What's good for the goose...

I posted on a disgusting policy of Oregon's state run health care back in June. I'm not saying I have all the answers to the health care issues, but putting it in the hands of the government still doesn't seem to be the best idea to me.

A prime example comes out of England with their National Health Service (NHS) that "provides healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need and paid for from general taxation" (Wikipedia on Healthcare in England). One would think that after 60 years of providing the bulk of healthcare for the nation that the NHS would have all the kinks worked out and the system would be running smoothly. That's not what the Telegraph has to say though.

An October 14 article on Telegraph.co.uk reports that many NHS employees have been receiving "physiotherapy" appointments through private insurance paid for by NHS in order to help them "return to work more quickly." Apparently the services offered by NHS aren't quick enough. That should tell you something.

The article doesn't say how slow was too slow for NHS, but to get an idea, let's check with the BBC. In a 2005 article, they note that waiting times were on average 95 days. That's right, over three months to see a specialist. How did they remedy the long wait times? By contracting out to the private sector. Hardly a triumph for socialized medicine.

What about in the states though. We shook off British despite inferior tactics and numbers, surely we can triumph again the health care arena, right?

Well, let's take a look at Massachusetts. Massachusetts has state funded healthcare for those who cannot afford private insurance. In fact, it is state mandated, meaning if you don't have private health care, you are required to get the state healthcare or pay a penalty. Recently the Boston Globe ran an article about health care waiting times with the new health care system in place. Can you guess what things look like?

The article notes doctors working 60 hour work weeks handling increased patient loads. One new practitioner had to stop accepting new patients after only six weeks. Many internists have stopped accepting new patients altogether. And waiting times? The standard wait for a standard appointment with your physician is between 2-4 months.

If England is running anything like that, no wonder NHS is sending their own staff to private physicians.

One wonders though, if even England's NHS admits that socialized medicine takes so long, why is it still being pushed? If private physicians are good enough for NHS, shouldn't they be good enough for the rest of England to use? And if we see that England is having these kinds of problems, why are we pushing that way and being pushed that direction by some prominent political hopefuls?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but it seems a shame to address a problem by making it worse.

Spread 'Em

I have long felt that airport security is a joke. Haven't you? Do you honestly think that what you go through at the TSA checkpoint before proceeding to your gate is truly effective? Sure, stupid people who fill a laptop with an explosive or or put a knife in their pocket are screened out. But someone who was really intent on causing trouble...do you think TSA and the screening processes would catch them?

I was nice to see I am pretty much on the mark according to Jeffrey Goldberg's article for The Atlantic (nice, in the fact that I feel vindicated in my travel security cynicism, not nice in the fact that airport security really is a sham):

[Bruce Schnei­er, a security expert] and I walked to the security checkpoint. “Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,” he said. “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.” This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. “We defend against what the terrorists did last week,” Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. “Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response.”

I highly suggest you take the time to read the article. It's fairly short and an easy read and guaranteed to change how you look at emptying your pockets and taking off your shoes when you try to catch a flight.

Personally, I see it is as a sad statement on society that

1. the government spends so much money putting on a show of security to make people feel better
2. more people don't see that it really doesn't work
3. there isn't a public outcry about the money that could certainly be applied better in other areas and easily be more effective

Deny every lawful citizen of their means to defend themselves (or clip their nails) and still not provide real security (which is really a farce when you think about what it).

An often paraphrased statement by Benjamin Franklin goes along the lines of "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither and lose both."

Yeah.

A Right, Defined

I had a nice conversation with my dad this morning and in the course of it, a question I had been mulling over had come up. What is a "right?"

In our society, we throw around the term "right" rather loosely and I wonder if the term is becoming diluted and misapplied. I know the readership here isn't huge, but I am still working this out for myself and I am interested in what everyone else has to say.

So how do you define it?

Is there a difference between a right and a civil right?

Who grants a right?

Can you have a right to something that costs money?

What disqualifies something as a right (it'd be a right, but for X)?

I'm not going to debate, argue, or counter any comments that are left. I plan on taking in what is said and trying to form my own opinion that I'll post later.

It pays to make the grade

Just a quick post. Not even sure where I fall on this, but something about it really struck me. The Washington Post reports that in an effort to boost poor school performance and behavior, DC schools are instituting a cash rewards program.

This isn't your parents' $10 per "A" on your report card type program either. No, the school district will be opening bank accounts for the students to facilitate bi-weekly deposits of their good behavior money. How much money would require that? Well, a good kids can earn up to $100 a month every month for just behaving themselves (good manners), getting good grades, and showing up to class on time and regularly. That's a chunk of change!

Does anyone else get a sick feeling in their stomach about this? It's not necessarily the kids getting money for good grades. That's been around for a while. Parents have been doing that for a long time. Some of New York City's schools did that specifically for Advanced Placement testing with underwhelming results. But that was a privately funded incentive program. And maybe that is where I am a bit hung up on this.

It's sad enough that the schools have to be parents to these kids in motivating them to do well (we'll forget about sex education, discipline, early morning programs, after school programs, and all the other ways the schools sub for parents), but now the taxpayers are having to cough up an extra $2.7 million for it in that school district. I imagine other solutions have been tried, I just find it hard to believe that that is a) the best solution out there and b) will even be effectively in any significant way in the long run.

Maybe I'm wrong, but something doesn't sit right with me about $2.7 million being taken from taxpayers to pay students to do what they should already be doing and what taxpayers are already paying for in the first place.