened is that the Great And Wonderful NHS Computerised Records System has been in the doldrums for so long that we have ended up with a situation where every GP (community doctor for those not in the UK, they run their own clinics outside of hospitals) and every hospital has implemented their own computer records system, with the large majority of them incompatible with each other.
The only semblance of the NHS wide system to come to light in a customer facing manner has been the emergency care records, which is a computerised subset of your entire record meant to be accessible to every A&E (ER) department in the country - but they still haven't rolled it out to everyone, and it won't be rolled out to everyone it would seem.
It has gotten to the point where the NHS requirements have changed so much that the contracting companies are now walking away from their contracts because they are being asked to do so much more work under the original commitments.
This whole thing has been collossally mismanaged from the start, the current government just gets the blame for the result...
... whose palms were greased to secure the signature of those dodgy contracts in the first place?
BT get shafted? What a shame. Couldn't happen to a nicer company.
Maybe governments should start writing contracts that only pay up if a usable systems s delivered at the end of it ?
OK know this is a gross oversimplification but at least it would give the people doing the work some decent motivation to make sure it did actually work in the end.
I was brought in as a capacity planner on a former NHS computerization contract about 30 years ago. After 3 months there s was obvious to me that what the were doing, the very silly way they were doing it was not going to ft on the IBM mainframe they had specified to do this.
On pointing this out to them I was told that some very highly paid consultants had said it was going to work and who was I, a lowly contractor, to question their wisdom even though this was the job they brought me in to do.
I was asked to produce some pretty pictures and my contract was not renewed.
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
Once again, this proves anything that needs to get done, gets done, privately (doctors implementing their own electronic database) without the need of government. The government's version is more costly, inadequate, corrupt, full of nepotism and fraud. The private system does what needs to be done without the heavy hand of government, better, cheaper, faster. And all without the threat of force.
This reminds me a lot of the essay I, Pencil: My Family Tree. Anything that needs to be done can be done better in the hands of private free individuals.
They SHOULD have started with defining an electronic format that all the records could be stored in.
THEN pay for a project to convert the documents into that format. And while that's underway, work on letting each trust work out who would do the work to get a product reading that format.
But no, they wanted the whole lot done in one go.
Because a project that big looks important and can ONLY be solved by a vast corporation.
s/health/defence
The UK is once again in the ludicrous situation it was in of having actual government ministers go on TV and tell the country it's cheaper to go ahead and build pointless aircraft carriers than stop the projects right now. We see once again the level of courage they had with the banks - who just announced *bonuses*, not investments or redundancy payments, freaking *bonuses*, of £14bn - paid for by the real workers. Announced co-incidentally the day the Murdochs were publicly grilled, so it got little coverage. Thank goodness it's not their money.
I guess no one in the NHS has heard of the term "Minimum Viable Product". Build the simplest thing that works and provides some value to someone, then iterate and improve from there. As the saying goes, "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."
Forbidding the Government to make any contract which it cannot terminate within 3 months of announcing its intention to do so.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I'm sorry, but you particular view of the world breaks when people need to work together that have no reason to work together other than that 'The People' would like them to.
Localized private companies don't want to invest money in being able to exchange data with other localized private companies (possibly in a completely different country), since they don't have any use for such a system.
And if you get hit somewhere where the local company doesn't have coverage, and you unfortunately die because you're hyper allergic to penicilline.. Well. That's not their problem, now is it?
That's what you have government for, to have some sort of control over all the little fiefdoms. Although I agree with you that what government tends to do nowadays is far overreaching.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
You just need to define a file format and exchange protocol (including security), the rest can get get done on an ad-hoc basis by each individual healthcare institution. Cryptographically sign the file (and if you want, the trail) to ensure a single up-to-date copy and you're done, no centralisation needed - we could call it.....MedBitcoin?
The UK government in this situation is (attempting) to fulfill a need of society by commissioning the construction of a piece of 'public infrastructure' that the government deemed the society needed.
Actually, the real problem in the UK is that, because, since WW2, we have alternated between socialist and capitalist governments, we have ended up with an infrastructure that sometimes combines the social conscience of capitalism with the freedom and efficiency of socialism. We have socialist structures that conservative governments hate and want to fail, but can't openly abolish because the voters actually rather like them (and know damned well that even if they were abolished, we'd only see token tax cuts). We get public money used to engage private contractors, and "commercial confidentiality" use by the government to avoid public scrutiny. We get road and rail transport nationalized by a socialist government, then the profitable bit (road) privatized by the next while rail goes to hell, finally we get rail semi-sold off in a bizarre kludge where one company owns the rails and other companies run the trains on ridiculously short franchises that deter any investment. We get nonsensical "internal markets" set up in the NHS whereby public bodies are supposed to compete like private companies...
Probably the best solution to the NHS would have been to set up a quango which employed its own development team to produce its own system based on an open data exchange standard. A socialist solution to a socialist problem: put taxpayers money in, get a bit of public infrastructure out. Instead, we get a half-baked mix of government bureaucracy and private contracts with "for profit" companies.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Governments do IT very inefficiently, they are also clueless when outsourcing but they think that they're good at it. Vendors have teams who manage deals all the time and a government agency thinks that it can draw a team together every few years and not get skinned by the vendors. It a bit like the hometown team going up against a bunch of pros. .. teir n way that vendors said to do it was not economically feasible. But Government and the dinosaurs of the business world are still investing in these technologies.
Internal government IT departments make these vendors attractive because they're monopolies, if the business want to wind down costs that means cutting services, there are no creative cost effective solutions. For example every innovative IT company over the past decade is using local storage not SANs as they figured out that doing storage the classic tier 1
Government buy software solution that only have a single supplier such are Microsoft, Oracle etc. You will never get a decent price or decent service when there is only one supplier, this is a market principle which governments choose to ignore. Hardware has become cheap because there's multiple supplier but the price of software has increased.
The bottom line is seek commoditisation, make markets work for you rather than against you and finally run software development like a lottery. Small teams of developers can actually out-compete most large organisations if the solution is chunked in the right way.
Name a single example where private individuals failed to step up to the plate and deal with a real problem?
Today, if I change doctors, and I have numerous times, they request information from my last doctor, this system, that has been around for as long as doctors have been around, has yet to fail me. As far as allergies are concerned, people with unusual or extreme allergies carry around a medical bracelet or necklace that describes the allergies. Furthermore, if you cannot be identified because you are without ID and unconscious, the bracelet would be far more valuable than a unfetchable medical record.
The Electronic health record has been around for a long time, with numerous private sponsors and a half dozen viable standards for use. And now the government wants to "revolutionize medicine" by giving us "electronic health records" as if the private industry hasn't been doing this for decades. Oh and by the way, we're paying for the government to invent "electronic health records" as if it didn't exist. Do you really think that govenrment buricrats are going to contrubute to this system? I think they will decimate it as they do with everything else they touch.
But if you still think the "government way" is better, check out the number of private companies offering:
Now, compare this to the number of government's anywhere offering any of this. Draw your own conclusions.
