I frequently get my ear bent about my bitter disdain for the NHS and it's certainly true that I have been exceptionally unlucky not to encounter (as a patient) a single one of the caring, helpful staff that the NHS is said to be full of.
So, let me say something positive about British healthcare professionals: given the insane bureaucracy and meddling, soundbite-driven, target-oriented micromanagement by the government, given the complete disconnect of normal market self-interest in making medical people care about patient loyalty, it is a remarkable testament to the skill, dedication and commitment of those healthcare staff who do actually care and do actually deliver, that the UK is not at the bottom of the healthcare charts.
It just frustrates me that if there were truly an open market in healthcare, things would be so much better, people wouldn't be beholden to faceless quangocrats for the drugs they need, or have postcode lotteries, or have faceless bureaucrats unaccountably cutting services for everyone but the really rich.
So, here's to the individual nurses, doctors and other people in the NHS who care enough to deliver good health care despite, not because of, the stupid business model that the NHS has.
And could someone please arrange that my local GP practice gets a couple of them? Thanks!
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Thoughts on legislated job security
So, there is apparently a two-year "sackers' charter" coming, whereby job security is not guaranteed before two years of employment. "The left" are up in arms about this, but as someone who has been an employer as well as an employee, I'd like to try to offer some perspectives on this.
Firstly, I feel much more at risk of being sacked in the UK than I've ever felt working in countries where there are absolutely no "protections" for employees, including a brief stint in a country where even unionisation is banned!
I'm not sure if this is an unintended consequence of employment legislation, whereby the additional cost of catering for employment law fucks up the cost/benefit relation of employing someone and actually, perversely, increases the risk of getting the sack in marginal situations, like in a recession when things are tough. Or it might be something else, or a combination.
Secondly, as has been pointed out: protecting jobs just because someone's been in them for a while, even if they're useless or become useless due to factors outside the employer's control, means that the useless person can't be shed and replaced by a more useful person. It also makes it harder for people who have no experience or skill to get a job, and forces people who have skills and experience "down the value chain" into more menial jobs than they actually deserve.
But then there's the other side of the equation: having been an employer as well, recruiting people is a) a fucking ballache, b) expensive and c) risky.
There are really very few jobs indeed where labour is a commodity. Every job, even picking fruit, requires a level of training and expertise. The degree varies from job to job, but there is always a component of it. And if you've got the knowledge and the expertise and you're good in your job and you integrate with the workplace, then I can assure you that it is very nearly as unpleasant for the employer to give you the sack as it is to be sacked.
And people are very, very unlikely to sack you just because they can replace you with someone cheaper, because it's a fucking ballache, and even if it's not expensive or saves money, the new person is a risk. And furthermore, someone who is settled in his job and is reasonably happy is not a flight risk. Someone who has just arrived is more likely to piss off because the job isn't what they expected and then you're left swinging in the breeze.
So I don't think employment "protection" is really of any use to employees. If you want job security, do your job well, make yourself valuable and you'll be the last one standing. But don't expect an employer to look after you just because you've occupied that desk for the last 10 years.
Firstly, I feel much more at risk of being sacked in the UK than I've ever felt working in countries where there are absolutely no "protections" for employees, including a brief stint in a country where even unionisation is banned!
I'm not sure if this is an unintended consequence of employment legislation, whereby the additional cost of catering for employment law fucks up the cost/benefit relation of employing someone and actually, perversely, increases the risk of getting the sack in marginal situations, like in a recession when things are tough. Or it might be something else, or a combination.
Secondly, as has been pointed out: protecting jobs just because someone's been in them for a while, even if they're useless or become useless due to factors outside the employer's control, means that the useless person can't be shed and replaced by a more useful person. It also makes it harder for people who have no experience or skill to get a job, and forces people who have skills and experience "down the value chain" into more menial jobs than they actually deserve.
But then there's the other side of the equation: having been an employer as well, recruiting people is a) a fucking ballache, b) expensive and c) risky.
