Why Obama's health reforms are quite wrong

If you simply read and listen to many in the mainstream media talk about this story, you might ask whether any of them bothered to critically review the legislation passed by the Congress and signed by Obama on healthcare.

In the simple, binary world of so many the impression is given that health care in the US is a "privately owned fully commercial free market system where people are left to die on the streets unable to pay for ambulances or lying in hospitals not being treated because they can't pay".

This is a bold faced lie on multiple levels. How many say that half of all US healthcare is funded by government through Medicare and Medicaid, which provide healthcare for the elderly and poor families respectively? How many say that the budget for Medicare is 20% of the federal budget, with Medicaid being half that again?

How many say that the health market in the US is heavily regulated, with hospitals required to treat accident and emergency patients regardless of ability of pay? How many say that some states restrict the market to protect some health providers, so there isn't free and open competition across the country? How many talk about the burden that precedents to allow ridiculous tort law claims imposes upon the health sector? (In the last case the Republicans do, because high profile Democrats include tort lawyers).

The failure in the US is not about universality. As Libertarianz Leader Dr. Richard McGrath (himself a health professional) states:

"When the figure touted was 47 million uninsured, the breakdown was like this:

18 million earned over $50k (half of this group earn over $75k) and chose not to insure themselves;
13 million were illegal aliens;
8 million were under age 18 and had public cover available if poor;
leaving 8 million uninsured (3% of the population), many of whom were 18-20 year olds at low risk of medical problems."

So the REAL figure of those without insurance is far less than is bandied about by the press. The big issue in the US is cost, and the biggest source of cost inflation has been the public sector. Who says that? The Congressional Budget Office notes:

"total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary"

In other words, the GOVERNMENT side of US healthcare (which is largely ignored) is growing exponentially. The legislation signed by Obama doesn't touch this at all.

The Cato Institute solution is wiser. Its proposals are:
- Eliminate tax incentives for employer bought health insurance and apply them to individually bought health insurance. This means people have a vested interest in buying health insurance that meets their needs, and puts pressure on such insurance to not provide excessive cover;
- Eliminate restrictions that prohibit people buying health insurance from providers in other states, this is an unnecessary restriction on competition;
- Eliminate state specified minimum requirements for health insurance that in some cases include cover for procedures many would not wish (e.g. in vitro fertilisation) (indeed allowing interstate competition would produce strong incentives on states to do this);
- Licensing and regulation of what medical practitioners can do, and standards for licensing should be shifted towards industry driven accredited standards.

For example, it makes sense to be able to insure against accident or disease that is not predictable. Not to insure against self injury, or the consequences of heavy drug or alcohol consumption. No bigger incentive towards healthier lifestyles would exist than for people to notice that if they smoked, they might not get any health cover for respiratory diseases.

The Obama health reforms tinker with health insurance to make it compulsory for everyone to have health insurance, and to subsidise those who can't afford it. It does not address the cost escalation in the heavily regulated market, but especially does not address cost escalation in the US's own socialised health care - Medicaid and Medicare.

Expect future years to have healthcare remain a major issue in the US, because Obama is, for now, printing money and borrowing it, to pay for his grand plans. Living for now, letting future generations bear the cost - a curious metaphor for how so many of those living at the bottom treat their own lives.

Oh and while you consider that, it is worth noting that both the UK and New Zealand are rare among developed countries in not having an insurance based model for healthcare. The result of that is a continued growth in concern about significant groups of people who live unhealthy lifestyles, and a desire to tell them what to do in order that governments ration spending on diseases of lifestyle.

A better approach is for people to pay themselves, buy insurance and face higher premiums or the inability to get insurance because no one will sell it to them if they are eating, drinking, smoking and idling themselves into chronic conditions.

However, socialists prefer to treat such people as children, and for you to pay when they don't listen.

Internet scaremongering by newspaper

The Daily Mail has done one of its usual "the country is full of pedophiles" stories by having a journalist pretend to be a 14yo girl on Facebook, claiming "she" got umpteen requests from older men for sexual attention.

However, look at the comments section for the most popular, and you'll find oodles of people saying the likes of 'I'm unsure how this happened, my teenagers have been on Facebook for ages and don't have this issue as they know how to use it' or 'I used the internet since I was 11, occasionally had pervy attention and just blocked it or closed the window'.

In other words, Facebook isn't the problem. It allows you to control privacy settings, and most teenagers are smart enough to simply block unwanted attention. It's logical and rational, after all it is only words and images on a computer screen.

The bigger issue is clearly when teenagers ARE looking for this sort of attention, which is more a sign of issues with family, confidence and desperately seeking someone to listen to them and make them feel good about themselves. THAT is the issue, the seeking of self esteem from others, when it isn't effectively taught at home or school. A culture of sacrifice, altruism and belief that what matters is what you do for others, not yourself, encourages this.

Of course even with that some will be curious and daring, and make foolish mistakes. However, there are laws to prosecute people who engage in underage sex, and those who use the internet to meet young people for that purpose are leaving obvious trails to track them down and get them prosecuted. Curiously, some of the more recent cases of internet bullying have been with their peers, not adults. Will laws be created to prosecute teenagers for being mean to each other online? Or is it better to promote safe behaviour online, using defamation and harassment laws as they stand and let reason prevail?

The key point is that most teenagers most of the time look after themselves well online, and are more than competent to protect themselves and not meet strangers they find online alone in private places. The few who don't, do so for reasons that no law will fix, and those who care about them should provide means for them to be able to communicate what it is they want and why, in a non-judgmental and open manner. If they do stray, and do end up engaging in illegal behaviour offline, the criminal law remains to provide harsh penalties for those who exploit the young, and the internet is a fine tool for finding such people!

