Sunday, August 21, 2005

Health and Social Welfare

• Introduce incentives for people to use the NHS responsibly, such as small token charges, even for those on benefits.
• Shift to an insurance-funded scheme for non A&E activities. A&E remain funded from NI.
• Systematic survey of all behaviour-influencing food additives with the aim of banning substances that have strong influences and mild influences when the additive is purely for cosmetic purposes.
• Shift to a compulsory defined contribution pensions mechanism, similar to Singapore's CPF system.
• No increases in state benefits for people who expand their families while receiving state benefit. For example - an unemployed teenager who gets pregnant should not be given housing, nor should she receive additional payments for that child. If they are unable to care for the newborn it should be adopted. This policy should be taught at 11 years. No excuses.
• State benefit: A debit card account linked to payments shall be issued from ALL BANKS that biases costs billed against junk, tobacco and booze to encourage spending on items such as fresh vegetables and organic produce by linking into supermarket systems. As the state provides the money, it has a right to determine how it is being spent.
• Long term disability to be reviewed, especially when it does not prevent OTHER FORMS of employment that can be retrained for.
• Break down the NHS computerization into achievable stages and render it significantly less expensive.
• Apply Banking-grade computerization to CSA and Inland Revenue to replace failures and inefficiencies with professional, reliable systems and services.
• Residents in State housing should not be allowed to import dependents, for these potential newcomers are not truly THEIR dependents (as they cannot provide for them) but would become the State's and the State should not be in the role of surrogate in this case.
• Economic Migrants should not have recourse to State housing for at least 5 to 10 years, for the whole purpose of their coming is that they bring skills and value to the economy.
• Refugees are another matter entirely. The key is to quickly decide if they are genuine and once proven they should be allowed into the country - remember they are still 'airside' - and permitted to work ASAP. State accommodation should be provided, for their case is quite separate from economic migrants. Once a fixed term is reached (say 6 months) commercial rents shall be applied, for they are 'bed blocking' another family which the council is forced to find accommodation for on the open market. This will encourage them to move to a place of their choice for the same or less money. This is firm but fair, because other refugees are arriving and the State's resources are not infinite.


Lanna said...

I wandered here from your other blog. I know this is an old post, but I wonder if you would be willing to explain how State-enforced adoptions and diet, etc. fit in with a libertarian agenda.
Many thanks

Roger Thornhill said...

You mght be suffering from a framing error and logic inversion. Nobody is coerced here.

Nobody is forcing adoptions or diet, but people are currently forced to pay for others' diets and upkeep of their children.

Note the term "should be adopted", not "must".

Also if someone is providing a resource, they surely have the right to decide what is being provided. The problem occurs when it is the State, for you get the conflicts of "duty of care" and of course the spending of other people's money.

Ideally, this should not happen and people should either rely on themselves, their family, by making provision for unemployment insurance, joining mutual Friendly Societies (unfortunately an early casualty of the Welfare encroachment even though the State promised not to do that) or from the donations and voluntary giving by others.

Anonymous said...

God what crap.

Roger Thornhill said...

Thankyou, Anon for your structured and well thought-out rebuttal.