There are really very few jobs indeed where labour is a commodity. Every job, even picking fruit, requires a level of training and expertise. The degree varies from job to job, but there is always a component of it. And if you've got the knowledge and the expertise and you're good in your job and you integrate with the workplace, then I can assure you that it is very nearly as unpleasant for the employer to give you the sack as it is to be sacked.
And people are very, very unlikely to sack you just because they can replace you with someone cheaper, because it's a fucking ballache, and even if it's not expensive or saves money, the new person is a risk. And furthermore, someone who is settled in his job and is reasonably happy is not a flight risk. Someone who has just arrived is more likely to piss off because the job isn't what they expected and then you're left swinging in the breeze.
So I don't think employment "protection" is really of any use to employees. If you want job security, do your job well, make yourself valuable and you'll be the last one standing. But don't expect an employer to look after you just because you've occupied that desk for the last 10 years.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
REAL Progress came from capitalism #ukuncut
I saw this tweet:
And I thought about the various recent anti-capitalist demonstrations and those still to come. You fuckers really don't know you're born. The greatest actual progress in the human condition, the greatest leaps in health care, in welfare, in charity in pretty much everything came when capitalism broke the link between toil and survival.
All the dipshits calling for a return to Gaia and a more rustic lifestyle have no idea how fucking grinding and soul-destroying an agrarian lifestyle is.
And there are no iPads.
So shut the fuck up and fuck the fuck off.
Most of Human History #haiku: Toil toil toil toil toil. Eat, make a baby, sleep, toil. Toil toil toil toil toil. http://wcti.us/0060
And I thought about the various recent anti-capitalist demonstrations and those still to come. You fuckers really don't know you're born. The greatest actual progress in the human condition, the greatest leaps in health care, in welfare, in charity in pretty much everything came when capitalism broke the link between toil and survival.
All the dipshits calling for a return to Gaia and a more rustic lifestyle have no idea how fucking grinding and soul-destroying an agrarian lifestyle is.
And there are no iPads.
So shut the fuck up and fuck the fuck off.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Some random thoughts about the NHS
I am sure that my last couple of tweets about the NHS are going to get me some stick.
But I think it's important to divorce the business of healthcare from the organisational woes of the NHS. People who defend the NHS's virtues are the same people who complain about postcode lotteries or government interference in the niceties of healthcare.Or, indeed, low front-line staffing or excessive bureaucracy.
These really are two sides of the same social healthcare coin. As soon as the state is involved in the provision healthcare, it becomes subject to the decisions made by bureaucrats who are chasing statistics or "The Thick of It" soundbites, rather than caring for patients. If you want the "safety net" idea of a means of providing healthcare for all, free at the point of delivery, which has to be funded out of general taxation, then you have to accept the downsides of this approach, which is that the safety net is under the control of people who have no idea of the issues and consequences of their decisions and initiatives.
I don't think that opening the NHS up into thousands of competing hospitals and small practices, paid for by individual consumers, will have any bad effect that will not be outweighed by lower costs, better service and fewer needless fatalities.
But I think it's important to divorce the business of healthcare from the organisational woes of the NHS. People who defend the NHS's virtues are the same people who complain about postcode lotteries or government interference in the niceties of healthcare.Or, indeed, low front-line staffing or excessive bureaucracy.
These really are two sides of the same social healthcare coin. As soon as the state is involved in the provision healthcare, it becomes subject to the decisions made by bureaucrats who are chasing statistics or "The Thick of It" soundbites, rather than caring for patients. If you want the "safety net" idea of a means of providing healthcare for all, free at the point of delivery, which has to be funded out of general taxation, then you have to accept the downsides of this approach, which is that the safety net is under the control of people who have no idea of the issues and consequences of their decisions and initiatives.
I don't think that opening the NHS up into thousands of competing hospitals and small practices, paid for by individual consumers, will have any bad effect that will not be outweighed by lower costs, better service and fewer needless fatalities.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Since I can't see my comment making it past moderation...