UPDATE: The Guardian reports the Daily Mail is facing the threat of a defamation suit because it initially claimed that it was Facebook that was used for this story.

Hedge fund manager puts socialists on the spot

Last night on BBC's Newsnight, a hedge fund manager, Hugh Hendry participated in a discussion about how he is speculating on Greece defaulting on its debt. He was joined by Joseph Stiglitz, a US economist, and Spanish Ambassador to the UK, Carles Casajuana.

Many on the left blame the likes of him who in speculating on Greece's public finances, when what he actually is doing is exposing the real risk. He is doing it with his own money and money of those who have chosen to trust him to manage.

That is the fundamental difference.

He has bet millions on the Euro, betting on it dropping if Greece defaults. As he says, if he is wrong, he and his investors lose. He expects nobody to bail him out. If he succeeds, it will be because he is right.

Why is he in a position to do this? Because the Greek governments, democratically elected for years, have been both lying about the public finances and been lax about getting those who elect them to pay for what they want.

However, the discussion on Newsnight last night was simply beautiful.

Stiglitz claimed there should be more borrowing and spending, and it is "absurd" to bet on a default. Hendry said simply:

"Look what happens - you get into difficulty and these guys over here [pointing at Stiglitz and Spanish Ambassador to the UK, Carles Casajuana] say, "hey we don't like it."

"Suddenly the truth hurts! Suddenly we want to abandon the truth. Suddenly speculation becomes a pejorative term!"

In other words, the politicians and some economists want reality evaded, the truth of the Greek government's inability to see that constant borrowing is unsustainable, is something they don't want to know - because what it really means is that spending must be cut, drastically.

Then he got threatened by the weasel who is the Spanish Ambassador who said "we're coming to get you".

He replied: "I see you champagne socialists when I travel business class, and the reason you're up in arms now is because you've got yourself into a crisis and cannot get out of it. So you're looking for scapegoats".

Indeed. The unaccountable reality evaders, statists both on the left and right, wont confront the truth that they are trying to defend mortgaging future taxpayers with their profligacy of today.

If the European Union decides to pillage taxpayers to save its members from default, then it will deserve the backlash that will be inevitable. Blaming entrepreneurs for betting with their own money for the failings of government is a lame attempt to cover up massive incompetence and failure by governments to spend within their means. Indeed, it would demonstrate once and for all the anti-business, anti-capitalist and pro-statist agenda of the European Union, except this time taxpayers are unlikely to stand for the machinations of those who like to spend their money for them.

Let Greece default, let Portugal, Spain and others follow.

Meanwhile, watch Hendry's excellent performance here and see the difference between someone who has made a success of his life and taken risks, compared to those who have spent their lives living off the back of others:



UPDATE: Here is Hendry again, for UK viewers only (through BBC iPlayer) pulling apart Poul Rasmussen, leader of the Party of European Socialists. The start is 22 minutes into the programme...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rdynp/Newsnight_09_03_2010/

International Women's Day is a day to celebrate the private car

No objectivist could seriously consider there is any room for debate on whether women should be treated equally under the law to men. Furthermore, it is clearly irrational for private individuals to treat the deeds, skills, experiences or opinions of women as being inferior to men, purely due to the presence of different genitalia.

Having said that, there are many cases where discrimination on the basis of sex IS rational, simple things like personal preferences as to the sex of a doctor for sensitive issues, or quite simply human sexuality. As long as such a selection is rational, there is no reason to oppose it.

However, this post isn't about that, it is about how technology and capitalism have benefited women. Of these, one of the most beneficial inventions has been the private car.

The car has allowed more women to have access to employment, as it enables access to jobs that are NOT located in central business districts (which typically are accessible by public transport), and provides flexibility to engage in part time work around tasks many mothers undertake (such as the school run and grocery shopping).

Alan Pisarski notes that in the USA, the number of women with driving licences is approaching that of men, a trend which is not the case in many other countries. This access to personal mobility has been critical in women being able to access more and better opportunities for employment and business, as well as social opportunities. The presence of a second car in homes has particularly added to this, and that has been due to the ever declining real cost of purchasing and owning a car.

In most cases, it is quicker, cheaper and more convenient for women to access employment by car. This trend is unlikely to be reversed by the wishful thinking of supporters of coercively funded collectivised transport, which obviously has a role in assisting with people's mobility, but cannot ever replicate the flexibility that the car offers. It is that flexibility that has contributed towards expanding the horizons of opportunities for women.

Small mercies from new Auckland transport body

Now I've been damning of the creation of the Auckland mega city consistently. Quite simply, making councils in Auckland merge, whilst keeping their nearly unlimited power to enter into business, welfare activities, buy what they wish, set rates for whatever they wish, is a recipe for potentially untrammeled socialism at the local level. The last Labour Government gave local authorities a "power of general competence" (led by Alliance MP and Local Government Minister, Sandra Lee), which National and ACT opposed, yet both parties are now creating the largest government agency outside direct central government control in Auckland.

Transport is clearly one of the big issues for Auckland, but it is important to note the roles and responsibilities for that activity in the city. Bear in mind I am talking about urban transport, not intercity or international passenger or freight transport. Most of that operates quite well with little involvement of local government, except with local roads.

The creation of "Auckland Transport" as the new Council Controlled Organisation responsible for local body transport duties in Auckland has caused a bit of a stir with both Brian Rudman and Bernard Orsman opposing it. Indeed, it is noted that The Treasury, Ministry of Economic Development and Department of Internal Affairs all opposed it. Whilst the Internal Affairs opposition is unsurprising, the opposition of both Treasury and MED should put paid to any belief by those on the left that either agency is dominated by a "new right neo-liberal" agenda. For removing local transport operational matters from direct political interference WOULD be embraced by those who believe in less politics, less bureaucracy and more professional approaches to providing services.

