I’m not entirely sure what your problem is. As regards poverty, there is always something that can be done there, even if it is just “sparing some change”. Try looking into the Give As You Earn scheme as well.

As for “human rights”, I find that the definition of these varies from speaker to speaker. If you are talking about doing no harm to others, I think you are on the right track if you are thinking morally in the first place.

Good luck!

The road lobby have always been keen to stress the monopoly nature of rail with a certain faux piousness while pretending that road (or whatever) doesnt compete with rail.

Now, everyone thinks their political causes and policies are the correct ones. Your problem is the same one that statists on both the right and left have: that your beliefs and policies are not just the right ones, but that this assertion is beyond reproach and thus the question to be discussed is not “if”, but “when”.

You see, I fundamentally disagree with your methods. No one wants people to be poor, or for the environment to be polluted. I also happen to like keeping the money I earn and heating my home as well. Which means I question your methods, and not your goals. It’s somewhat nuanced, but I have no doubt that one of the wonderful, witty, intelligent people of the media will appreciate it.

No No No Metatone. Your response is non-sequitur.

YOU introduced Denmark as a good example of state healthcare provision. I and others point out it is not very good at all and it is even smaller that Switzerland and has some decentralisations that indicate that it would function better than the NHS would. Three factors and yet it falls short. The Danes are not stupid, feckless people – from what I gather it is systemically flawed, just as the NHS is.

My concern was with this statement of yours: ’so the issue of their poverty in the UK should be non-existent’.

I don’t see it as either/or: I think you can worry about how asylum-seekers whose claims are rejected fare before they get back to their countries of origin at the same time that you consider how to make the system work better.

In fact, the idea that if we make sure they aren’t starving and forced to beg or prostitute themselves on the street (what you call having the state care for them) is going to encourage more ‘bogus’ applications is a common lement – where is the evidence that this happens?

This issue is also being picked up elsewhere on LC (http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2007/11/12/how-can-we-be-different/), might be worth transfering our discussion there so we can move on from my post!

On supermarkets and this point: ‘You can try to control parts of it, but that rapidly gets deeper and deeper.’ I’m not convinced. We regulate all kinds of things without slipping into complete state control (e.g. food additives). In my opinion the usefulness of state intervention is about degree. Using words like ‘control’ misrepresents what I am suggesting. My point was about Tesco’s *abuse* of suppliers, you’ve then intimated that the only solution to this would be protectionism.

There is also plenty of evidence that if left to their own devices, supermarkets, including Tesco, would not choose a path of integrity. Here is a link to a story discussing how Tesco (amoung others) is pressuring the Soil Association to lower standards on its organic certification: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/05/food.organics.

And here is a really interesting story on the myths around ‘consumer choice’ and how leadership by the government could encourage supermarkets to take more responsibility for the ‘choice-editing’ they already do.

Welfarism: I am not focusing on specifics re: welfarism. The very core is how money is moved and the systems and relationships – or lack thereof – between giver and receiver. And no, the State is not “giver”, it is a “taker”.

Supermarkets: maybe I was jumping without intermediate steps. in the long term you either control food distribution or not. You can try to control parts of it, but that rapidly gets deeper and deeper. What to do about Tesco? Tell people it is doing x and y. I do read this. I keep an eye on it, but I reject the implicit assertion that these private companies selling services to free people should be significantly controlled by the State. The dairy farmers need to protect themselves – their treatment is not good, but the State is doing more damage to them than Tesco ever could with its RIDICULOUS plans for pushing UHT milk! The dairy farmers should form a co-op (or better still a series of co-ops) and fight their corner. Give too much State protection to dairy farmers and we get a French style gravy train (cream cake?) of protectionism. Worse than what we have now, as the consumer is then forced to pay regardless of where they buy their milk – at least now we have a chance to attack and shame the big retailers, but once you get the diary farmers on the state teat, as it were, it will be hard to get them off.

So often it is not a choice between “right” and “wrong”, but “bloody awful” and “least worst”. State interference in food distribution and sales in terms of logistics, outlets, pricing or State subsidies and protectionism is in the “bloody awful” camp. Tesco is least worst in my view, least worst vs Statist intervention. To fight it, consumers need to voice out, shame etc. I did label FoE a moan – yes, maybe that was a bit harsh, but it did include that irritating “carbon footprint” baloney of air freighted veg – Kenyan tomatoes airlifted need lest energy than hothoused alternatives in Holland! They need to raise their game and stop propagating disingenuous memes.

I have not seen anything that talks about how foster or adoptive parents would have to sign such agreements – do you have a reference on this? Everything I’ve read around the adoption row was about how Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wrote to the Cabinet to say that Catholic agencies would close if the law said they could not refuse to place children with gay parents.

If religious groups or individuals don’t want to have to treat gay people as they would treat anybody else, they shouldn’t be delivering services to the public. The fact that a valuable service (e.g. the Catholic adoption agencies) would be lost is difficult, but I’d rather they close than be allowed to discriminate.