This post made me snort. My reply:
The only problem with your idea is that it's fucking stupid.
Obama is a Chicago machine politician, ruthless, unprincipled and amoral, who happens to have the talent of reading off a teleprompter well. That doesn't make him a good politician.
And the Rudd thing actually just undermines your whole argument: "look, a politician doing something that any normal human being would do anyway." This deserves so much praise that you actually want to build a fucking website around it?
There is no such thing as a good politician: they are all in it for the gain or the self-aggrandizement, or worse, to make us all live how they think the little people should live.
OK, so there is such a thing as a good politician -- a dead one. But that's not something that deserves a website, is it?
The only problem with your idea is that it's fucking stupid.
Obama is a Chicago machine politician, ruthless, unprincipled and amoral, who happens to have the talent of reading off a teleprompter well. That doesn't make him a good politician.
And the Rudd thing actually just undermines your whole argument: "look, a politician doing something that any normal human being would do anyway." This deserves so much praise that you actually want to build a fucking website around it?
There is no such thing as a good politician: they are all in it for the gain or the self-aggrandizement, or worse, to make us all live how they think the little people should live.
OK, so there is such a thing as a good politician -- a dead one. But that's not something that deserves a website, is it?
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Roadworks
Really, what is the point of cunting up FIVE FUCKING MILES of road as a speed-restricted, single lane, so that two indolent fucks can trim some fucking trees? It's going to take them a fucking year to trim that lot, are the roads going to be cunted all fucking year for this shit?
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Twatstorm
Oh dear:
Needless to say, the pitchforks are already out, and people who really fucking ought to know better, are giving it large.
This is a very straightforward thing: Mr Kenneth Tong is a complete fucking cunt. But you know, he's entitled to his opinion that thin girls are where it's at, and he's just as entitled to fucking stupid opinions about medical issues as say, homeopaths.
Just like no-one with any fucking sense tries to cure cancer with an ultra-diluted placebo, no one with any fucking sense is going to take diet tips from a ornamental twat. And if you're stupid enough to do either, well, then, you've fucking earned the consequences, haven't you? He's not fucking holding a gun against any fucker's head and forcing them to become anorexic, is he?
By all means, slag him off, call him a cunt, and point out his monumental stupidity.
But for Christ's sake, don't try to shut him up. Because there is already enough stupid bansturbatory cuntery around.
I wholeheartedly endorse managed anorexia, as to be fat or even not thin is to fail life.
Needless to say, the pitchforks are already out, and people who really fucking ought to know better, are giving it large.
This is a very straightforward thing: Mr Kenneth Tong is a complete fucking cunt. But you know, he's entitled to his opinion that thin girls are where it's at, and he's just as entitled to fucking stupid opinions about medical issues as say, homeopaths.
Just like no-one with any fucking sense tries to cure cancer with an ultra-diluted placebo, no one with any fucking sense is going to take diet tips from a ornamental twat. And if you're stupid enough to do either, well, then, you've fucking earned the consequences, haven't you? He's not fucking holding a gun against any fucker's head and forcing them to become anorexic, is he?
By all means, slag him off, call him a cunt, and point out his monumental stupidity.
But for Christ's sake, don't try to shut him up. Because there is already enough stupid bansturbatory cuntery around.
Who's fucking fault is this, anyway?
Fuck. I really shouldn't watch TV, especially not BBC "news".
This morning, while I was getting ready, I could hear about the scandal that diabolical bastard supermarkets have plenty of flu vaccine, while hard working families can't get their kids immunised because the sainted NHS doesn't have enough stock to go round.
Hard working families can't get their kids immunised at supermarkets, because supermarkets are not allowed to immunise kids.
And then, of course, a GP weighed in: what needs to happen, is that supermarket stocks of flu jabs should be "transferred" to local doctors.
"Transferred."