However, let's be clear about what Auckland Transport will do.

It will operate Auckland's local roads, the roads that are not state highways. It will seek ratepayers money to pay for around half of the local road costs, and bid to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for the rest (which gets its money from road users through fuel tax etc). It will contract out all of the maintenance and construction work (as usual). There will, in essence, be little change, except that like the state highways, they will be run at an arms length from politicians. Given New Zealand's state highways are acknowledged by the World Bank to be among the best managed in the world, this is no bad thing. The less political interference in managing the roads the better, as we have seen with telecommunications, electricity and postal services.

The second function is around public transport. Auckland Transport will contract subsidised public transport services, and regulate commercial ones. Buses, trains and ferries. It will own some infrastructure, but not the rail network (which is now Kiwirail). So it will do what ARTA does, decide what it wants to use ratepayers money to subsidise, seek funding from the NZTA for it, and contract services. Now as much as I believe that function should be phased out, it is exactly what you want to have at arms length from politicians. Why should politicians dictate bus routes, train timetables or the conditions for contracting services?

So why is Bernard Orsman upset? He doesn't like "unelected" directors making these decisions, yet this is exactly how half of Auckland's transport funds already get allocated, and how Auckland's state highways are managed - by the NZTA board. A board appointed by the Minister of Transport, but which is statutorily required to make its own decisions based on specific criteria such as economic efficiency. Other Auckland transport assets are run the same way, like the Ports of Auckland, locally owned but a company. Auckland Airport is a largely privately owned company. Kiwirail has a politically appointed board, but is a state owned enterprise. It's NORMAL for there to not be day to day political interference in the transport sector.

After all, look at the state of Auckland transport. The worst congestion is on the local road network, the network starved of investment in part because local government prevaricates about funding new capacity. In addition, it has been obsessed with introducing bus lanes, but showing no interest in allowing the capacity of those underused lanes to be shared with trucks or taxis.

A better solution would be to run the roads as a company, and give it the right to charge motorists directly (in exchange for refunding fuel tax and road user charges), and for property owners to take back the roads outside their premises in exchange for a cut in rates, but to be grateful for small mercies - at LEAST transport in Auckland will be one step less political.

Still politicians will raise rates to pay for roads and public transport. Public transport that if the roads were properly priced based on cost and demand/supply, wouldn't need to be subsidised. Roads that should be paid for mostly by road users, with property owners paying for accessways (for example).

Brian Rudman doesn't like having an arms-length organisation for Auckland transport, yet gives arguments as to why it should exist. There are plenty more. How many councils have roads fixed up to the point where a councillor lives, or a major friend of some politicians? How confident are you that YOUR needs are to be met by a local authority politician?

So there is no reason to worry, it might be slightly better than the way things are now, but not much. The left oppose Council Controlled Organisations because they see them as a step to their bogey - privatisation. It isn't that, unfortunately, but it is a step towards transport being driven by professionalism and delivering infrastructure for users, not meeting political demands first.

Those who oppose it might wonder why they seem to have no problem with it in so many other parts of the transport sector, or whenever else government provides infrastructure.

Devon and Cornwall Police harass peaceful residents

The Daily Telegraph reports how the Devon and Cornwall Police raided a home that contained a S & M dungeon. Not a brothel (though I suspect they thought it was), no one was being kept against their will, but for some unidentified reason three people have been arrested.

The report shows how utterly disinterested the Police are in the individual rights of the owners or anyone who would come to visit:

"The first officer who approached the home was wearing a suit and tie and when he knocked on the door we believe they thought he had an appointment.

"They invited him in but then several officers followed him in and carried out the search and found the dungeon. While we were conducting a search one gentleman arrived.

"He walked straight passed police vans and cars and several officers and rang the bell inquiring about an appointment. We had to have a word with him."

No you didn't, he wasn't hurting anyone. Fight some real crime! It's a disgrace, with the Police attitude even more telling:

DS Gilroy said: "We are glad to have disturbed this activity and restored normality to the neighbourhood. We would also like to thank residents who reported the activity to us."

Inspector Phil Chivers, police inspector for the South Hams, added: "This incident demonstrates that we, the police, are reliant on information from the community."

WHY are you glad to have disturbed this activity? What damned right did you have to be proud of disturbing people when you have NO evidence of any real crime? What the hell is "normality", are adults not allowed to have interests that you don't think are normal? Does Britain have a Ministry of Virtue and Vice now?

It's absolutely disgusting that the Police don't think they work for everyone and to protect their rights, rather than to be the interfering Stasi style busybodies.

It's not as if there is a lack of real crime to be chasing, or is this sort of case far too interesting for the Police to not stick their beaks into?

Michael Foot, committed Marxist altruist, is dead

Michael Foot is best known for having led the British Labour Party to the greatest defeat in its history, in the 1983 election. After the 1979 defeat of James Callaghan, Foot was the choice of the far left of the Labour Party and so helped produce the “longest suicide note in history” as the 1983 Labour Manifesto was called. It openly called itself a programme of socialist reconstruction.

It offered, at the height of the Cold War, to scrap Britain’s nuclear arsenal, withdraw Britain from the EEC, nationalise more industries, raise taxes, and return to the economy being run by diktat by meetings between government, unions and business. It promised massive increases in welfare, and new bureaucracies across many aspects of life, including consumer shopping advisory centres!

Foot was unashamedly socialist, he took on Margaret Thatcher and the result was a split in the Labour Party, as moderates fled to a party that eventually merged and formed the Liberal Democrats.