Rather than experiment with individuals, why not let the natural course of things take place? You seem to agree that the government can only bungle things, so wouldn't it be better if they were to just step back? Government interference in any industry turns that industry from natural order to chaos by substituting the laws of nature with their own versions, causing uncertainty and inefficiency.
I fail to see the value added by having the government do things that the private individual is perfectly capable of doing himself and better. Is everyone so stupid that they cannot do anything without the forceful hand of government and the infinitely intelligent legislators? And if the people are so inept, how can they be trusted to elect intelligent legislators? That's vicious circular logic of socialism.
I also cannot think of a single example, national defense and courts not withstanding, where the government can do a better job than private industry. In fact, I challenge you to find me a single example..
I patiently await your reply.
"t would be trivial to deploy a..."
Almost every time someone says this about an IT problem, that usually means they don't understand the complexity of requirements, and you'll end up spending 10x as much as you think you will.
I'm not defending the integrators in this case (we don't know enough about this project to say who is at fault), but there is rarely a large IT project that can be solved as simply as "throw up a data base and...".
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
As someone who was involved with the project from early on...
The NHS really didn't know what it wanted, it just knew that it kinda wanted some sort of joined up system, and that it had a massive wodge of cash to spend.
Result? Even when the project was years late, the NHS was STILL delivering requirements.
Add to that entrenched company's refusing to be a part of the project and working against it from the outside (One of the biggest GP software suppliers did this), good old fashioned stupidity, and a reporting structure that was classically backwards, everyone could see it would have issues.
The big suppliers are far more astute than government is. They could see several years down the line that the project would get canned, especially if the Tories got in, so they started building to that conclusion to the project (and turned it into a self-fulfilling prophecy).
One last kick at everyone involved... the GPs themselves. Under the ideas of "privacy", they fought the system wholesale. Despite the system having adequate safeguards in place. The reality is that the system would make it easier to expose bad practice among HCPs, and harder to bury evidence when needed by FOI requests. You can't sell that system to the people who are using it... it would be like making politicians vote for making themselves more transparent. Never going to happen.
Pollution.
I presume you are American.
Your country has large numbers of people who cannot quit jobs they hate because they need health insurance from a large employer. They cannot consider working for a small business. (This is the experience of someone I know directly.)
Large numbers of your population have no insurance at all.
Your country won't have decent public transport because it's for teh commies. You would rather fund the arabs more than use more efficient transport.
Let me guess - these are not "real problems" ?
Roads in areas without dense population in my country won't be paid for without taxpayers, people who live in rural areas of my country benefit from subsidy from the more densely populated and "profitable" areas.
Interestingly, here in civilisation people did stand on the crease and solve the problem like the brave individuals they are - they elected successive non-libertarian governments.
The Sacred Market (Blessings and Peace be upon its Holy Name and Works) is part of the mental framework that you use to justify your utter selfishness.
I live in the UK and i am no fan of the NHS, its outcomes are some of the worst in the western world and the staff in my experience are rude, unsympathetic and terminal jobsworths.
I now have private medical insurance for my family due to the utter incompetence of the NHS, if I or someone i loved were ill i would genuinely be frightened for their safety being treated in an NHS hospital.
Because the admin who is running across the hospital with the paper records is holding the plaintext version. They can read it. Someone can intercept the records and read it and when stored, someone can break into the records room and read it.
Or the transfer could be done wirelessly. Enctrypt to the public key of the doctor who wants it, sent it over the air. Sorted.
Roads.
Public transport.
Water supply.
Government built the telephone networks originally in this country, then handed the network to a private monopoly in the late 80s. BT was very profitable at that time.
Not sure if any advanced country has an entirely laissez faire education system? (Private primary and secondary schools have a much easier job - they cherry pick clever children and can discipline and eject the real troublemakers.)
Public service broadcasting provides much better news than conglomerates.
BBC radio is vastly superior to anything on commercial radio. (It does come from an unfair charge - licence fee paid by anyone who owns a TV, regardless of how much bbc they watch or listen to.)
Public libraries (now becoming less used because of the internet, of course.)
Police - I think most people wouldn't want that to be a for profit enterprise.
Some people can understand that the profit motive will not lead to providing all services to all people. Talking to a libertarian is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
I smell bullshit. A termination clause is normal even when there isn't a "you don't get paid until it works" clause.
Anecdotes aren't data, but to provide a counterpoint, I live in the UK, and without the intervention of the NHS, I wouldn't live anywhere.
99% all solutions for pollution in existence today have come from the labor of private individuals, without being forced to do so by the government. How can you government is superior? Are you suggesting that the government has a "magic" power plant does not pollute that private industry is incapable of using? A car that runs on air? What is this thing that the government has that you think private industry is incapable of possessing?
The strictest socialist government in the world is also the world's worst polluter, while most free market companies promote their 'green initiatives' without force from the government. Why? Because they think it will help promote their public image which will result in more profit. Because their customers demand it. The solution to smog did not jettison as a projectile from a government gun, but though talented engineers in private companies. Do private companies pollute? Yes. Does the government pollute? Yes. Is the pollution of one somehow inherently less toxic than the other? At least with private industry polluting there is recourse if their actions have harmed you. Can you say the same about the government?
See if I have this right.
IF you're correct and you need 10x the money to agree to getting the work done, then the following options are the only ones on the table
1) You actually NEED 10x the money to do what you said you could do for the contracted price
2) You only have a 10% chance of doing the work you said you'd do
3) You're just making figures up because you DO NOT WANT to have to actually produce the work you said you could
You present a false choice though. You imply that if NSH wasn't there that doctors would not exist for some reason. I contend that doctors practice in spite of NHS.
It's been said already but at the end of the day any database system for archiving records can be put together by a small team of developers in the space of a few months.
The tricky part is scaling but then it's only a matter of scaling the back end database system and any modern database server (even the free ones) is easily scalable these days, the rest is network and connectivity and thats a doddle.
As far as cost goes, I seriously think someone cooked up a price and then added several zero's to the end of it, I cannot fathom how they can achieve a price of several billion GBP for a database project, I imagine several small Caribbean islands were purchased when the monies were handed over...
Not quite - what I mean to imply was that if my life-sustaining neonatal incubation wasn't provided by the NHS, it wouldn't have been provided by any doctors due to lack of payment etc.
Not entirely evidenced, of course - which puts it on equal par with your own contention,
digital radiology works, but is generally a standalone system and poorly integrated.
GP to GP transfers - well that would have happened anyway.
Lorenzo is totally dead in the water. Involved in product testing of modules in last 3/12 - doesn't even get to first base. hopelessly broken.
Yes CERNER Millennium works, but is a maladapted dinosaur, with the same evolutionary potential.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
99% all solutions for pollution in existence today have come from the labor of private individuals,
Citation needed.
Are you suggesting that the government has a "magic" power plant does not pollute that private industry is incapable of using?
Strawman.
What is this thing that the government has that you think private industry is incapable of possessing?
Rhetorical question, based on complete ignorance of the reason behind government.
The strictest socialist government
Citation needed that that is China (on multiple levels).
in the world is also the world's worst polluter,
Citation needed.
while most free market companies promote their 'green initiatives' without force from the government.
Citation needed.
