Voters back radical reforms
phil
that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State owned
'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
improvement and is a complete failure.
From the Telegraph:
>>>>>
Voters back health insurance paid by tax cut
(Filed: 14/07/2003)
Voters are prepared to pay for health insurance if it guarantees them better
and faster care, according to a ground-breaking new poll that suggests the
public is far more open to radical ideas than politicians realise.
The survey finds strong support among taxpayers for a range of controversial
policy alternatives, including giving parents the right to choose private
schools for their children and American-style "zero tolerance" policing.
Its conclusions were described as "startling" last night at Westminster,
where politicians have been divided over the willingness of the electorate
to contemplate policies that could mean the end of the NHS as it currently
exists.
The poll, carried out last week for the think-tank Reform and shown to The
Telegraph, will make worrying reading for Tony Blair. It concentrated on
crucial "swing voters" - those willing to switch parties at the next
election.
The poll appears to contradict the Prime Minister's claim that voters are
opposed to health and education solutions that allow individuals to decide
where their money is spent.
And it will encourage the Conservatives, who have been developing policies
based on applying consumer choice to public services by giving the voter the
financial ability to choose between state or private.
Significantly, the poll finds that support for radical solutions is
strongest among younger voters and among those on lower incomes, while
opposition comes from older, well-off voters usually identified with the
so-called "decision-making" classes.
On health, the voters surveyed by ICM on behalf of Reform were asked if they
would consider a "new approach" to the NHS, under which all adults would
take out private insurance in exchange for a tax cut to cover the cost. The
Government would pay the premiums for those on low incomes.
Of those polled, 46 per cent thought it was a "good idea" while 30 per cent
opposed it outright. Significantly, nearly half of the Labour Party members
surveyed - 44 per cent - agreed that it was a good idea.
The same group was asked if they would prefer to be free to use the money
the Government spends on education (currently about £5,000 per child) to
send their children to any school they choose, including private schools
where they could opt to top up the fees.
More than half (55 per cent) described the proposal as a "good idea",
compared to just 29 per cent who rejected it. Among party members,
Conservatives recorded the greatest enthusiasm for the scheme - 67 per cent
in favour - but Labour voters were also keen, with 54 per cent declaring it
a "good idea".
The figures are even more striking on law and order issues. Those polled
were asked if police should adopt "zero tolerance" policing, described as
"highly visible policing on the streets, bearing down heavily on things like
anti-social behaviour and vandalism".
Just nine per cent of those polled thought it was a bad idea, compared to 83
per cent who approved. Among parties, 85 per cent of Labour voters approved
and 87 per cent of Tories.
Nick Herbert of Reform said: "These results are startling. They suggest
powerful latent support for radical policy ideas, especially among those
crucial undecided voters whom politicians have to win over.
"Until very recently there was simply no public or political challenge to
the notion that 'we have the best health service in the world', and it might
have been thought that support and affection for the principle of a
taxpayer-funded NHS, free at the point of use, would be strong.
"Even recently there has been little debate about alternatives, yet here is
evidence of considerable support for radical solutions."
He added: "This is about consumer empowerment. We live in a consumer society
where voters, especially younger ones, are used to making choices. Many
already have experience of using the private sector in health."
- ICM Research interviewed a random selection of 1,000 adults on behalf of
Reform between July 4 and July 6. Full details can be found at
www.reformbritain.com
abelard
typed:
>This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly clear
>that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State owned
>'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
this situation has existed since socialist johnny lost the election
which he could easily have won....
bliar has very fragile support....it is wide but shallow....it has always
been thus....
bliar gained power by 'promising' what major should have delivered....
the tory party will stay out of power until they show the guts to commit
to a free society....
there are signs they are starting to get that message.....
but are they serious??
if they are....bliar will melt like snow in the sun.....
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >500,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:pru3hv8plvblpdujj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:21:51 GMT, "phil" <ph...@nospam.v3.net>
>
> typed:
>
> >This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly
clear
> >that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State
owned
> >'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
>
> this situation has existed since socialist johnny lost the election
> which he could easily have won....
> bliar has very fragile support....it is wide but shallow....it has always
> been thus....
>
Indeed.. 200,000 or so "swing voters" in "key marginals" only need to vote
the other way and we have a new government...
> bliar gained power by 'promising' what major should have delivered....
>
> the tory party will stay out of power until they show the guts to commit
> to a free society....
> there are signs they are starting to get that message.....
> but are they serious??
>
We will have to wait and see. I am confident they're prepared to commit on
radical health and education reform. Liam Fox has already made
pronouncements on health with regards to reform and has developed new
ideas[1]. Damien Green has also been giving imput on education, talking
about vouchers [2] and abolishing LEAs [3] not to mention tuition fees [4]..