Had Foot won the 1983 general election, it would have been a disaster both economically and strategically for Britain. It may have been a turning point in the Cold War, as the UK stepped to one side, and the West would have been weakened, heightening Reagan’s resolve, but isolating Britain. The withdrawal from the EEC would have further isolated Britain, as investment would have dropped away, and the long slow decline of post war Britain would have accelerated once more. The dream of so many on the left was not wanted by the majority of voters. His election would have emboldened the likes of Constantin Chernenko, and would not have provided sustenance for the Solidarity movement in Poland, but rather the intellectual pygmies that ran their criminal states east of the Iron Curtain. He would have eviscerated friendship between the US and the UK, and frightened those on the front line of the Cold War. A socialist wet dream of accelerated decline, economic deception and surrender to the Soviet threat.

The 1983 election, in the height of recession and high unemployment, saw the Conservatives pick up an additional 58 seats, Labour losing 60 and the SDP/Alliance (which would become the Liberal Democrats) picking up 12 more seats. It also saw Gordon Brown get elected to the seat of Dunfermline East, his second attempt to get elected. You may think Labour in the UK today is far removed from that of Michael Foot, but Brown still espouses much of the philosophy of Foot.

Foot, you see, once said this:

We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

He didn’t believe people existed for their own purposes, to pursue their dreams, their endeavours, but for others. He was a committed altruist. He believed good only came from helping others, he believed in redistributing wealth, he didn’t care how it was created. Therein lies the practical failings of the man.

Morally he expressed the view that people existed for the sake of others. I would condemn that, but then why pick on him? He was, at least, open and honest about his principles and convictions. The likes of Gordon Brown are not, yet they have the same philosophical approach. Conservatives do as well, as do almost all across the political spectrum. The belief not that your life is your own and your purpose is to pursue your values, but that your life has an unchosen obligation to provide for others.

Fortunately Michael Foot did not get to impose democratic Marxism on the UK. Sadly, whilst a man of principle and honesty, he still, fundamentally, held the belief that is basic to what most politicians believe in – that the individual does not primarily exist for his or her own purposes. That philosophy, as important in all major political parties across liberal democracies, has not died with Michael Foot - all he did was espouse it more openly, consistently and radically than others.

Curious, you see, that the 1983 manifesto did include a national state owned broadband network...

EU screws Britain on Olympics

Reported this morning on BBC TV news.

EU law prohibits the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics from setting aside tickets for sale only to Londoners or UK citizens/residents - because it would be discriminatory.

So despite UK taxpayers forking out £6 billion for the Olympics, those paying for it aren't entitled to privileges regarding ticket sales.

Yep, another reason why the EU goes so far and beyond what is useful....

Democrats don't understand the Tea Party

Now I've seen it all, arch statist in the US Congress, Nancy Pelosi is claiming to share some of the views of the "Tea Partiers".

"that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest" she said according to the Daily Telegraph

So apparently it IS having an impact, when a party which has made the careers of hundreds of vested interest supporting, pro-protectionist, pro-subsidy, pro-government intervention politicians thinks it has to listen. In fact, the Democrats have such a disgusting filthy tradition of corrupting politics in the US that they deserve nothing but contempt, and of course many Republicans are little different.

So much which is great about the United States has been corrupted by the relentless growth of government, fueled in part by the ambitions of the vile little thieves in both houses of congress, constantly demanding other people's money for their pet projects, pet industries and pet lobbyists, and demanding protection and regulation to mollycoddle industries, unions, government agencies and the like.

Nancy Pelosi has always been part of the problem, opposing moves towards balanced budgets, supporting the endless expansion of Medicare and Medicaid and the welfare state.

What's important is that the Tea Party movement has struck a chord, with millions who are sick of politicians thinking they are spending their money, and thinking they can keep doing it.

What it lacks is a single individual to rally behind politically and to take the message consistently forward.

US turns back on UK over Falklands

The Falkland Islands have a mixed history of differing claims to sovereignty. The French first established a colony there in 1764, the British established one on another part of the islands in 1765. France and Spain were in Alliance, so France handed over its colony to Spain in 1767. This effectively put it under the same colonial administration as Argentina.

Spain attacked the British colony bringing the two countries on the brink of war, which was settled by Spain capitulating and letting the British settlement be re-established. However, Britain abandoned the Falklands in 1776 leaving it all to Spain (although also leaving a plaque asserting British sovereignty). Spain similarly abandoned the islands in 1811, also leaving a plaque. From this point on for some years, the Falklands ended up being under no effective control, but being a harbour for various fishing, whaling and other vessels.

Argentina gained independence in 1816, and in 1820 had sailed to the islands and asserted sovereignty over them. Between then and 1833, merchant Luis Vernet sought permission to settle there from both the Argentines and the British. He received assurances, and the Argentines appointed him Governor in 1829, to British (and US) protest. However, by 1833 Britain had re-established itself on the islands and ordered the Argentines to leave, which they did. A British colony was established and has remained relatively undisturbed, notwithstanding the more recent Falklands War.

Argentina claims it was first, as it inherited the French then Spanish settlements, and was forcibly ejected from the Falklands. The UK claims that it has a parallel claim, that the Spanish abandoned the Falklands (like the British did), and there was no indigenous or Spanish/Argentine colony established before the British colony. Moreover most of the current population opposes Argentine sovereignty.

In essence, for all of the debate the population of the Falklands do not want to be governed from Buenos Aires. Arising from this are claims to exploit the Exclusive Economic Zone around the Falklands for energy exploration. The beleagured Argentine government is seeking to distract attention from its own economic mismanagement by confronting the UK over this.

The Obama Administration's response? Neutrality.