Because they think it will help promote their public image which will result in more profit.
Citation needed.
The solution to smog did not jettison as a projectile from a government gun, but though talented engineers in private companies.
Citation needed.
At least with private industry polluting there is recourse if their actions have harmed you.
Citation needed.
Can you say the same about the government?
Rhetorical question, based on complete ignorance of how government works.
Wow, that was fun. You made every factual statement up out of whole cloth, and are ignorant of the most basic premises behind government AND private enterprise.
I'm sad to say, but you're a shining example of what passes for a Libertarian in the US: Ignorant and full of strawmen and rhetoric based on ignorance.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You present a false dichotomy AND a strawman. In one sentence. Clever. To spell it out for you: Doctors existing does not imply access to doctors. NHS doctors existing does imply access.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And, even given all it's faults, the NHS itself is massively more cost-efficient than the American system.
The same can be said in reverse. Some leave their jobs to go to a job that has better health care. At least we have a choice. Tell me what your plans are when you find that your health care is poor? And BTW when was the last time you visited a dentist? I pay $150.00/yr for dental insurance through Delta Dental, I pay $20 for a visit, $10 per filling $80 for a crown. I have a cavity so I made an appointment two days ago for today, I could have gone yesterday. I'm just wondering, how long does it take for you to get an appointment with a dentist? The insurer with most denied claims in the U.S. is Medicare, not a private insurer. I already know who is the largest denier of claims in the U.K. and it dwarfs the number in Medicare. I guess there's something to this whole "pay for goods and services" thing. It sort of gives people an incentive to do things. Meanwhile in the socialist countries you rely upon what? The goodness of the doctor? What exactly makes people want to become doctors in the UK? The 8 years of school? The cost of the schooling? It's certainly not the big payout when they get a job like here in the U.S.. But I guess that's why the U.K. has severe shortages of doctors.
Anyone who wants health care in this country gets it. Period. Everyone in the U.S. pays into medicare and medicaid. These are for retired/injured and poor respectively. The percentage of people with healthcare in this country is around 97%. That's if you don't count 1) people who have never applied to medicaid/medicare 2) people between providers 3) illegal aliens. These three groups account for about 15% of the uninsured. Another 3% truly cannot obtain insurance for some reason or another. A lot of the time however that reason is often the government preventing them from obtaining insurance, for instance by preventing the sale of insurance across state lines.
There's more socialist logic. Presenting a false choice. So if the government runs things they don't "fund the arabs"? In fact, government tampering with the right to drill for oil domestically is what makes us resort to "the arabs" as you call them in the first place. The enviro-socialist logic being: even with looser environmental controls, that's the "arab's" earth, not ours so our earth isn't harmed.
We are free do do what we want, some people want public transportation and some people want to drive a car. It's called freedom. And how little you know about where I come from. I live in California, the state with the least public transportation among the 50 states. It is said we enjoy driving, and indeed I do. I have a very fast sports car that gets really bad gas mileage, but it makes me happy to drive it, and I happily pay more for that right. But in spite of this and the fact that California has half the population of the UK, we have massive public transportation systems that dwarf the UKs. These systems not only can take you from anywhere to anywhere in this state but from anywhere in this state to anywhere in the union. Here in Long Beach, CA we have the Long Beach Transit, we have the Orange Country Transit and about three or four other independent transit companies operating public bus lines. And that's not counting private companies like grayhound or yellow cabs. We have so many damn bus lines in Long Beach someone thought it clever to even have a UK style double bus line, just for fun. There's also th
Where did you get that I implied access to doctors? Or didn't? I made no inference in either direction. I stated that the lack of NHS does not mean that doctors cease to exist. And what's the straw man argument I presented? That doctors operate in spite of the NHS? I think that's a pretty widely held position among doctors in the NHS, not that I've taken a poll or anything, but it's hardly a straw man argument, mostly because it isn't even an argument! But if you need proof of this non-argument, look at the severe shortage of doctors in the UK as proof of a less than desirable environment for doctors.
I also cannot think of a single example, national defense and courts not withstanding, where the government can do a better job than private industry. In fact, I challenge you to find me a single example..
The NHS provides a reasonable level of healthcare to the *entire* population at a cost per head of about 60% of the US system.
I realize you will not accept this because of your ideology, but it commands a *very* high level of support from the UK population which is why right-wing parties who wish to get elected in this country *have* to pledge to defend the NHS (at least the basic principle - free to all at the point of use, paid for from general taxation).
In many countries in Europe even with most of them having right-wing governments, healthcare *is* regarded as a basic government service as important as the police or the army.
I assert that in the UK, the government does a better job of healthcare than the private sector would. I can't prove it of course (as the alternative is obviously untried in the UK in modern times) and you will no doubt rubbish it. But a large enough majority of the UK population agree with me to ensure its future indefinitely, including many of those who wholeheartedly supported the privatization of nearly every previously state owned industry in the 80's/90's.
I also cannot think of a single example, national defense and courts not withstanding, where the government can do a better job than private industry. In fact, I challenge you to find me a single example..
I patiently await your reply.
Well, according to the WHO the USA spends more per capita on its nice capitalist healthcare system (that the right wing parties are fighting so hard to defend) than any other country, including all the free healthcare systems.
Of course, because that money isn't taxes that's fine and dandy, and everybody has the Gawd-given freedom to cross their fingers and hope they don't get ill.
But I guess middle-class Americans do have good teeth.
Oh, and a few years ago, most of the world listened to the ultracapitalists and removed lots of regulation from the financial industries.
That went well.
What with all the bail-outs needed to keep the credit flowing, is there any truly private industry left any more?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Ignorant AND stupid. Libertarian indeed.
The point that you keep missing - I still don't know if that's deliberate ignorance or not - is that the AC was referring to the fact that without the NHS, he wouldn't have ACCESS to doctors. Something that is very different from doctors not existing, but that has the same impact for him.
I'm sure the next thing you're going to trot out is that it's his own fault that without the NHS, he wouldn't have had the money for a doctor. I mean, infants should be personally responsible for their health care, right? And if they aren't, they should definitely pay for the sins of their clearly worthless parents.
Libertarians, I swear.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Since the government in the U.S. does not control or own any industry, it follows that all innovations for any industry come from private industry. I was being kind when I gave the government %1, but I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove the 1%, the 99% is self evident. The DOE does not make anything the EPA does not make anything. If you still need a citation, I'll need to know how you want me to quantify it. I assure you, no matter how you count it, innovation belongs to private industry.
No, this is not a straw man, this is in fact the core of the argument. I need to know why you think the government can do "it" better than private individuals. What does government posses that private individuals do not?
I have read more volumes about government than I even care to list here. From Plato to Hobbes to Locke and just about everything in between. Literally dozens of books including ones that I disagree with like Bossuet, Blanc and Marx. That you declare my ignorance on the subject based on that statement speaks volumes about you.
I guess you've never been to China.
And it really does suck: Environment in the People's Republic of China. Did you know, that in China, they use what's called night soil? That is, they use human fecal material to feed their crops. Now, I'm not sure how you quantify "strict'. So here's a try Highest number of people annually executed, massive Religious intolerance the adoption of the Communist form of socialism, the strictest form of socialism, dictating the eradication of all other political thought. I can go on if you require more citations. Ever hear of Tibet?