IDS's keynote speech in September will likely pick these themes up.. as well
as tax.. which is rapidly becoming a very big issue with many Cabinet
ministers openly calling for 60%+ rates and the public liar talking about
"charges" and refusing to rule out more NI hikes[5].
> if they are....bliar will melt like snow in the sun.....
>
I believe it's already started and if he sticks around he has two very
difficult years before an election where his failure will become ever more
apparent..
[1] http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=62959&speeches=1
[2] http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=55776&speeches=1
[3] http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=63078&speeches=1
[4] http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=65056
[5] http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=66658
phil
"phil" <ph...@nospam.v3.net> wrote in message
news:vAoQa.11218$2W6.84...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> news:pru3hv8plvblpdujj...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:21:51 GMT, "phil" <ph...@nospam.v3.net>
> >
s/imput/input, it's late :\
delphipa
better
> and faster care, according to a ground-breaking new poll that suggests the
> public is far more open to radical ideas than politicians realise.
<snip>
> On health, the voters surveyed by ICM on behalf of Reform were asked if
they
> would consider a "new approach" to the NHS, under which all adults would
> take out private insurance in exchange for a tax cut to cover the cost.
The
> Government would pay the premiums for those on low incomes.
In the US, Health Insurance is usually offered by employers (sometimes
partially subsidised by the employee).
The problem remains regarding those without health insurance, those without
jobs, or those with jobs that don't provide health insurance. Once you slash
the taxes for those that are paying for health insurance, what happens to
those without health insurance?
Also, if this system did come into power, do you think it likely that they
would remove the massive taxes on cigs since the taxpayer is no longer
burdened with the effects of smoking?
Frankly, I think this is a bad thing. Sure, you can get a small tax cut,
maybe enough to cover health insurance premiums, but then the government has
to start forking out for the premiums for the unemployed, asylum seekers,
old people etc... and those taxes will go right back on.
It really wouldn't surprise me if it ended up that everyone paid the same
tax as well as their own health insurance, almost like if you are a
taxpayer, you don't get free health insurance, you just pay to cover those
that don't buy their own. If you like, double taxation on the working people
for health insurance.
> Of those polled, 46 per cent thought it was a "good idea" while 30 per
cent
> opposed it outright. Significantly, nearly half of the Labour Party
members
> surveyed - 44 per cent - agreed that it was a good idea.
>
> The same group was asked if they would prefer to be free to use the money
> the Government spends on education (currently about £5,000 per child) to
> send their children to any school they choose, including private schools
> where they could opt to top up the fees.
See, now here is the interesting part. Recently, this was an issue in the US
regarding school vouchers. The ability to use taxpayers money to give to
individuals to send their kids to school. The sticky part of the issue being
that taxpayers money would end up going to support private entities (namely
private religious schools) which the taxpayer may or may not agree with.
> The figures are even more striking on law and order issues. Those polled
> were asked if police should adopt "zero tolerance" policing, described as
> "highly visible policing on the streets, bearing down heavily on things
like
> anti-social behaviour and vandalism".
>
> Just nine per cent of those polled thought it was a bad idea, compared to
83
> per cent who approved. Among parties, 85 per cent of Labour voters
approved
> and 87 per cent of Tories.
Isn't this the way its always been though? For years, the public has always
supported getting touch on crime, stronger policing and stronger sentencing.
For years its also been ignored by politicians.
> He added: "This is about consumer empowerment. We live in a consumer
society
> where voters, especially younger ones, are used to making choices. Many
> already have experience of using the private sector in health."
We aren't consumers, we enslaved by force. Consumers have a choice, the
British people just have to go along with whatever the government decides.
Ideally, we should be consumers of government (in the sense it was written
above), but if that were so, then these things (particularly policing) would
already be in place.
Joe
> The problem remains regarding those without health insurance, those
without
> jobs, or those with jobs that don't provide health insurance. Once you
slash
> the taxes for those that are paying for health insurance, what happens to
> those without health insurance?
they'll get the same crap service they get now, but without all the added
value like lesbian and bisexual womens health workers, diversity
co-ordinators or protected learning time facilitators (sunday times, news
review).
> It really wouldn't surprise me if it ended up that everyone paid the same
> tax as well as their own health insurance, almost like if you are a
> taxpayer, you don't get free health insurance, you just pay to cover those
> that don't buy their own. If you like, double taxation on the working
people
> for health insurance.
errr... you mean just like we do now...?