According to the Times ""The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region"

The leftwing Argentine government, beleagured by high inflation, is challenging British attempts to take advantage of the UK EEZ as it surrounds the Falklands.

Argentina's claim will no doubt have the backing of the cabal of socialists that now run many Latin American countries, none of whom give a damn that most Falkland Islanders want to remain British.

The bigger point is that the "special relationship" is over. The Obama Administration is reverting to the form REJECTED by Ronald Reagan, the realpolitik preferred by the State Department.

Who will know if John McCain would have done the same, would George Bush have just thumbed his nose at Britain given its close support in Afghanistan and Iraq?

One thing IS sure, from the DVD set gifted to Gordon Brown to this, there can be no question that the Obama Administration doesn't think the UK deserves consideration beyond that of just another friendly country - like Argentina, France or South Africa.

French sexualise smoking some more

The Independent reports on the scandal in France of anti-smoking ads.

It was designed to make smoking look bad.

What it does is make it look like a sexual act of submission. It implies that smoking is like giving fellatio, which isn't exactly an uncommon act among teenagers.

In other words, it has linked it to a taboo that is likely to make it even MORE appealing.

The images (ones including men are here) could spark mimicking, so that a girl smoking might be seen as teasing sexually - imagery that I'd have thought would be exactly the opposite of what was the goal.

Stuff stuffs up

This article has the wrong title and the first two paragraphs are wrong.

The proposed Transmission Gully motorway does not pass through the Kapiti Coast, it ends there.

The petition from Alliance for Sustainable Kapiti is not about Transmission Gully, it is about the Paraparaumu-Waikanae bypass.

AAP and Stuff need to print a retraction. However, they are no more stupid than Sue Kedgley, who makes the same mistake in a speech in Kapiti.

$60 a year for Radio NZ listeners to pay

Brian Rudman unsurprisingly loves Radio NZ, an outlet for the statist world view that he shares, that argues about what government should do, rather than what it shouldn't do.

He claims imposing a funding freeze is "bullying", but can't for the life of him figure out that making everyone pay for a station most don't listen to ISN'T bullying. "I like Radio NZ, I am happy to pay for it, but only if I make you pay for it too" is rather distasteful.

He throws up some strawmen, like the Ministry of Culture and Heritage commissioned study by KPMG that said Radio NZ was underfunded. Hardly surprising, since the report was part of the Ministry's wider strategy to get more state funding for its remit. Consultants can be adept at giving clients reports that tell them what they want.

The UNITEC study for the Ministry (PDF) was another strawman. Setting aside the minor mistakes throughout (like calling South Korea - "Democratic Republic"), the figures quoted on per capita spending on public broadcasting are seriously flawed. The report itself admits the figures for each country used are from different years. All of the figures are converted from local currencies into US$, with no transparency about the exchange rates. Moreover, the per capita spending is not on a Purchasing Power Parity basis. In shorthand that means the report thinks £10 buys the same in London as it does in Wellington, which is nonsense. The figures make New Zealand look cheap and nasty when that isn't the truth. The report is also full of ridiculous statements like:

“there is much evidence of market failure insofar as a purely commercial model of broadcasting tends to overlook the needs of commercially unattractive segments of the audience (such as ethnic minorities),”

although the US is full of minority language radio stations all commercially run.

It also has a distinctly anti-commercial broadcasting bias:

"That is certainly not to say that commercial broadcasters can never produce high quality content, but where they do so on a consistent basis there are usually factors other than market forces and commercial revenue at work.”

The word "quality" is in the eye of the beholder of course, but this sort of statement is absurd. It is like saying that without state funded books, newspapers, websites, art or music, there wouldn't be any "quality".

However, it is when Brian talks about the small cost of Radio NZ that he actually makes a point that Radio NZ supporters are closing their ears to.

He says "Of all our state-funded cultural institutions, Radio New Zealand is probably the most vital of all. It's the town hall of a community of 4.35 million people, widely dispersed from North Cape to Stewart Island.”

No Brian, it is 650,000 people, given only 15% of radio listeners tune in to RNZ stations.

Then he says "It costs under $9 per person a year to run. For that small outlay we provide ourselves the only venue to hear extended and serious discussions on politics, the arts, medicine, lifestyle - you name it. We also provide for ourselves a newsroom with valuable competition for the two or three big metropolitan papers."

Well if you leave out those who don't listen, then you mean $60 per person a year. Not a lot of money is it?

So go on Brian, cough up, ask Radio NZ supporters to cough up. Stop wanting non-listening taxpayers to fund what YOU like, indeed if it is so valuable you should be jumping at the chance.

Does it just speak volumes about the hypocrisy of those who say how "valuable" it is, how much "we" should appreciate it, that THEY wont spend a dollar of their own cash to help out?

THAT Ladies and Gentleman is the difference between those who are statists and those who are libertarians. Those that think something is good, and want everyone else to pay for it, and those who think if you like something, YOU should pay for it.

I like reading the Economist and the Spectator, will you pay for my subscriptions? If not, why the hell is it any different?

UPDATE: Facebook now has a group OPPOSED to further state funding of Radio NZ.

NZ home insulation foolishness tells a lot about attitudes

Following on from the Australian catastrophe in subsidising home owners who can't be bothered paying for their own energy bill savings, there is now the consequences of the New Zealand scheme. However, what it says about the general public speaks volumes about the trust they have in the state, trust that anyone who has spent time working with the bureaucracy knows is misplaced.

The New Zealand Herald reports that many insulation installers are upset that:

"the government subsidies are allowing competitors to hike their prices and still undercut them using taxpayers' money.