Here's about 25.7 million You can go though them. But I'm telling you now, it would be more difficult to find a company that doesn't have some sort of "green initiative"
All of the results from the link above were about companies trying to promote their public image through green initiatives. And they do speak for themselves.
What regulations were removed? There were no loosening of regulations. If there was show me the citation. There isn't a more regulated system than the ones in place for financial institutions. The reason for the collapse, if you care to go back and find out, is largely due to people defaulting on home loans to GSA's (government entities) that the government forced down private banks throats. Because they were GSAs they were not subject to the regulation of the FTC, but to congress, under the stewardship of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. They first encouraged giving loans to minorities who otherwise would have been turned down (due to poor credit rating) and discouraged any sort of audit of Fannie or Freddie who eventually admitted to "cooking the books". But don't take my word for it, do a little reading.. Increasing regulation in an already over-regulated industry to combat government agencies that were not even subject to the regulation in the first place is just wrong. The reason this is 'so secret' is that the main stream media is overwhelmingly liberal and the idea that the GSAs can fuck something so bad doesn't fit their ideology so they report on it as sparingly as possible.
Since the government in the U.S. does not control or own any industry, it follows that all innovations for any industry come from private industry.
Only by a very narrow definition of industry and control. What do you call SEC and EPA regulations?
Are you suggesting that the government has a "magic" power plant does not pollute that private industry is incapable of using?
Do you know what a strawman is? It's an argument that no is making, created for the sole sake of knocking it down. The quote is a strawman, because no one is making the argument you're making.
What does government posses that private individuals do not?
Really? You're asking that question? I'll just put out a really, really obvious example: what's more effective, a private individual shooting at trespassers, or the US Army shooting at trespassers?
I have read more volumes about government than I even care to list here.
Notice I didn't say anything about your reading habits. Merely about your knowledge. The two are not identical. Quite obviously so, in your case. And for the record, I probably read more than you.
Stuff about China
I'm shocked that you actually have citations. Too bad you didn't read them. Your rediff link, for example, points out that there are multiple definitions of polluters, and under one of them, Australia is actually ranked #1, and China #44. Things are never as easy as they look. This is no clearer demonstrated than with capital punishment and imprisonment. Did you know that the US has more prisoners per capita than China? I'll just point at Wikipedia, since you seem to be fine using that as a source (I'm sure you know it really isn't). China is so big that a lot of national numbers are misleading. Finally, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia entry for Communism, because China isn't communist. It very much is its own form of government, rooted in a few thousand years of government and philosophical traditions.
Again, it goes to show that reading is not the same as understanding.
Here's one for you to get started "mesothelioma lawyer"
And why is that effective? Because of government laws. Find me something that shows you have guaranteed recourse outside of getting any government agency involved - recourse being made whole.
Google link
Google is not a source. Don't be lazy.
Ever hear of the right of citizens to redress grievances [wikipedia.org] with the government?
So you're saying, it kinda works like lawsuits or anything else? Shocking. Furthermore, I was looking for something much simpler. Look up the concept of voting.
I've backed up 100% of my assertions with facts.
Yeah... about that. Your sources didn't even support the assertions you were trying to back up with them, if they didn't flat out contradict them. Good job.
And to that end, I suggest you honestly sit down and read The Law [constitution.org] It's not even 50 pages long if you double space them, and in the time it takes to argue with me, you can read one of the books I draw my arguments from and sort of "skip the middleman".
I find Proudhon more convincing than Bastiat, which isn't saying much. Bastiat, while certainly able to see the fallacies of socialism taken too far, is unable to follow his own arguments to their logical conclusion. Furthermore, he commits the sin of building a great theoretical construct of the law that completely ignores the realities of human nature. You can argue that we should all aspire to be great people, but the reality is that most of us aren't, and will never be. As a result, his basic premise that government non-intervention will always lead to the optimal human development is a complete non-starter, and renders his entire concept unworkable. In that sense, I find him actually worse than Rousseau. At least Rousseau's Candide has a certain poetic and literary charm.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Now, compare this to the number of government's anywhere offering any of this. Draw your own conclusions.
The conclusion I draw is that your insane libertarian fantasy is just that. For all of these wonderful little demonstrations you've quoted, I don't see EHRs rolled out in a standardized fashion anywhere. If you are correct, there should be some evidence of interoperable EHR adoption by now. Got any takers?
The VA (standards based) doesn't talk to Kiaser nor Giesinger nor Mayo nor even the military system. In your wonderful fantasy land I would expect the VA (US Veteran's Administration, government run) to interoperate with the US Military medical system at the very least. Currently, if you are the local US Coast Guard Clinic and you ask the local VA hospital for a patient's medical record you do get them in a more or less electronic fashion - they're faxed over. Not even plain text computer to computer capture like secure e-mail. Faxed. A presumably dead technology.
There are small demonstration projects. There are NOT large scale build outs. EHRs are (relatively) easy to create for individual hospital / clinic systems. They are very hard to do nation wide. It should not be as hard as it is, but that mostly has to do with the inefficiency of the government in dealing with complex problems. However, your solution of letting the market sort it out has led to no attempt at a solution because there isn't any money in it. And no, claiming to offer an interoperable EHR as an additional 'service' won't cut it - certainly hasn't yet.
Leave the magic wand waving to Harry Potter films.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You sound to me like a 14 year old. Now you may not be 14, but that is how a 14 year old sounds, not a civilized adult. I will respond to you only in an effort to educate you, but really, there is no reason to be so childish.
And the point that you keep missing is that he would have seen a doctor in the absence of NHS. NHS does not have a monopoly on doctors. NHS does not have a monopoly on "free" health care. Using your logic, if NHS didn't exist, everyone in the UK would suffer and die if they required a doctor because only the NHS can provide ACCESS to doctors. Using the same logic a tyrannical dictatorship is good because they provided ACCESS to the fire department that put the fire in your house out (fire departments exists in non-dictatorships also so the dictatorship deserves no special praise). NHS and doctors are not inseparable. For instance, in the U.S. we don't have NHS but people in need can ACCESS a doctor free of charge. As far as infants go, in the U.S. we have a safety net called medicaid for people who cannot afford insurance. There isn't a child in the U.S. that goes without medical care. My whole argument is this: NHS didn't save anyone's life, a doctor did. If NHS never existed, a doctor would still save his life And because this is totally hypothetical, I theorize they would have done a better job.
You seem to argue "only NHS can provide ACCESS to doctors", but you must admit that were the NHS to have never existed, something else would be there instead, and no matter what's there, the doctor is the important part, not the government. The government can only hamper and confuse this relationship as they have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Doctor: Your tooth is toast, you need a root canal.
Patient: When can I come in to get that?
Doctor: I don't know, I have to ask the government.
That may sound stupid, but that's NHS. Now in the U.S. the conversation goes like this:
Doctor: Your tooth is toast, you need a root canal.
Patient: When can I come in to get that?
Doctor: Tuesday.