> See, now here is the interesting part. Recently, this was an issue in the
US
> regarding school vouchers. The ability to use taxpayers money to give to
> individuals to send their kids to school. The sticky part of the issue
being
> that taxpayers money would end up going to support private entities
(namely
> private religious schools) which the taxpayer may or may not agree with.
well, I don't agree with sending kids to appallingly bad state schools (not
with my tax money anyway) but I don't get any choice in it so what's the
difference?
> Isn't this the way its always been though? For years, the public has
always
> supported getting touch on crime, stronger policing and stronger
sentencing.
> For years its also been ignored by politicians.
yeah, what is wrong with polititions anyway? they only laws they seem to
care about is banning fox hunting, lowering the age at which gay children
can have sex, and increasing the amount of money they get from traffic
violations. What people want is for them to concentrate on real crime and
tackling criminals, not make up new ones that make us criminals. But of
course, making us all into criminals helps to control us, see below...
> We aren't consumers, we enslaved by force. Consumers have a choice, the
> British people just have to go along with whatever the government decides.
> Ideally, we should be consumers of government (in the sense it was written
> above), but if that were so, then these things (particularly policing)
would
> already be in place.
Yes, in this 'free' and 'democratic' country the only choice we have is
between one lot of control freeks and a slightly different set of control
freeks...
Gaz
"delphipa" <delphipa7@REMOVE_NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a2dnXMVOu6...@wideopenwest.com...
>
> See, now here is the interesting part. Recently, this was an issue in the
US
> regarding school vouchers. The ability to use taxpayers money to give to
> individuals to send their kids to school. The sticky part of the issue
being
> that taxpayers money would end up going to support private entities
(namely
> private religious schools) which the taxpayer may or may not agree with.
Your taxpayers money is already going on many things i bitterly disagree
with. The problem above in the US was constituional, we dont have that
problem. Religous schools in the UK already recieve government funding.
.
>
> Isn't this the way its always been though? For years, the public has
always
> supported getting touch on crime, stronger policing and stronger
sentencing.
> For years its also been ignored by politicians.
Did we miss the Howard term of Home Sec.?
Gaz
Gaz
> news:pru3hv8plvblpdujj...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:21:51 GMT, "phil" <ph...@nospam.v3.net>
> >
> > typed:
> >
> > >This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly
> clear
> > >that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State
> owned
> > >'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
> >
> > this situation has existed since socialist johnny lost the election
> > which he could easily have won....
> > bliar has very fragile support....it is wide but shallow....it has
always
> > been thus....
> >
>
> Indeed.. 200,000 or so "swing voters" in "key marginals" only need to vote
> the other way and we have a new government...
It's this which I often try to explain to people, that in some cases it only
requires small swings. But even so, the Tories really need to pull in 42%+
of the vote to get a majority, at the moment they are a long way from that.
But differential turnout again could have an impact. We might have a lower
turnout next time then last..........
Gaz
Richard Ford
> This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly
clear
> that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State
owned
> 'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
> improvement and is a complete failure.
This is good news for them if the old fart brigade can be silenced and the
libertarians become dominant within the party.
It is encouraging to see that people are starting to reject the bollocks of
socialism and the notion that the state has to provide Education and it has
to provide Healthcare.
What it reveals is the massive extent to which most of the Labour party are
so out of touch with the population. The braindead socialists on the
backbenches are opposing this crack pot foundation hospital scheme purely on
the basis that it "gives" the hospitals "freedom". This massive divergence
between the population that want the state out of Education and Hospitals
and the lofty dopes on the Labour back benches that don't is a clears signal
for the Tories that there is ground to seize and it is probably quite
substancial too.
Joe Hutcheon
>This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly clear
>that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State owned
>'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
>improvement and is a complete failure.
>
>From the Telegraph:
>
>>>>>>
>Voters back health insurance paid by tax cut
>(Filed: 14/07/2003)
>
>Voters are prepared to pay for health insurance if it guarantees them better
>and faster care, according to a ground-breaking new poll that suggests the
>public is far more open to radical ideas than politicians realise.
The key word there is 'guarantees', especially as it appears in the
same sentence as 'politicians'.
'Turkeys indicated yesterday that they would be willing to vote for
Christmas, if farmers were prepared to guarantee that no turkey's neck
would be wrung in the run-up to the festive season. Bernard Matthews
commented 'It looks as if those who suggest that turkeys have lost
trust in turkey farmers may have been premature'.
Hotblack Desiato
> This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly
clear
> that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State
owned
> 'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
> improvement and is a complete failure.
>
> From the Telegraph:
>
The Blair government is taking its agenda purely from the desires of big
business and corporate entities. The public sector reform is hapenning
because it is being driven by big business .. because big business gets to
benefit .. nowhere, are any of the people involved in the decision making on
this, in the slightest interested on whether it works or benefits the people
who have to use the friggin thing .. it's a money taking exercise .. get it
??
