Nov 072007
 

It’s a sad state of affairs when the issue of freedom in other countries is seen as a Bush idiosyncracy. Back in the days when Liberals were liberal, it was a cause that almost everyone in the United States favored. But here is a headline and lead paragraph from an article in Monday’s WSJ:

Pakistan Crackdown Slows Bush’s Freedom March

President Bush’s vaunted “freedom agenda,” using U.S. aid, influence and example to advance political liberty around the globe, suffered one of its worst setbacks this weekend when Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan.

I suppose it’s hard for the average newspaper journalist to ever stop thinking about George Bush. And there are those who are going to think of every event in terms of whether it hurts or helps their partisan faction. But isn’t this crackdown also a blow to the freedom of the people of Pakistan? Shouldn’t that issue be just as important as whether it helps or hurts Bush?

And if it’s too hard to focus on the lives of people in other countries, there is also the fact that every loss of freedom elsewhere is a threat to our own freedoms in the United States, too.

It’s not all about Bush.

Nov 062007
 

This looks like a good candidate for the Subversive Honor Roll.   It’s the Anti-Planner:  Dedicated to the sunset of government planning.  I learned about him from Bill Steigerwald at Townhall.com

He’s off to a good start when he says this:

I’ve often heard people say, “I’m not against planning, I’m just against bad government planning.” After 30 years of looking at government plans — forest plans, park plans, transportation plans, city plans, state plans, all kinds of plans — I’ve realized all government planning is bad.

Nov 052007
 

Most of us already knew that Michael Moore is a liar. But we didn’t know that he’d make the mistake of going to the UK so he could show how their National Health System is the sort of thing we’d want to emulate. Minette Marrin in The Sunday Times (UK) tells about it in Quack Michael Moore has mad view of the NHS. She doesn’t hold back in describing their system:

This, along with an even rosier portrait of the French welfare system, is what Moore says the state can and should provide. You would never guess from Sicko that the NHS is in deep trouble, mired in scandal and incompetence, despite the injection of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

While there are good doctors and nurses and treatments in the NHS, there is so much that is inadequate or bad that it is dishonest to represent it as the envy of the world and a perfect blueprint for national healthcare. It isn’t.

GPs’ salaries – used by Moore as evidence that a state-run system does not necessarily mean low wages – is highly controversial; their huge pay rise has coincided with a loss of home visits, a serious problem in getting GP appointments and continuing very low pay for nurses and cleaners.

At least 20 NHS trusts have even worse problems with the hospital-acquired infection clostridium difficile, not least the trust in Kent where 90 people died of C diff in a scandal reported recently.

Many hospitals are in crisis. Money shortages, bad management, excesses of bureaucrats and deadly Whitehall micromanagement mean they have to skimp on what matters most.

Overfilling the beds is dangerous to patients, in hygiene and in recovery times, but it goes on widely. Millions are wasted on expensive agency nurses because NHS nurses are abandoning the profession in droves. Only days ago, the 2007 nurse of the year publicly resigned in despair at the health service. There is a dangerous shortage of midwives since so many have left, and giving birth on the NHS can be a shocking experience.

Meanwhile thousands of young hospital doctors, under a daft new employment scheme, were sent randomly around the country, pretty much regardless of their qualifications or wishes. As foreign doctors are recruited from Third World countries, hundreds of the best-qualified British doctors have been left unemployed. Several have emigrated.

As for consultants, the men in Whitehall didn’t believe what they said about the hours they worked, beyond their duties, and issued new contracts forcing them to work less. You could hardly make it up.

Nothing surprising there, though we can be sure it won’t stop the U.S. left wing from trying to reproduce those results in our country.

And what does Marrin herself think should be done?

None of these problems mean we should abandon the idea of a universal shared system of healthcare. It’s clear we would not want the American model, even if it isn’t quite as bad as portrayed by Moore. It’s clear our British private medical insurance provision is a rip-off. I believe we should as a society share burdens of ill health and its treatment. The only question is how best to do that and it seems to me the state-run, micromanaged NHS has failed to answer it.

OK, I can understand why she doesn’t want to exchange their system for ours. The people pushing nationalized health care may be in deep denial, but so are those who try to ignore the problems with our own health care, for example, those who say nobody is denied health care in our country — all you need to do is go to the emergency room, etc etc.

But where is the discussion about what should be done to fix the problems with existing national health care systems? All I ever hear is “the government should provide this, the government should provide that,” without talking about what it would take for the government to actually do that. There is no talk about the moral hazard issues. Marrin points out that the NHS has failed to answer the question of how best to provide universal care. Well, where does one go to find an intelligent discussion of how to fix it? All we get is a wish list of how life in fantasyland ought to be.

If I ever hear of any good discussions on the topic, I’ll be sure to blog about it here.

Nov 012007
 

It has been years since I watched one of the so-called presidential debates. I prefer to save my energy so I can mock the ensuing media coverage. If they were really debates rather than panel discussions, it might be different.

So here’s my take on the latest Democrat “debate”, based on some headlines and lead paragraphs I’ve found from google news:

The candidates did make a slight move in the direction of real debates, by asking Hillary Clinton some tough questions. The media asked some tough questions, too.

The New York Times and its lapdogs call this process “piling on.”

I think we can take this to mean the New York Times does not share my taste for real debate. And we should not expect the New York Times to raise any difficult questions itself, at least not for certain candidates.

Did I get it right? Or do I need to read more carefully.