So what exactly is the value added by the government? Ya, I know, you'll say straw man, but that shit happens every day so it's hardly a logical falicy. British are down right famous for their poor dental care, and that is a direct cause of the NHS. When the government takes responsibility for healthcare, they must also take the risk of failing at it, as they have in the case of the NHS. (isn't this article yet one more example of their failure?)
I can't speak for the UK but in OZ they will refuse medical treatment to foreigners who cannot produce a credit card. My close friend was stung by a deadly insect called a "stinging tree" on a trip to OZ, and they refused him treatment for a life threatening ailment until he could produce a credit card, he almost lost his leg. In the end his mother was able to provide a CC over the phone to the hospital. In the U.S. if you're a doctor and refuse treatment to someone who is in dire need, you're going to jail. You cannot be refused service at an emergency room in the U.S. unlike OZ.
Also, non-citizens of this country have the same access and quality of care as any citizen has. Quality so good that people flock from all over the world to come to U.S. hospitals. It may be more costly than what you get in the U.K. but you really get what you pay for.
I hope this now totally refutes the idea that NHS saved him. Here in the U.S. he would have been saved even if he was a non-citizen in spite of our lack of an NHS style system. He's not being saved by the system, but rather in spite of the system. A good doctor, believe it or not, wants to cure disease.
we spend more money and get a better product.
You really did drink the Kool-Aid didn't you? Too much by far. "A better product"? By what metric? So you can get the MRI that you don't need faster? So you live longer (oopsie), so you have better prenatal outcomes (oopsie again), so you have better mental health coverage (damn, lots of oopsies).
The US health care system is an incredible, expensive, inefficient mess. Yes, part of this is the government's fault. Quite a bit of government intervention has come directly from attempting to reign in illegal (and extraordinarily immoral) practices by the 'capitalists' attempting to game the system.
But I suppose I'm just doing this to practice typing. You're so far over the deep edge on this, so completely off base that I think it would be best if you just switched channels and communed with Ms. Bachman or just went out target shooting with your Sarah Palin blow up doll.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I am a lowly service desk worker at a NHS trust implementing a new system contracted from BT and I can't believe how the system is implemented.
The new initiative to move from an old CLI based piece of software to a 'new' (not really new) GUI proprietary software all has seemed very unorganised.
Trainers have had to force people to use the piece of software in a certain way before it has been rolled out as it is buggy and breaks if you don't follow the exact set of direction. (this does not work, I don't think cerner has heard of HCI). With the issues involving american-english/british-english terminologies and buggy user un-friendly interface, the NHS probably would have done better putting the project on rent-a-coder.
Like others have mentioned, management don't seem to grasp the fact that 10 minutes of extra time in a system will lead to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of man power. (silver bullet, mythical man month anyone?)
(also.. I was told Fujitsu walked out because they were in a contract where they were going to lose money due to their delays/failings...)
consultants are like taxi drivers *: they can help you ge tto your destination, but if you don't know where you want to go, they'll be glad to run up the meter by driving all over the place.
* so this analogy sort of involves cars.
Useless. Just to give an example. One of my customers is a ceramics manufacture, the EPA requires that he have all sorts of licensees to do what he does, among those are two gems that I'll never forget. 1) Silica dust from ceramic manufacture (aka sand) is a nuisance dust and therefore the EPA needs $x.xx each year yet his factory is 2 blocks from the beach and sand regularly accumulates on the curbs around the neighborhood from the beach. What's the EPA doing to stop this "beach nuisance" and how does taking money from him help? and 2) the lead content in the glaze (there's lead in just about everything) has be to 1/1000th the amount of lead that is allowed in our drinking water. That's just personal experience, but look at what the EPA wants to do next. Regulate CO2. Hey you produce that! I wonder what great ideas the EPA has for that gas. But typically they just run amok doing things like this:
we may starve to death, but thanks to the EPA, the mud guppy will have a pristine habitat. That's right, the EPA sided with a tiny fish and threw 23 million people and 5 million acres of farm land to the wind. Why the fuck would they care? After all, they're the government!
Yes, I know what a straw man is. And it's two words not one. The argument is made by government proponents all the time that the government can run certain industries better than the private sector, I included the word "magic" to try and drive home the point that the government has no additional capabilities beyond that possessed by individuals. But without explanation, people talk the "government is better" line. Therefore it is not a straw man argument.
Yes, I did read the link, it says without equivocation that china is the #1 polluter that's why I gave you the link, it backs up what I said 100%. You talk about OZ is but the often cited study is talking about CO2, a gas without which all plant life on the planet would die, and not a pollutant in any way shape or form of the word pollutant ( you can breath it, it is not harmful to anything ). And you have the nerve to say it didn't support my arguments. Now, and after you finish reading this and tomorrow and the next day, China, will still be the #1 polluter and you cannot claim I was wrong when that was what I said no matter how much you want me to be wrong, I'll still be right. You can try and rationalize your assertion that OZ is polluting more than China, but you're going to look like a total fool doing it.
This is the only reason we resort to law i
You can't understand the usefulness of additional MRIs or the need to use them quickly? You know it's used to diagnose cancer, as well as numerous other diseases, which we in the U.S. survive at a much higher rates than anywhere else in the world. A lot of these diseases are time sensitive, so being put on a 4 month waiting list for an MRI can mean the difference between life and death. I know, I had cancer, the day I found my lump I was in an MRI.
I'm not sure what the cause of some of the statistics you point out are, but "government inaction" cannot be the reason, government cannot perform any medical procedures, they must coerce a doctor to do it. More likely government caused the poor statistics, almost half of our country uses "public health care" via medicaid/medicare/VA and the number one denier of procedures per capita is medicare.
Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, but what they hide is essential. It is a matter of fact that the best medical schools and university hospitals are in the U.S.. It is also a matter of fact that the U.S. spends magnitudes more in research and development than any other country. When a country wants a new doctor they send them to the U.S. to be educated. When a foreign head of state or a extravagantly rich person needs treatment they come to the U.S.. My question is: do you think they[super-rich] do that because of poor mental health coverage? Lower life expectancy? Inferior prenatal care? Or maybe it's because they are highly informed and were seeking the best care possible.
Since you clearly can't make coherent arguments on your own, I'll just respond to your valid points.
Voltaire wrote Candide, not Rousseau, my apologies. What you missed though was that Candide is all about the human condition, albeit written in a form a bit less dry than Bastiat. And since the human condition is at the root of ANY discussion about government, it actually is a useful text.
You're also right that Bastiat demonstrates the logical fallacies in Proudhon's ideas. I just happen to agree with some of Proudhon's axioms more than with Bastiat's. Both though have significant problems in their argumentation. If you want to discuss them, feel free to actually read what I wrote.
As for the rest.....
Maybe if there wasn't so many instances were it appeared to me that you were lying I would take you more seriously.
I thought you were above insults? I actually directly referred to terminology used by Bastiat in his argumentation. How did you miss that? Maybe you're not as familiar with his arguments as you'd like to think?
All in all, this is about what I've come to expect in any argument with a self avowed socialist, so I guess I shouldn't be too disappointed with your deceit.