I don’t know who you mean by ‘the left’ when you say it was turned into ‘a catholic thing’ since the story I linked to was referring to Tony Blair (acting in his capacity as Prime Minister) and Ruth Kelly (the Minister for Equality at the time) – who are self-proclaimed Catholics and the story’s point was about how their religious (Catholic) beliefs were affecting their decisions on the equality legislation.

The link I posted on asylum-seekers discusses why some of those whose claims have been refused are not able to leave the country as soon as their claims fail but you appear to have missed that very important aspect of the discussion. My point was not about *whether* they should leave, and neither was the report’s. The point is about those that have been unable to leave, and the conditions they are forced to live in until they are able to leave. To make it about the rule of law – and perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this? – is to profoundly misunderstand the reasons for why people get ‘stuck’ in the country and is also refusing to engage with my point which is that there are many people living in abject poverty as a result of a system that isn’t working and that is not ok.

Re supermarkets, please be constructive – the FoE report was not a ‘moan’. If you have issues about their research methodology, name them. I’m confused why you would assume a criticism of large supermarkets is a request for a ‘state-run food distribution mechanism’ especially when the report I was linking to is talking about the benefits of local food producers including farmers and small businesses. Thank you for clarifying what *you* mean by ‘best’ because that helps me understand why you would value Tesco when I wouldn’t. For example, the ‘responsiveness’ you praise is a result of a virtual monopoly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,873554,00.html) that allows Tesco to abuse suppliers until they submit – all in the name of being ‘responsive to consumers’.

If you’re going to pretend that 5.4 million people vs 7.5 million is a substantial difference, but then clam that 7.5 million country is a template for the UK population of 60 million, I think that there’s some incongruence there.

Zohra

The particular “equality” legislation you are talking about was forcing all foster and adoptive parents to sign agreements to “promote” homosexuality. The left always turn such objections into a catholic thing, despite the fact that muslims also complained about being forced to promote something which conflicts with their beliefs and that, despite a shortage of carers, it seems more important to impose one particular version of equality at the expense of another (ie freedom of sexuality is more important than freedom of religion) even where it harms the neeeds of children.

1) Degrading. It is slipping in the rankings
2) Suffering “path dependency” due to its tax funded, geographically monopolistic (county-controlled) set up.
3) There is a growing private insurance market as a result of the increasing dissatisfaction in the system.
4) Denmark is also a small country – 5.4million people vs 7.5million in Switzerland – and still the State system is not as good, even with 32% local taxes to fund it (and still more from central income taxes).
5) Lack of innovation.

Or OTOH it might be because the Danish Health care system ranks 34th in the World, according to this:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

It would hardly be ‘progressive’ to look at systems that are actually much worse than our own now, would it?

No doubt we are going to end up in a discussion about how accurate a reflection these comparisons actually are, and I am taking it on trust at the moment that there is actually a bias in favour of state provision. See Rogers Post at 29.

Outcomes are very good indeed – IIRC they would be 2nd globally if you took out the WTO bias towards “distribution” which favours centrally tax-funded schemes – even the WTO admits it puts significant and disproportionate weight on its “distribution” metric.

but at face value….

“poverty is ok” – If they are rejected, they should leave, so the issue of their poverty in the UK should be non-existent. This is an issue of Rule of Law and to allow failed asylum seekers to remain is an insult both to the Rule of Law and to all those honest people who abide by our regulations when trying to migrate here.

As for the big 5, I am talking about UK supermarkets vs other supermarkets so the FoE moan in your link is not relevant to the point. A State-run food distribution mechanism like one would get in N Korea or the old Soviet countries is rather poor, don’t you think? It would be churlish to question that Tesco is one of the worlds best – logistics, responsiveness, range, quality – and that means all our other domestic retailers have to keep up. Sainsburys is better now, moving beyond their arrogance of the recent past, because Tesco was eating their lunch.

Here’re mine again:

Roger Thornhill @10: Re ‘foregone conclusions’, please see response to rabbit below.

Re ‘presuming my right to other people’s money’ and the rest of that paragraph: you’ve proved my point about how I do indeed often have to spend energy justifying why social and environmental justice are worthy of financial investment.

By the way, who are my ‘fellows’?

Thom @55: Yes, there are people who believe that:

- Equality is not important: Tony Blair at one point tried to ensure that some organisations (namely Catholic-run adoption agencies) could be exempt from having to comply with equality legislation: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2171678.ece
- Human rights don’t matter: see comment #3
- Poverty is ok: the Government’s current policy on rejected asylum seekers forces them into abject poverty even though its own Home Affairs Committee noted that this is unacceptable as far back as 2004 (See http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10682 – one of many research reports on destitution amongst asylum seekers)

rabbit @77: I spend my days talking to people who agree with me as well as to those that don’t. My post was about what kind of conversations I would like to have on Liberal Conspiracy. What I expect from that is a limited consensus around core principles (see above re equality, human rights and poverty, and also http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2007/11/05/standing-up-for-liberal-left-ideals/ and http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2007/11/05/its-time-to-take-on-the-right/ for more on this). Beyond that, I expect much discussion.