They say customers are avoiding them because they see government approval to offer subsidies of up to $1300 for insulation and $500 for energy-efficient heating as a "badge of quality".

Of 249 companies wanting to join the $347 million scheme for the next four years, 60 were chosen based on factors including geographical coverage, financial stability and their ability to carry out self-audits."

So in other words, 60 firms are suckling off the state tit, whereas the rest are out in the cold, helping to PAY for their competition to undercut them.

It speaks volumes that the EECA subsidy is seen to be a guarantee of quality, the same stupid mistake Australians made thinking government approved installers were somehow a higher standard. Seriously, do people think bureaucrats exist that check the quality and standards of insulation installers? Do people think that if a state approved installer does work for them that they have a greater degree of sanction if it turns out to be poor quality?

The notion of this is ridiculous. I've known literally hundreds of bureaucrats, most of whom know the limits of their competence. There simply are NOT people out there able to check this sort of thing. Yet people believe the state is somehow benevolent and offers some sort of reassurance.

Now I oppose the fundamentals of the scheme. Yes it might save energy bills, but that is a private good. Those with insulation shouldn't pay for those without to save money. Yes it might improve health of some, but when are people meant to take responsibility for the cold and damp in their homes?

The political reaction to this is predictable. Energy Minister Gerry Brownlie effectively endorsed the idea that the scheme ensures a "tight control" on quality of work, although it isn't clear quite how that quality is being ensured. This contradicts EECA claims that just because some aren't part of the subsidy scheme does not mean their work is poor quality. So is Brownlee just knifing those who don't get taxpayers money to run their business?

Labour spokesman Chris Hipkins thinks the subsidy should be offered to everyone, doing a Peter Garrett.

You see a better response is this:

- Stop the subsidy scheme;
- Tell homeowners that if they want to make energy savings, they should buy their own insulation and use recommendations, word of mouth and other means to explore the market to find good installers and suppliers;
- Tell homeowners who already have insulation that it is unfair to tax those who already have insulated their homes to subsidise those who haven't;
- Used the savings to cut the budget deficit, working towards tax cuts WITHOUT countervailing new taxes. Hiking GST wont help people pay for insulation.

After all, if people paid less taxes they would have more money to spend on discretionary expenditure, and if would rather pay higher heating bills than insulation, why should nanny state save them?

UPDATE: Not PC also has a recommendation of a GOOD installer. A recommendation I'd trust over any government "endorsement" that apparently isn't one.

How can he sleep when the roofs are burning

Who couldn't see this coming?

Peter Garrett, former singer for band Midnight Oil, former member of the far-left Nuclear Disarmament Party, now committed Christian, family man and Australian Labor Party MP for Kingsford Smith, New South Wales and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in Australia, has presided over one of the most monumental disasters in recent Australian Federal Government history.

The blame, of course, is not just his. There is a line of bureaurats who should be rendered unemployable as well, but the story is one of how much government can screw up with other people's money.

It started with a package that may sound familiar. A plan to use taxpayers' money to subsidise the insulation of homes of those who couldn't be arsed paying for it themselves. Garrett proudly launched the plan in June 2009 with this press release saying "From today, householders can start shopping around and working out which registered installer and type of insulation is right for them"

In essence, the taxpayer would be forced to pay the value of insulating a home up to A$1,600, and a whole series of government approved installers were appointed to undertake the scheme.

In addition:

"As well as the ceiling insulation offer for homeowners, there is also insulation assistance of up to $1,000 available for renters and landlords. It is expected around 2.9 million households Australia-wide will benefit from these insulation offers.

The Energy Efficient Homes Package also provides a rebate of $1,600 to help eligible home-owners, landlords or tenants replace their electric storage hot water systems with solar or heat pump hot water systems."

The motivation was to "create jobs" (by taking money out of the hands of some and handing it to the insulation industry) and to contribute to Australia's climate change objectives.

The cost was estimated at A$4 billion, so we are talking A$200 per Australian!

The result?

The Australian reports around a million homes have been insulated, of which 160,000 have apparently "shoddy ceiling batts", 80,000 homes have "potentially dangerous insulation", 1,000 roofs have been "electrified", 93 houses have caught fire and 4 deaths have resulted.

Despite extensive questioning, the Australian Federal Government doesn't know which homes are at risk, how it is going to undertake a risk assessment or how it will fix it.

The scheme has been terminated as of last Friday.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports Aussie PM Kevin Rudd has taken ultimate responsibility, indicating Garrett wont be a sacrificial lamb. Interesting given it is election year in Australia.

Why should all this happen?

Well the incentives were all wrong.

For starters, those who take other people's money don't take the same care with it as those whose it was the first place. Those who set up this scheme knew none of them would ever have any financial responsibility for the failure.

Secondly, those who installed the insulation and the hot water systems also knew it was a case of install, then claim. They knew their work wouldn't be inspected, the customer wasn't THAT careful since it was being installed for free and if there was a need to take a short-cut, they would still be paid.

Thirdly, the home owners whose homes are affected, having no financial relationship with the installer, had little leverage after the fact.

The bottom line is that if home owners get a financial advantage from insulation and improving heating/air conditioning systems, they can make the judgment themselves about spending money on it. Why all taxpayers, including those who already spent their money on such improvements, and those who don't own homes, should subsidise those who don't, is astonishing.

It is the sort of collective groupspeak that claims "we will save" a fortune if everyone does it that blinds public policy to what is simply a matter of private benefit. I save nothing if my neighbour saves money on heating or air conditioning, it is of no benefit to me. If I asked my neighbour to help me pay for insulation because it would save my power bills, and might even save costs of health care, the neighbour would rightfully tell me to leave, politely.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports the result is that the insulation industry is in crisis. This, of course, serves them right for trusting government and wanting to benefit off the back of taxpayers rather than customers.