Self-avowed socialist? I guess I know where your ignorance comes from: you just make shit up.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Just because it's kinda funny at this point...
If NHS never existed, a doctor would still save his life
Since the AC was an infant, he couldn't have paid the doctor. Assume for a second that his parents weren't able to pay, either. How does the doctor get paid, in the absence of a government or a corporation subsidizing individual health care? Do doctors work for free? If not enough doctors volunteer to work for free, do you require charity work them to perform charity work?
"only NHS can provide ACCESS to doctors"
Your use of quotes is incorrect. I said " he wouldn't have ACCESS to doctors". I know this is difficult, but stay with me: there's no indication in there that because someone's in set A (people with no access to doctors), set A is identical to set B (all people).
Now in the U.S. the conversation goes like this:
Doctor: Your tooth is toast, you need a root canal.
Patient: When can I come in to get that?
Doctor: Tuesday.
And this is the how the discussion goes on Tuesday:
Doctor: You owe me $2500. Your insurance covers half. You owe me $1250.
Patient: Here's my credit card.
Now picture for a second the situation (I know, difficult, but just try) where the patient doesn't have a credit card, or the bank account is overdrawn, or any other reason why the patient doesn't have the cash. The doctor just performed the operation for free. How often will he provide a free root canal? Never again. As a matter of fact, the patient won't be able to schedule an appointment with him until they clear their debt (exact time of cut-off of healthcare varies with doctor. but it will happen).
And just because this REALLY cracks me up...
As far as infants go, in the U.S. we have a safety net called medicaid for people who cannot afford insurance.
Wait. No. Way. You didn't just promote a government run safety net that takes from some to pay for the needs others, did you? Bastiat is spinning in his grave.
There are some truly hardcore Libertarians out there. I can respect their integrity. I might think they're loony, but they at least buy into every last consequence of Bastiat's theory of government. You, on the other hand....
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
My arguments are perfectly coherent, you just choose to ignore them. If you're bored and have more time I'd love it if you went back and argued some of them, I do enjoy it.
I apologize if you were not lying, I didn't mean to insult, I just found the inconsistencies piling up. I listed why I was skeptical of what you were saying and think it was sound reasoning. I don't want to drive you away with insults.
Now, you did just say "I just happen to agree with some of Proudhon's axioms" who is a major league socialist. I thought that you were a socialist was understood. I didn't think you would take that as a pejorative. I certainly didn't make anything up. I'm basing my conclusions on a) your support of the NHS and the general line of argument you offer and b) your support of a guy who's famous saying is "Property is Theft!". I mean, what else can I take from that? What axiom of Proudhon's do you agree with that isn't overtly socialist? I estimate that he is the polar opposite of Bastiat (and sort of crazy). If you're not a socialist, than I can see how you might view that as in insult, but you must reconcile your support for Proudhon if you're not. Like Bastiat, I'm not a big fan of his.
My guess is you just read the wikipeda description of Candide that describes it as about the "human condition", but I will suspend my disbelief for the sake of argument. That's pretty general, I can argue pretty strongly that most all fiction is about the human condition, some more directly than others. I could just as easily say "Star Wars" is about government, it certainly examines the human condition in a much more articulate way than Candide. Candide was just chaotic, evil things happening for no reason, Candide abandoning El Dorado because he just wants to. His friend having her ass eaten by starving men, that's just gross. Then Candide abandons hope. And the great theme of the novel was "abandon all hope, existence is folly".
Now, how you draw any conflict or even a comment from Candide about Bastiat's work is puzzling. Bastiat is writen as a technical a priori argument, as if argued to a jury, about government, sort of like Locke's 2nd treatises on government or Hobbes' Leviathan. Candide doesn't support any form of government, except maybe the made-up-cracy in the fictitious city El Dorado, but Voltaire doesn't go into any detail about what form of government that is anyway. And I'm not sure what sort of government you can base "abandon all hope" on.
What do you mean? Can you cite an example from the book? I linked to the entire text.
China
That's sort of a cop out. I'm certain you're wrong about China even though you're trying to weasel out of it. But you claim this point "an incoherent argument". It's a link, pointing to a source, where the first sentence confirms what I said. I can provide 1000 more links that say the same thing. You change the argument to per capita and then say "oh you're wrong". No, you changed the argument to say something I never said. Furthermore I really don't think per capita is important at all, China has millions of mud farmers that don't have electricity so of course their per capita is going to be low, that doesn't somehow make them pollute less, and that's
Ya, that's right, the cooperation most of the time pays the doctor, but the cooperation is the hospital, not even the insurer, and maybe the hospital has to charge more to offer this 'free' service, so be it. I don't think the government needs to get involved though, they can only cause problems.
In my quote I was assuming the subject was "him" and not all people. What I should have said was "only NHS can provide [him] ACCESS to doctors" I understood what you said. My point still stands. Even without NHS he would have had access to doctors, but this is purely theoretical, and the AC even confirmed that because "no NHS" is purely theoretical, both arguments for and against are equally sound. From the AC:
Ya, but the costs there need to have their decimal points moved to the left one. And that's even if you can't afford the $150/yr dental insurance which would take it down to an even more trivial amount. Also, every doctor I've ever been too will take payments.
Which of course is better than never going at all the way the NHS does it. In the view of the NHS if a procedure is to costly, you just can't have it no matter what you say about it, or how bad it will kill you if you don't have it. I can provide multiple citations, but I'm sure you've heard the horror stories.
I was pointing out that even without a NHS, there are still other ways to get free healthcare. And I don't think Bastiat would throw a sick baby into the wilderness. You can't think for me or Bastiat. Just because we don't think that the government should provide services to the poor, does not mean we don't think services should be provided to the poor. And to that end there are literally hundreds of reputable private charities that are way more efficient in how they spend their money than the government is. So who is the compassionate one now? I would rather give all my tax money to the poor than a single cent to bail out GM, or pay for the health care of someone who has a $4000 computer and a 50" LCD. Government doesn't really give a rats ass what it does with your money, maybe some might make it to the poor, but it's sure as hell going to line the pockets of every politician and politician's friend before it makes it there.
Mmh. Clear arguments. I can actually live with this. Onward...
On Proudhon
While there are certainly socialist tendencies in some of his writings, he is actually closer to a Libertarian or an Anarchist than a Socialist. He explicitly disavows communism and generally rails against against any power source that can cause someone to control someone else. The reason that I find him more coherent than Bastiat is that he correctly understands that the entire concept of property is completely arbitrary. He furthermore understands that property, as an exclusionary concept applied to limited resources, by definition creates inequality, and thereby leverage, of one person over another. This leverage is opposed to the concept of liberty and equality. Mind you that it isn't better or worse, but the concept of property destroys the concept that people are born equal in liberty and opportunities. Instead, their birth places them in a social and economic context. And since it takes arguably more to escape your social and economic context than it does to preserve it, a persons position in life has only marginally something to do with their abilities.
