Herald responds to TVNZ's moans about Sky

A NZ Herald editorial rightfully points out that TVNZ's moans about Sky are ill founded, as its competitors never called for it to be dismembered:

"Not so many years ago TVNZ ruled the screens in this country with its twin channels and a seeming monopoly on events of public interest...Both Sky and TV3 have had to struggle at times against the might of the state broadcaster. They did not call for tougher regulation and a compulsory carve-up of TVNZ's business. They took their losses, regrouped and competed.

At one time TVNZ was Sky's largest shareholder. After it sold in 1999, the subscriber channel strengthened and TVNZ's troubles began. Since then the state broadcaster's commercial performance has been as dismal as its content. A change of Government will probably end its charter confusion and force it to stand on its own competitive two feet. That is what it needs."

Yes, TVNZ could be sharing in the profits of Sky but chose not to - hopefully the next government will give it a chance to operate commercially, if not just sell the whole damned thing off. As I've said before, TVNZ had a 29 year headstart on television in NZ, with a statutory monopoly. How much advantage do you want?

NHS - murdering thieving fraudsters

It is about time every British taxpayer stopped for a moment and questioned one of the great legends of our time - that the National Health Service in concept, principle and practice is, by and large, good. I am calling them murdering thieving fraudsters not as an exercise in political hyperbole, but fact. Allowing someone to die without treatment that you deny, for no medical reaso, that you would otherwise provide, is premeditated murder. It is thieving to have used money taken from that person by force and fraud to not provide what would reasonably be expected to be provided for that money. It is repulsive beyond words.

It has been shown now to be an institution of thieving fraudsters, who receive money forcibly extracted from taxpayers, but denies what it says it will provide - healthcare to those who need it when they need it. If it were a private firm, the BBC consumer programme "Watchdog" would be all over it, if it were an oil, gas, telecommunications or water company there would be cries for it to be taxed, regulated, price controlled or otherwise penalised. No. All it gets is more money, and little accountability for how it treats those it is meant to care for.

The Sunday Times today reports the appalling story of Linda O'Boyle. She was diagnosed with bowel cancer and started receiving chemotherapy. Doctors advised her that her chances would improve if she started taking another drug, cetuximab. However, it was "not routinely funded by the NHS". That in itself, is not the primary outrage. Although it does highlight the average production line standard of care the NHS offers, not the best treatment available.

Mrs. O'Boyle then committed the cardinal sin, she decided to raid her savings to pay for the drug privately. After all, her savings were meaningless when she had her life to fight for. The Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation withdrew all her chemotherapy treatment.

The reason given was "Mrs O'Boyle is clearly a rich bitch who can afford whatever the hell she likes, she probably had those savings taken from the palms of begging children and was some Dickensian slave merchant who stole from the working classes, so fuck her. She can pay for all her treatment, we can use her taxes and National Insurance contributions to pay for the wounds and diseases she inflicted on the poor as she was saving up for her hoity toity upper class lifestyle. She probably liked Thatcher too, the heartless cow. We keep the red flag flying here"

Well not quite, but may as well have been. It did say "A patient can choose whether to continue with the treatment available under the NHS or opt to go privately for a different treatment regime. It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately, but not both in parallel". So you see, you either have inadequate NHS treatment, or you pay for the lot yourself. She asked if she could pay for the NHS to dispense this one additional drug, but no.

The NewLabour socialist prick who authorised this is Health Secretary Alan Johnson who claims "that co-payment would create a two-tier NHS, with preferential treatment for patients who could afford the extra drugs. Last year he issued guidance to NHS trusts ordering them not to permit patients to pay for additional medicines.".

Preferential? The preference to pay to live or die under your inferior compulsory system? How much envy must drip from the veins of Johnson to deny people to top up their inferior (but paid for) state healthcare with their OWN FUCKING MONEY? He takes your money, spends it on healthcare that doesn't meet your needs (you know, reducing your chances of survival meets that test) then says effectively "want a bit more? Well fucking pay for the lot yourself you ungrateful sod."

I'd like to see Johnson face up to Brian O'Boyle, her husband, and see how courageous the little socialist bastard is defending this outrage. Johnson of course deserves a smack in the face for being part of the thieving fraud that is the NHS. Of course if this happened in the USA, it would be the fault of the insurance company, but at least you would have clear grounds for court action.

