[MD] Down the road of mediocrity

[Ant McWatt]

[Platt originally commented:]

>For a projection of where liberals in the U.S. are leading us, take a look
>at the following description of the socialist paradise in Great Briton [by 
>Theodore Dalrymple] :
>
>http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_oh_to_be.html

[Ant McWatt stated March 25th:]

What matters to the MOQ pragmatist is the general outlook that _works best 
in practice_ and, judging from Thatcher's legacy (where during the 1980s and 
1990s, centralisation from London increased and unnecessary bureaucracy 
spiralled out-of-control within the NHS, civil service and education 
sectors), it is conservatism that falls shortest in this regard.

[Platt replied:]

If that's the case, then Thatcher was no conservative.

[Ant responds:]

Platt,

What you're over looking with Margaret Thatcher (who was as hard-line a 
conservative as anyone in mainstream US-UK politics in the last thirty 
years) is that she had to deal with the real world.  As I mentioned, read my 
education paper at robertpirsig.org for more detail of just one critical 
area swamped with unnecessary bureaucracy over the last 25 years.  As an US 
citizen you should be particularly concerned to note from this paper that 
most of these "bureaucratic" ideas that the Thatcher orientated governments 
imposed on the British public came from business “gurus” of the American 
right.

(cut - some irrelevant diversion about Thatcher’s use of starting wars to 
keep in office.)

[Ant stated March 25th:]

For example, I'll take a specific point by Theodore Dalrymple in the 
original article you referred to above.  He states:

"Not a single large-scale information technology project instituted by the 
[British] government has worked. The National Health Service has spent $60 
billion on a unified information technology system, no part of which 
actually functions. Projects routinely get canceled after $400– $500 million 
has been spent on them. Modernization in Britain’s public sector means delay 
and inefficiency procured at colossal expense."

What Dalrymple fails to mention is that the reason why the British 
government is now spending this obscene amount of money "on a unified 
information technology system" is because when computer systems were first 
introduced (on a large scale) in the National Health Service (NHS) during 
the 1980s the then Conservative government (under Mrs Thatcher) decided to 
apply the private free economy within the NHS by dividing it into separate 
trusts which were meant to compete against each other in an "internal 
market".

One result of this unnecessary bureaucratic complication (in a system where 
medical treatment still remained free at the point of need) was that each 
trust decided which type of computer system it wanted to install.  Of 
course, each trust chose different and often incompatible systems so now 
these systems have to be integrated (so a doctor can access the computer 
record about a patient whether they are at their local surgery or at a 
hospital at the other end of the country) it will cost far more than if the 
NHS hadn't been divided into trusts in the first place.

-cut-

[Platt replied:]

>The mistake was not so much dividing up the NHS but in having a NHS in the
>first place. "True liberals" like true conservatives would have left health
>care to the private sector, providing an incentive to citizens to stay in
>school, work hard and become self-sufficient instead of dependents of Big
>Brother government. After all, freedom is the MOQ's number one priority.

[Ant comments:]

While I largely agree with the latter sentiments, the NHS is an indication 
of a civilised society.  For instance, there are some people (such as 
children, the mentally ill, elderly and infirm) who aren't "self-sufficient" 
and have no choice but to depend on others.

More importantly, I think the MOQ implies that it is immoral for 
intellectual and social patterns to be affected by biological differences 
(such as health).  So if the best librarian for a town needs $200,000 
towards her medical expenses per annum while the owner of the local Cadillac 
dealership needs only $2000, the MOQ points towards these expenses being 
paid for from general taxation (rather than the individual) to ensure that 
the best possible intellectual and social patterns (for the town) are 
maintained.  The only exception would be vanity cosmetic surgery and, 
possibly, conditions brought upon by oneself through drugs such as tobacco 
and alcohol.  With the latter "self-harmers", I think some additional 
contribution from salary/pension (though variable depending on income) would 
be required.

Best wishes,

Anthony



.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.  
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/