Roger Thornhill @ 75: could you provide some evidence on this claim please: ‘the big 5 supermarkets in the UK are highly responsive and some of the best in the world.’ Specifically, do you mean that they are highly responsive to consumers? And what do you mean by ‘best’? Here’s a bit on some of the pitfalls of supermarkets: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/20030113134910.html

douglas clark @77: it’s Sunny’s job I think, and it is part of the plan to develop LC positions as we generate ideas and build consensus on particular issues.

Rigorous emotion, rigorous empathy, but no rigorous ethics?

Never fly!

BTW, Global warming is a diversion. Deal first with…..

[1] Epidemic CoalGen plants without clean coal tech. US and worldwide.

[2] Fossil smog enveloping cities…worldwide. [electric car][compressed air car].

TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

GW is a diversion. Forget cattle flatulence. A natural constant. = TG

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You do indeed make a very good case. If the point of this site is to act as a sort of free form liberal think tank, then that idea should be on the list.

I know it’s early days, but embracing something which is not, on the face of it, what we are supposed to be saying or thinking, would certainly mark out some territory. A statement by any party that they were going to move the UK to second place in the world health care league would be so powerful, that they would likely get elected by acclamation!

Who’s job – on LC I mean – is it to pull stuff like this together?

I do think the Swiss system is better and in part because it is not funded via taxes. Bear with me on this, for there is a good reason why.

If you have taxes you have a State run monopoly or, even worse, some Private monopoly or contract from the State. The State is an appalling purchaser. If it makes a mistake we all suffer. It is a slow learner and operates via the prism of political judgment. In a system where there is plurality of provision, people will abandon resources and providers that are substandard. Plurality also tends to create spare capacity, allowing people at least a chance to avoid the poor performers. This is why spare capacity is not “inefficient” for if a resource is so bad, it gets no patronage and it will either be shut down (no more waste) or it will improve and have to exceed the others to regain its position (also very good for advancing standards).

As to the ratios, that really is not the issue, for any provider that is not meeting expectations, another will see the gap and step in, attracting premiums. The system keeps itself running without any central control. That is the beauty of it, that is the efficiency and responsiveness – the Swiss system ranks really high on responsiveness to patient need (whereas the NHS is really poor at this) just as the big 5 supermarkets in the UK are highly responsive and some of the best in the world.

So the issue is not “x% on primary care” that you can then put into a plan and “make” the NHS or such perform in the same way. It will not work that way. It is also not about how much money goes where, but on how it is spent, who spends it, who works there, how they do their jobs and how they organise themselves. The most efficient mechanism to propagate this is to have multiple entities trying to out-do each other and for all to be open to adopt best practices as and when they suit local conditions or company structure. It also needs one group to be free to bid for the best personnel via higher wages. National pay scales for nurses, for example, even with London weighting, is not the way to go in my view. I’d like to see the best nurses paid much more, just as I’d like to see the best teachers paid more. With the unions involved treating it like one massive national employer, that is unlikely to happen.

Thanks for that. Given that I am attempting to argue that we should look at best outcomes as the measurement of choice, given similar inputs in terms of cash, do you think the Swiss system is better? As it is predicated to be the second best health system in the world, should we not be looking closely at it, from the point of view of adopting it? We languish in the mid teens in terms of outcomes, I think.

I think that funding, whether through taxes ot premiums, is a red herring, although I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise. What is it about the Swiss system, apart from the funding mechanism that makes it better? Does the method of funding allow more money to go directly to primary care, or what?

I have a genuinely open mind on this, and subject to what I said about best outcomes, I have no political baggage on this subject.

Just in case you wondered.

Coercive taxes in this case are connected to a monopoly about which we have little or no choice who delivers what and when. Compulsory insurance at least allows choice, competition, innovation etc to occur naturally in the marketplace, with an eye on cartels. It is a least worst option, so my preference is just that – it is not as bad as the direct taxation model – the term “better” is a little misleading.

As for Switzerland, you are correct, the risk is pooled and the premiums from a particular provider are flat.

You and I are clearly on different wavelengths here. Roger rails against coercive taxes but sees compulsory insurance as in some way different or better? For the sake of the discussion, imagine a completely privatised state if you will. In the stead of taxes we are simply forced to pay charges to service providers. From the consumers point of view, there is no substantive difference. It is simply Tax by another name.

You say the Swiss system is more open and related to individual risk. Could you point me to where that is said? As far as I can see it is a flat rate payment, independent of risk. Sure, you may be able to get the same level of cover cheaper from provider A rather than provider B, but, as both are required to take you on exactly the same terms and conditions as anyone else, there is no differentiation whatsoever, at least in the terms you describe. And you can ‘go private’ if you can afford it.

Correct me if I am wrong, using the example to hand. Y’know, the Swiss model.