Six other patients have undertaken legal action to seek judicial review of the decision.
.
Adding to the outrage is the mealy mouthed David Cameron, ever keen not to offend the bludging lumpen-proletariat he can now get votes from. He said it was "tempting" to allow top ups, but the Sunday Times says the Tories are reluctant to express an opinion as it could be seen as "favouring middle class people who can afford to buy extra treatment".
.
Oh spare me. Those scum, we can't possible defend the bulk of taxpayers, who save AND look after themselves can we?
.
The NHS exists and serves well those who don't look after themselves, who pay next to no taxes and don't make any provision for their future. Those who pay for it though, can just go and fuck off and be happy with whatever they get.
.
You see there already is a two-tier health system in the UK. Those who rely fully on the NHS, and those who can rely fully on their own funds or private health care. The middle classes who can't afford to pay twice get screwed in the middle. Clearly old Labour doesn't give a damn and is willing to let people die and take their money for the privilege, the Tories even more disgustingly show that courage left them with Lady Thatcher.
.
According to the Sunday Times editorial, lung and stomach cancer survival rates in the UK are below that of Germany, Belgium and the USA. Yes the USA, the bastion of evil profit oriented healthcare. It might be that the incentives in the USA are to detect early, treat quickly and ensure you keep paying premiums by not being dead. Germany has an insurance based model with a basic level of state run health insurance, but the option to top up with private care. Private insurers vary premiums based on risk.
.
It describes further how two men who paid for their own cancer treatment "they are regarded as non-people. The authorities would rather see them die than treat them again"... "there remains in some parts of the NHS an almost Maoist determination that the collective must always reign supreme over the individual"
.
It's time for British people to stand up and demand that either the NHS grant them all what it says it will, or you have the right to opt out and get your money back. Otherwise is it fraud, rewarding the indolent and self destructive, and thieving from the hard working and spendthrift. The NHS is willing to let people die for the sin of wanting to pay for more treatment that its leviathan like bureaucracy is willing to provide - for that it should spark an outrage throughout the country, and that very wealthy fat socialist git from the USA - Michael Moore - should be told to shut the fuck up about something he knows nothing about, after all, how many people has he paid health insurance for?

Oh and I forgot one thing, the drug Mrs O'Boyle sought is free under the NHS in Scotland, you see, that's because the socialist government in Scotland gets more money per head of population than is spent in England (without needing to tax people for it). Now that can't possibly be because so many Labour seats are north of the border can it?

Globalisation and free trade creating jobs

In the Daily Telegraph on Saturday was a report that Hornby Group, manufacturer of model trains, Scalextric slot car sets, Corgi model cars and Airfix model planes, has enjoyed substantial growth thanks to outsourcing much production to China.

Yes I can hear the moans from the left "our jobs gone to foreign folk in China". In fact when current CEO Frank Martin joined it employed 120 people in its UK premises in Margate, now it employs 150 - and that is following shifting manufacturing to China. Why?

When he joined it had sales of £24m p.a. with pre-tax profits of an abysmal £1.4m. Now sales are £56m with profits of £8m. Part of it is the combination of Thomas the Tank Engine and Harry Potter reviving interest in model trains, but more importantly outsourcing allowed production costs to be lowered substantially - so more could be invested in new products.

"Before the move to China, there might have been one new model locomotive every three years. We are now introducing to the UK on average four new locos every year and the same applies to Scalextric, where there might have been one new car introduced each year and we are now introducing between 12 and 15 new cars each year."

So you see design staff have trebled, and more products mean more sales. In addition, lower production costs allow for more detailed and authentic designs to be produced at prices consumers are willing to buy.

So better products, jobs in a poor country and more (better paying) jobs in the UK. Isn't the free market oppressive? Read the full story here.

The spin of smear.

Idiot Savant should know better than to put words into someone's mouth by claiming "Former National Party leader Don Brash wishes he'd been more radical and autocratic during his time in Parliament."
.
The article he quotes from never says the word autocratic. It does say "stamping his authority", which is about announcing policy over the heads of his colleagues, not being politically autocratic. That's the realm of the left and the conservative right, which he is hardly a member of.
.
After all, autocracy is part of the leftwing project of higher taxes for the more successful, state subsidised and protected monopolies of healthcare and education, and regulating what people can do with their own property.
.
Since when is less government more autocracy, unless you think the warm bosom of the state run by the people for the people is not autocratic. Honestly, who can think Brash would be as autocratic as Helen Clark, who has run indisputably been in charge since 1999?

Matt McCarten's mindless musings

Lindsay Mitchell and Cactus Kate have both written well on this, we should remember what Matt McCarten's great political achievement has been - the virtual demise of the Alliance. During his reign the Alliance lost the Greens, and then lost its modest personality cult of a leader (his party is still in Parliament, in the form of him).

He thinks laissez-faire capitalism is this "Its ideology is quite simple: we're all essentially greedy and we should be free to make as much money as we can. If we exploit others in the process - well, that's just the free market at work." It isn't that we are all essentially greedy as much as we should be free to do as we wish, as long as we don't initiate force or fraud against others. You see Matt approves of state violence, he thinks it is ok to steal, defraud, and spend other people's money against their will. However you might wonder why he still matters?