"Several companies have been running their factories 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months, creating a huge glut of batts that are now largely unwanted in the wake of the rebate scheme being axed"

Tough, when you deal with politicians then sometimes you pay the price. Taxpayers had no choice to pay for you being a party to this filthy little arrangement, now you pay. You no longer have nanny state to pay your bills, and you've screwed things up so badly that domestic private consumers don't want to touch it. How sad, but now an opportunity for NZ installers to source some cheap stock?

"Fletcher Insulation makes about 40 per cent of Australia's insulation, and managing director David Isaacs said he expected 8000 jobs to be lost from the industry."

Nice own goal there for both the industry and the government. Nice job creator Labor. Sad for those losing their jobs, but how many of them thought the Labor Party would look after them?

How many will still, like sheeple, tick Labor this year?

Herald misses point on Radio NZ

The NZ Herald editorial makes this statement:

"The quality of Radio NZ's service will be compromised for a minor monetary gain at a time when the broadcaster says audiences are at an all-time high"

Nonsense. If you are worried about the quality of Radio NZ's service (a subjective measure, but I'll leave it to you), then you CAN do something about it.

Donate money to Radio NZ.

Not used to paying for things you like? You should be. It's what you do if you subscribe to Sky TV, or buy books and magazines, go to the movies etc. Why is this any different?

Stop wanting to bludge off of other taxpayers for your own personal choice. If audiences are at an all time high then great. You too can set up a campaign to support Radio NZ.

Seems a bit hard? Well you might learn something. Businesses don't (typically) get handouts to start up, neither do charities.

Or would you rather spend your money on dessert, a bottle of wine, a holiday, some CDs you like? Because when it comes down to it, you only care enough about Radio NZ to lobby the state to make others pay for it.

The triumph of mediocrity over aspiration

Although I did not vote for National, or any of the parties keeping the National led government in power, I did have some optimism that there would be a positive change. I knew it would barely be a fraction of what I wanted, and that it would be overlaid with the sort of folksy platitudes that patronise the vast majority of the population, most of whom are too uninterested to seriously challenge it.

However, there were, at least, two reasons to smile after the 2008 election. Firstly, Helen Clark and her government of control freaks was ousted. Nine years of government that believed it almost always had a role, to spend other people's money on things, to regulate, to set up strategies and inquiries, was finally at an end. Secondly, John Key is, at least, a self-made man. He at least in part represents the dream of many, so at least there would be some belief that the incoming administration would be in support of business, and would be sceptical about government providing solutions. Enough rhetoric had been thrown about by some in the National Party that there could be some hope of less spending, less government and less taxes, albeit at a fairly glacial pace.

This has proven to be, by and large, a delusion. Even the low expectations of optimism I had, are being frittered away.

The recent proposals to engage in the Roger Douglas style tax reform of the 1980s, again, by hiking GST and dropping some income tax, smack of the triumph of mediocrity over aspiration. National apparently believes that all of the bureaucracies that current exist have merit. It believes that the current levels of welfare dependency and the structures of both individual and corporate welfare set up by Labour, should largely remain intact. Indeed, the belief in the role of the state is such that National is embarking on road building plans that under the evaluation criteria it once stood by, are not worth it.

The arguments in favour of consumption taxes over income taxes may be quite solid, but the impact of this sort of reshuffling will be minor. It wont make a smidgen of difference to get New Zealand to be more productive, dynamic and innovative. It still smacks of the low value commodity based economy terrified its exchange rate would actually be worth enough to import high value goods from the rest of the world.

Why? Because National has demonstrated, once again, that it is not a party of serious change, a party that will shrink the role of the state and grant tax cuts as a result. It is a party to reshuffle the deck, a party too terrified to contemplate the sort of education policies even the British Conservative Party is gleefully waltzing into an election with. It is terrified of saying the word privatisation, as much as it did when it should have been confronting the economic retards of Winston Peters and Jim Anderton, though who really thinks that the state owning three competing power generation and retail companies is a serious long term strategy for the energy sector?

It is true to form, and sadly ACT is not making anything of this when it could and should. It could, positively, be arguing for things to go further, and National could give it free rein to make the sort of arguments it knows Labour never could - whilst remaining aloof from them (the implication being obvious - Labour would never advocate less government).

What will punish National the most is the simple fact that the increase in GST will fall most hard on those on lowest incomes. If you wanted to hand some rhetoric and a rallying cry for the left on a plate, increasing GST does it. For it not only hurts those who spend most of their earnings, but it also encourages the growth in a black market, a growth in trading via TradeMe to help avoid GST (and other taxes). The most recent TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll should, if Key was doing a Helen Clark, give room to pause. National was never elected to INCREASE ANY taxes, and the sleight of hand that it demonstrates is not fooling many.

Of course, given this is partly the brainchild of Bill English - the man who delivered National its most crushing defeat in 2002, because he couldn't confront Helen Clark's forceful (and believable) commitment to her principles, despite that government having legislated over private contracts with ACC and forcing Air NZ into a crisis because of its own dithering and nationalism.

However, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe New Zealanders just like governments that look like they are "doing something".

Pathetic reparations? Blame ACC

According to the NZ Herald, four cyclists were badly injured, one critically, because Jennifer Lea Speakman didn’t look as she pulled out onto the road with her car.

She has lost her driving licence for six months and has been ordered to pay a paltry NZ$1000 reparations to each of the victims.

A friend of the victims calls the reparations “pathetic”. So they are, but then so they should be if one accepts the so-called “social contract” of ACC.