40 million people in the US, have no access to healthcare whatsoever .. no
medicare no nothing .. you think about that .. 40 million ..
phil
"Hotblack Desiato" <judge...@gatec.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beurq2$avu$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
I can't comment on the US system but the proposal from the think tank Reform
is that the government would pay the premiums of those with no cover. it
would be the fraction of the cost of a 60bn a year subsidised health service
that is clearly failing to deliver...
>
>
Hotblack Desiato
How do you measure delivery and why is the public health system failing to
'deliver'? How do we know if the new system does deliver ? .. will such
studies be carried out? .. will they incorporate actual cost ?. I also fail
to see where the savings are. Whether the cost of running the system comes
from taxation or directly from people's pockets, the cost of giving the same
level of healthcare (all other parameters regarding private corporations
aside for a second) is going to be the same.
So, where are the savings made? well for starters we're expected to be what
Blair (inc) referr to as a more 'flexible workforce' .. strip the spin it
means less staff working more hours for less pay and less benefits.. am I
supposed to believe this is a good thing that benefits society? .. am I
supposed to welcome this trend with open arms, in utterly blind ignorance of
the obvious long term implications?
Far fewer hospitals, far fewer beds, on cheap out of town locations (adding
to access difficulties), understaffed with people that are responsible for
keeping others alive whilst being payed McWages .. sounds wonderful, where
do I sign ?
James Hammerton
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:21:51 GMT, "phil" <ph...@nospam.v3.net>
>
> typed:
>
> >This is good news for the Conservatives. It is becoming increasingly clear
> >that voters are waking up to the fact that throwing billions at State owned
> >'public services' such as health and education yields no significant
>
> this situation has existed since socialist johnny lost the election
> which he could easily have won....
> bliar has very fragile support....it is wide but shallow....it has always
> been thus....
>
> bliar gained power by 'promising' what major should have delivered....
>
> the tory party will stay out of power until they show the guts to commit
> to a free society....
> there are signs they are starting to get that message.....
> but are they serious??
Will they promise to revoke the attacks on civil liberties the govt
has carried out and is currently carrying out? E.g. to restore jury
trial, abolish ID cards should they be implemented, etc?
James
--
James Hammerton
http://www.let.rug.nl/~james
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james (mirrored at above site)
Contributor to http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Mark
Which is precisely why it's expensive: there's no direct link between
the people paying for it and the people who benefit, and since all
companies are expected to provide healthcare, the cost is largely
irrelevant to them as they see little competitive advantage from
reducing costs.
> (sometimes
> partially subsidised by the employee).
_Always_ subsidised by the employee: if the company wasn't paying for
the health insurance, then they could afford to pay higher wages. You
end up paying for your health insurance one way or another.
> Once you slash
> the taxes for those that are paying for health insurance, what happens to
> those without health insurance?
They go to charity hospitals paid for by those who actually care
enough to pay for them with their own money? Though, of course, with
the medical guilds out of the way, basic medical care would be much,
much cheaper.
> Also, if this system did come into power, do you think it likely that they
> would remove the massive taxes on cigs since the taxpayer is no longer
> burdened with the effects of smoking?
Smoking is no "burden" on the taxpayer: smokers who get fatal
illnesses from smoking tend to die early and quickly, therefore
avoiding state pensions and all that expensive healthcare that goes to
non-smokers... and they pay in a ton of money in smoking taxes in the
meantime.
> See, now here is the interesting part. Recently, this was an issue in the US
> regarding school vouchers. The ability to use taxpayers money to give to
> individuals to send their kids to school. The sticky part of the issue being
> that taxpayers money would end up going to support private entities (namely
> private religious schools) which the taxpayer may or may not agree with.
Taxpayers' money always goes to support private entities that the
taxpayer may or may not agree with: just look at all the companies
that make most or all of their income from government contracts.
> Isn't this the way its always been though? For years, the public has always
> supported getting tough on crime, stronger policing and stronger sentencing.
Indeed.
Mark
Mark
> I can't comment on the US system but the proposal from the think tank Reform
> is that the government would pay the premiums of those with no cover.
In that case, why would anyone at all pay for health insurance? It
makes no sense to pay for something that the government will pay for
out of taxes if you don't.
Mark
Mark
> medicare no nothing .. you think about that .. 40 million ..
Thanks to the US government's stupid policies: on the one hand they've
pushed up the cost of healthcare by allowing the medical guilds to
deliberately reduce the supply of medical care, on the other they've
encouraged a situation where companies are expected to provide medical
insurance and therefore have little incentive to keep the price down.
As usual, the government created the problem and are now expecting
more money and power to allow them to "solve" it.
Mark