Proudhon vs Bastiat
Bastiat's main drawback is that he idealizes The Law, and completely fails to apply his idealized concept of it to any real world situation. Because in even the most basic application - that of group self-defense - his law fails to provide Justice in anything but the most convenient set up. At the most basic, imagine the following situation: a widget was posessed by A, but now is in the hands of B. Further assume that the event was only witnessed by person A and B. A cries theft, and invokes group self-defense. What is the proper course of action of the rest of the group? String up B? String up A? Why? You want more detail? Of course you do, as you should. Because suddenly, we get into contract law (did A give widget to B for service C?), judicial process (is A lying? is B lying?) and even that of feasibility (can B beat off the self-defense group on his own?). Compared to Bastiat's idealism, Proudhon is a downright cold calculator. Hence my preference for his line of reasoning.
Candide
Your guess is wrong. I actually have Candide on my smartphone (along with Descartes, Rousseau, the federalist papers and other free classics), and had to study it fairly extensively in High School. The phrase "human condition" is fairly common in French philosophical studies, and is a far more common term in colloquial French than it is in English. Wikipedia merely got common terminology right. For some reason, I always get Rousseau and Voltaire mixed up. *shrug*
Furthermore, just like "A modest proposal", it was explicitly designed to explore specific aspects of the human condition through satire - in this case, Optimism and its impact on life.
The comparison to Bastiat was a bit of a throw-away. I find Bastiat uninteresting, rehashing thoughts that had been better expressed by others before him, with little redeeming quality anywhere. While Candide has its own issues as a discussion of the human condition, it at least is entertaining. If a text can't be insightful, it better be entertaining. And the government they lead to is very similar: as small as possible, with individuals responsible for tending to their own small patch of influence. The difference is that Voltaire presents that life as hoping for minimal interference, while Bastiat prescribes minimal interference in the affairs of others.
On The Law
You were looking for where I got that terminology from. His phrase is: "If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed." I'm pretty sure that "government non-intervention will always lead to the optimal human development" is a reasonable paraphrase of that. While it sounds nice in theory, practice disproves his conjecture. Furthermore his
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Just a few things, since it is getting late:
Ya, but the costs there need to have their decimal points moved to the left one.
Beats me - I based that on the cost of my crown, which was about $800 total, with me paying %50. And that's with Delta Dental. Maybe I need to talk to your employer about a job.
And I don't think Bastiat would throw a sick baby into the wilderness.
Again, I think you don't recall Bastiat as well as you think you do. To wit:
"This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody."
His conclusion is that the only acceptable position is 3., with 1. being given a pass if it is used to fight socialism. And I'm sure you are aware that legal plunder is his wording for protections, subsidies, tariffs, etc - anything that takes from one to give to another. He specifically calls out that the legal plunder is often enacted under the guise of philanthropy, but that it really is false philanthropy.
I'm glad you're not a complete hardass - but then you're looking for guidance from the wrong person.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
A the end of my blathering there are two quotes from The Law. Bastiat addresses philanthropy specifically in the second quote, and indirectly in the first. In the first example here he talks about how just because we feel that government isn't the answer, doesn't mean that philanthropy shouldn't exist, just that these institutions should not be controlled by the government. And you must readily admit that private aid organizations are a lot more focused on where there money is being spent because they had to earn it, meaning they didn't take it at the point of a gun. Aid organization are held to a very high standard, and are regularly audited and required to show how many cents on the dollar go to actual aid (vs. administrative overhead).
Compare this to the government's philanthropy. In my own life I know a person who owns several $4000 computers, multiple big screen TVs, has 3 kids, no job, and lives life 100% off the government tit. He pays no taxes. He pays no rent (the government pays that). He actually is paid money, by the government, simply because he has kids. So $0 in tax and they still give him money. This person is perfectly healthy and capable of working, but chooses not to. I went to high school with the guy and this was actually his plan way back then. Have more kids => get more money. And do you think the kids have a good quality of life with a dad like that? Do you think maybe if the government didn't encourage him to have children he wouldn't? I mean, they cost a lot more when you pay for them. IMHO an aid organization would never have given him a dime, they would see his devious nature (because, remember, they have to earn their money) and kick him to the curb, saving more money for people who are truly in need. And to show this problem is endemic and not just my own observation understand that almost half of all american's pay no federal income tax.
How much more money would philanthropic people have to give were the government to not take so much? How much wasted money goes to line the pockets of corrupt politicians (and friends) in the name of philanthropy? How many people could have been saved? If this is true then this is a really big deal.
Aid organizations are also more focused on a specific task. AIDS in Africa, give here, cancer research, give here. There's even organizations based on your religion or political ideology ensuring that your money would never go to support a cause that you find repugnant. I could continue and list all of the corruption and nepotism inherent in the socialist style of philanthropy, but I'm sure you're already familiar with them. The recourse for poorly spent funds within the government usually results in nothing, at best, a legislator might be sacked. On the other hand when a private aid organization is found to be spending poorly they simply cease to exist, the natural course of things.
In the socialist system, who gets to define who should and should not have money? What happens when the government cannot afford to give health care to everyone? Does it start rationing? Who do you give to first? Who do you take from? And when this transfer of wealth occurs, don't you think the people whom you've robbed to pay for another person will be pleased with the situation? More likely they will want to take over the controls of the government and bend them to their own will, and what vengeance they would seek if they seized power.
The chaos increases and questions only become more di
It appears I may have replied to the parent of your post. But I'm not sure, /.'s freaky ass system is always doing something ... freaky. It would be rather difficult to copy and paste all I wrote (formatting will disappear) so here's a link to my misplaced post: Re: Socialism Sucks
I know, I had cancer, the day I found my lump I was in an MRI.
If we're doing anecdotal evidence, last time I had a MRI (invented at my local University, by the way) on the NHS I waited a whole week - and that was non-urgent (plus I had other scans and tests while I was waiting). If it was suspected cancer it would have been quicker. A relative had bowel cancer and it was successfully removed within a few days. Another relative has a rather neat home kidney machine and truckloads of supplies delivered to their door every fortnight - all without them worrying about where the money is coming from (sure, they've paid their tax in the past, when they had an income to pay it from). Unfortunately we have one or two ultracapitalist press barons (you may have heard of them recently) who love to scour the country for dirt on the NHS, BBC or any other organization that is a bit too left for their liking, and rarely report the good bits.
By the way, thanks very much for the extensive research you did in your earlier post (you know, the link to a google search for "NHS Horror" [27 hits]). I now realize that rather than bothering to find the actual report from the WHO on per-capita healthcare costs I should have taken a leaf from your book and Googled "USA health care horror" - that gives me 296 hits so, quite frankly, QED.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Interesting insurance experience. I never had anything remotely resembling that kind of dental plan when I was a contractor. Prices were pretty eyewatering then, and one reason I was happy to switch to salaried.
Government philanthropy.
Very true that Bastiat only talks about government run programs being bad. However, we were talking about Medicaid, a government run philanthropy. Bastiat would have been apoplectic about its existence.