Speakman’s car insurance is paying out the property damage costs in replacing the bikes, which of course is fine. However, ACC creates a completely new dimension. This is one that many New Zealanders, exposed to TV legal dramas from overseas, are probably not fully aware of.

The right to sue for damages as a result of the negligence of another is gone, except in the context of exemplary damages.

In theory, as Speakman paid ACC levies both associated with her motor vehicle licence and in fuel tax, she has paid into socialised insurance scheme, much loved by the left, designed to provide compensation to the victims.

Its fundamental basis is no fault based compensation. ACC is meant to cover the needs of the victims. She should basically have walked away with simply losing her driving licence and paying court costs, if you really believe ACC is fair and reasonable. The advantages of ACC are clear, in that it offers compensation fairly quickly and without the hassle of court, but the disadvantages are also clear. It offers no deterrent to bad behaviour, no incentives to good behaviour, and the compensation is never particularly great.

If you don’t think ACC is fair and reasonable (and let’s be honest here, no other country has ACC), then you’d return the right to sue. That would mean Speakman would face significant claims for loss of income, emotional trauma, pain and suffering because of her negligence. A fair deterrent to making a foolish mistake. More likely, Speakman would have insurance to cover such an eventuality and the victims themselves would be paid out by the insurance firm – which would fight on Speakman’s behalf to not pay out, but ultimately would be likely to pay substantially more than a measly NZ$1000 per victim, on top of what ACC coughs up.

The difference is the delay.

An alternative would be for ACC to be subject to competition and for motor vehicle ACC to be a matter of personal accounts. The insurers of the victims would pay out, and Speakman would see a significant rise in her levies to reflect the risk she poses.

However, with ACC she will pay the same as any driver who has had no accidents at all. So why is any reasonable debate about this system treated as blasphemy? Isn’t it time that this nearly 40 year old experiment was subject to a fundamental review?

Love Radio NZ? Well cough up...

The Government is putting pressure on Radio NZ so that taxpayers wont be forced to pay for it so much. There is plenty of potential to do this. The ridiculous introduction of FM simulcasting should end for starters, setting free those frequencies for those willing to pay for it.

The NZ Herald reports that Labour Deputy Leader Annette King says " it would be like living in a Third World country if National Radio had to shut down between midnight and 6am"

Really Annette? I didn't know the UK was a third world country. The UK equivalent of National Radio is BBC Radio 4, which between 1am and 6am closes down and simply carries the BBC World Service. Better yet given the time difference, National Radio could simulcast Radio 4, or the World Radio Network.

However, this is all fiddling beyond the real point.

It's all very well for Helen Clark, who is barely a taxpayer in New Zealand (and not at all one in New York excluding local sales taxes), to defend Radio NZ. However, for the likes of Clark, King and the irascible Sue Kedgley to make a difference there is only one moral option.

Use your own money and donate to Radio NZ.

Why should anyone else be forced to pay for the broadcaster? Radio is not a "public good", and given that 85% of radio listening is not done with Radio NZ, then is this not simply one of the most explicit forms of elitism that is propagated by the left?

The view would be that Radio NZ is "good for you", which begs the question that if this is true, then 4 out of 5 members of the public disagree, or are stupid. Which justifies making them pay for the remaining 1.

Now I'm not going to pass judgment on Radio NZ myself, since I did use to listen to it regularly in NZ. I might even be willing to pay for it, if it rid itself of its inherently statist bias (how many panels does it have on shows that include nobody who believes in LESS government?).

However, the answer to all those who may bleat about Radio NZ is this. National isn't planning on removing the state tit from your favourite radio station, but if you think it is underfunded then dig into your own pockets and start making regular contributions.

If you wont do that, then why is it moral to make everyone pay for something a small fraction actually use or appreciate? Or is it just because it happens to correspond with your world view that government should exist to spread information and entertainment?

Elderly prefer tickle cock

Beware. Those easily offended or not wishing children to have certain words explained to them may choose to go elsewhere.

In a classic story of the precious council that couldn't, Wakefield District Council in Yorkshire has succumbed to pressure to reinstate the name of a bridge back to one that offended some, but which had a long history. The story is from the Daily Telegraph.

Tickle Cock Bridge is a small railway underpass for pedestrians, and has had that name apparently since the 19th century. The Council, in its dour "mustn't offend anyone" manner decided that the name was far too embarrassing, so changed it to Tittle Cott. The motivation being a forthcoming television series featuring the town of Castleford where it is located.

Castleford Area Voice for the Elderly was duly offended by the precious change of name. After all, Britain is full of places with names like Little Snoring, Happy Bottom, Piddle Valley, Shitterton, Wet Rain, Twatt, Titty Hill, Slackbottom and many more (although Wikipedia informs Austria has a town called Fucking - which, like many of these names, is NOT a reflection of latter day English).

The Telegraph reports:

"Feelings over the re-naming ran so high that a public meeting was organised and a large majority came out in favour of reverting to the original name.

Brian Lewis, a local author, said: “I feel we should never alter names and Tickle Cock has a very clear message behind it.

“I was horrified at another example of the nanny state telling us something we don’t want to do.”

Quite. Good for them. At the very least it shows that a good number of people can come out with a sense of humour and tell do-gooders to do good with their own lives.

The Telegraph doesn't let us down either by having a list of the rudest place names in the UK, most of which carry quite innocuous original meanings, but which gives ample opportunity for "Carry On" type double entendres.

Who can ignore Cocknmouth Close, Cockshoot Close, Felch Square and Cumming Court?

I've noted on the Piccadilly line young American tourists having boarded at Heathrow having a giggle that the automatic announcing system declares at every stop "This is a Piccadilly Line train for Cockfosters". Now who would dare want to change that?