Of course, what they mean is: the NHS should be entitled to fucking plunder and loot supermarkets, who have paid for these cunting jabs and actually have enough stock to immunise people, while the fucking NHS, whose fucking job it is to immunise people, doesn't have the stocks because they're spending money on breast implants, climate change management and healthy eating initiatives.
And of course, this being the BBC, no fucker dare float the idea that supermarkets should be able to immunise anyone who fucking asks for a jab.
Jesus. What a fucking shower of rancid goat shit.
This morning, while I was getting ready, I could hear about the scandal that diabolical bastard supermarkets have plenty of flu vaccine, while hard working families can't get their kids immunised because the sainted NHS doesn't have enough stock to go round.
Hard working families can't get their kids immunised at supermarkets, because supermarkets are not allowed to immunise kids.
And then, of course, a GP weighed in: what needs to happen, is that supermarket stocks of flu jabs should be "transferred" to local doctors.
"Transferred."
Of course, what they mean is: the NHS should be entitled to fucking plunder and loot supermarkets, who have paid for these cunting jabs and actually have enough stock to immunise people, while the fucking NHS, whose fucking job it is to immunise people, doesn't have the stocks because they're spending money on breast implants, climate change management and healthy eating initiatives.
And of course, this being the BBC, no fucker dare float the idea that supermarkets should be able to immunise anyone who fucking asks for a jab.
Jesus. What a fucking shower of rancid goat shit.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Moron democracy (for @davidangell )
In simple steps:
1. The Krays extorted money and used violence against people.
2. The Krays also did a lot of good things, or used the PR campaign that they did some good things with the money they extorted.
3. The Krays decided entirely unaccountably what "good things" they would spend the money they extorted on, and also who they would use violence against.
4. Governments extort money and use violence against people.
5. Governments also do a lot of good things, or us the PR campaign that they do some good things with the money they extort.
6. Governments decide entirely unaccountably what "good things" they spend the money they extort on, and also who they use violence against.
The difference between the Krays and the government is the fig leaf of democracy.
Democracy may change the politician figureheads, but it doesn't change the government. Notice how many ludicrous "Labour" policies are suddenly adopted by the coalition. Notice how the tenor of government has not changed, despite a "completely different" set of parties in power.
The personalities are different, but underneath, nothing is changing. The only differences are that different tribal idiots are now protesting the behaviour of the government (which they should be applauding, because it's the exact same policies their party wanted) while the other set of tribal idiots applauds the same stupid policies because their tribe is now implementing them.
Despite "cuts", the government continues to spend more and more money, and we continue to get less and less in return.
But useful idiots continue to trumpet democracy as the saviour of society, when in reality it is merely the thing which excuses thuggery.
1. The Krays extorted money and used violence against people.
2. The Krays also did a lot of good things, or used the PR campaign that they did some good things with the money they extorted.
3. The Krays decided entirely unaccountably what "good things" they would spend the money they extorted on, and also who they would use violence against.
4. Governments extort money and use violence against people.
5. Governments also do a lot of good things, or us the PR campaign that they do some good things with the money they extort.
6. Governments decide entirely unaccountably what "good things" they spend the money they extort on, and also who they use violence against.
The difference between the Krays and the government is the fig leaf of democracy.
Democracy may change the politician figureheads, but it doesn't change the government. Notice how many ludicrous "Labour" policies are suddenly adopted by the coalition. Notice how the tenor of government has not changed, despite a "completely different" set of parties in power.
The personalities are different, but underneath, nothing is changing. The only differences are that different tribal idiots are now protesting the behaviour of the government (which they should be applauding, because it's the exact same policies their party wanted) while the other set of tribal idiots applauds the same stupid policies because their tribe is now implementing them.
Despite "cuts", the government continues to spend more and more money, and we continue to get less and less in return.
But useful idiots continue to trumpet democracy as the saviour of society, when in reality it is merely the thing which excuses thuggery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)