People on welfare
I'm sure you are aware of the argument from anecdote. I personally know one person who is a productive member of society, but would not have made it without government welfare. Finally, ALL organizations are at risk of deceit and waste. Just one real quick example, but many abound with a bit more serious digging. ahref=http://shanghaiist.com/2011/06/24/showing_off.phprel=url2html-28102http://shanghaiist.com/2011/06/24/showing_off.php> NGOs in Africa and Afghanistan are notoriously ineffecient, largely because the local government structure requires it. The real question is, what's the ROI on the investment? Positive, or negative? Again, to cut a long argument short: there is a place for both GOs and NGOs in the welfare space. Sometimes, efficiencies of scale do make things possible that otherwise aren't.
Lastly, I don't understand the relationship between who pays taxes and whether the government should provide philanthropy. To some extent, it counters your main thrust: that people would have more money to give to charity if they wouldn't be taxed. Well, half the people don't pay taxes, and give very little to charity. The other half does, and gives more to charity. Does this mean that taxes lead to charity? Of course not, but statistics are fun. It does mean, however, that taxes and charity are not related in the way you argue that they are.
Personal philanthropy
Note that I never said you're not philanthropic. As a matter of fact, I did imply that you did have a heart. Regarding your link of conservatives vs liberals, remember your quote about statistics. It's handy. The article itself says the correlation isn't so much conservative vs liberal as religious vs non-religious - which makes sense. Christianity, after all, is founded around the precept of helping the weaker, and Catholic and Protestant churches are big on church donations. It's also interesting that the statistics switch from % of income to total numbers when it comes to supporters of welfare vs not. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of people against government welfare are hanging out in the top 15% of incomes. That skews total numbers. What I would be interested in is what the donations are for. My suspicion is that once you take out religious organizations as targets of the donations, the numbers would be a lot closer. No proof, of course, that they will be even, but they will be closer. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the actual study, so I can't back that claim up. I realize that Brooks claims that Christians give more "in every measurable way", but I can't verify that statement.
From what I've seen of that study, it is interesting, but I find that its statistics are designed to show the greatest gap possible. Just doing back of the envelope calculations of his comparison of South Dakotan giving vs San Franciscan giving, I know that the relationship would be reversed if he had used raw numbers, rather than %s. As a result, I strongly suspect that the math might be valid, but he chose numbers based on effect, rather than abstract study. To me, this makes the study not worth quoting.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
If you have a bad tooth you'd probably be better off seeing a dentist. NHS dentists are far cheaper than private, they generally consult a calender to find a free time for an appointment, maybe it's a special government calender though, I don't really know what I'm talking about. Luckily neither do you by the sound of it.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
So you must agree that MRIs are important, and the more you have per capita the better. This goes for the availability of all equipment and personnel. If you don't have enough, that means rationing.
I went ahead and did the news search "USA health care horror" and it did result in some hits, but not a single one talked about a horror story in a US hospital, maybe I missed it and you can point that one out. Even after trying Obama can't seem to find any horror stories about the US health care system so I wouldn't spend too much time scouring. Almost without exception the articles talked about Obamacare and related issues. Unlike when you substitute NHS for USA, there are a lot of hard news articles detailing incompetence and abuse in the NHS. You also gave no answer to the question: why do so many well off people choose the US to get their health care and not another country if it's so crappy?
I'm not sure if you knew this, but dentists are doctors.
Yes I'm guessing unless the private doctors pay you, free will be cheaper. And that's why they have to consult the government. There's a finite number of dentists to fix teeth and whole lot of teeth, so some people need to come before others, old people should go after young people, healthy people are more viable so they should come before sick people, unless the sickness is related to the visit, and even then only if there's a chance of survival.
In the US. You come in on Tuesday. There is no rationing of care. The same cannot be said of the NHS.
You are labouring under the delusion that no private healthcare is available to UK citizens.
Guess what? It is.
In the same way that your country has govenrnment funded education and private education.
Thankyou for bringing up slavery. Abolished in Britain before the United States.
"The entire state of California is easily navigable via public transpiration."
False. I have direct personal experience of this. A half hour walk to a bus stop with one bus per hour is not usable public transport. NB This is *not* from rural california but 40 min drive from Riverside. Southern California would be hell to live in without a car, more likely 2 cars if you are a family.
You appear not to know the difference between absolute monarchies and constitutional ones.
As it happens I would count myself as a republican (note the lower case r).
They do function as walking tourist attractions, and also a lightning rod for nationalist zeal. It is harder to attack political opponents by wrapping yourself in the flag. The head of govt is not the head of state, so no-one can ask "why do you hate Britain?" when you criticise the government. This occurred to me in 2003 when America seemed to go a bit mad.
Your government, today, believes that people of royal birth are inherently better than everyone else. You pay for their expensive cars and homes because why? Their blood is better than your blood? God favors the king? This sort of subjugation is almost as bad as slavery, you are still a slave and you don't even know it, and there's nothing you can do about it because your form of government considers this righteous behavior. At least someone must explain to me where and why my tax dollars are being spent, maybe I don't agree with the purpose, but we have universal suffrage, a recourse, something your country only plays lip service to, meaning: good luck firing the queen. Once your country throws off the monarchy, and only then, can call yourself civilized, "God save the queen" will never be an acceptable answer to an free person. I hope you feel the same way.
The big difference is that the government doesn't take a portion of our pay and say it is for our medical care. Becuase of this our medical intitutions are much better financed, we don't have 50 year old EKGs etc. Consider this quote from wikipedia:
Did it ever occur to you that "you get what you pay for"? We have a better health care system here in the U.S. because we pay a lot more for it. More new procedures and medical technology is developed in the U.S. than in any other country (Ask yourself why! Don't just ignore the fact! ) We keep our money and are able to spend it any way we like, on private medicine, or on a new computer, its called freedom, I hope it comes your way some day.
The abolitionist movement started in the U.S. long before it reached the U.K..
It wasn't until 100 years later that the British government even considered the question, and by that time slavery had been tomb stoned in the Constitution. Some people didn't like that, there was a war, the rest is history.
A) Riverside is extremely rural B) There is tons of public transportati
A) Riverside is extremely rural
Rural means farms to people who speak English of any dialect. I have been to Riverside, it is not rural. It has poor public transport. I have seen it myself. Go to any suburb in California and you are stuck on island it is nearly impossible to leave safely without a private car.
What do you mean? Than who is? I'm pretty sure the head of government is the head of state since state and government mean the same thing.
Is it true that you need a link to tell you what Head of Governemnt and Head of State mean?
Not giving you the link, look up the government of Ireland, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, Netherlands. Commonwealth countries are interesting in that their nominal head of state is from somewhere else. France is also an interesting mix.
You are suffering from the problems of growing up in a very insular country. You cannot compare countries' systems of government without realising that the frameworks may or may not be the same.
Spend a little of your commie-fighting time learning about other countries and how they operate. It could be quite profitable for you.
Since it is so elementary why don't you explain it to me or provide a link.
Wait, I'll provide one for you: From Dictionary.com
I added the emphasis. So perhaps you are wrong? Maybe you can find an example somewhere on the internet that proves dictionary.com wrong?
And of course by biggest argument you ignore all together again. You are the subject of a king/queen in a monarchy and therefore not a free man. Why don't you feel like you have reconcile that? This will be the third time you ignored it so I have to assume I've hit a nerve.