A recent bbc article reveals how heroin supply clinics in Brighton, Darlington and London have reduced crime.
In just six months the number of offences decreased from 1731 in a month prior to the treatment, to just 546 - a drop of two thirds. This shows how drugs policy has the potential to benefit society as a whole.
This scheme costs £15,000 of taxpayers money per patient, per year, which some may object to, however a prison sentence costs £40,000 a year. The evidence also suggests that this scheme encourages addicts to quit drugs alltogether which would allow them to then work and pay taxes.
These supply clinics are a fantastic idea, and it is a step in the right direction towards the legalisation of all drugs.
Wednesday 16 September 2009
Friday 11 September 2009
One down, 10,000 to go!
LPUK, who formed in 2008, gained their first local councillor earlier this week as Gavin Webb jumped ship from the liberal democrat party. This will seem like small news to most people, but it raises an interesting point. Which party does a libertarian in the UK belong in?
The liberal democrats certainly have a libertarian wing, as evidence by the existence of liberal vision. However it seems they are marginalised within the party by the social democrats, the hostility shown towards both Gavin Webb and liberal vision as a whole can be seen in some of the comments on the liberal democrat voice blog. Then of course there is the issue of the suspension of Gavin Webb when he was in the liberal democrat party; for daring to suggest that hard drugs should be legalised. Not to mention that the liberal democrat is the most pro-EU party there is; which directly contradicts libertarian philosophy of bottom up government.
UKIP are the only mainstream party that markets itself as libertarian, a google search of them yields the introduction of: "libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." On economic issues they are certainly the closest to libertarian in the mainstream, supporting a flat tax system, the abolition of inheritance tax and of course, EU withdrawal. However why do they wish to remain in Afghanistan? Why do they not want to legalise drugs, guns and prostitution? And worst of all, why do they make such an anti-libertarian immigration policy one of their leading areas of focus?
Finally we have the conservative party, which also contains a large libertarian wing with MP Alan Duncan and MEP Daniel Hannan both arguing for free-markets and social liberalism. However, the majority of the party have come under criticism from libertarians for being "blue labour" - and David Cameron himself once stated: "that is not conservative, that is libertarian, and that is NOT me." Too many conservative MP's have voted against equal rights for homosexuals, too many conservatives support tough immigration policy and the pursuit of this war on drugs - and yes even some conservatives now support the NHS and membership of the EU!
It is no wonder that LPUK formed. The ideal situation would be for the libertarians that are currently spread across three mainstream parties to unite under the banner of just one party, LPUK. However this is the real world, and councillors, MP's and MEP's have their jobs to consider. This is why I have so much respect for Gavin Webb, who has probably compromised his opportunity to be re-elected next time around in order to stand up for his principles. The more people that join him, the closer this country will come to uniting the philosophy of libertarianism - but there is a long way to go yet, it still remains a distant dream.
The liberal democrats certainly have a libertarian wing, as evidence by the existence of liberal vision. However it seems they are marginalised within the party by the social democrats, the hostility shown towards both Gavin Webb and liberal vision as a whole can be seen in some of the comments on the liberal democrat voice blog. Then of course there is the issue of the suspension of Gavin Webb when he was in the liberal democrat party; for daring to suggest that hard drugs should be legalised. Not to mention that the liberal democrat is the most pro-EU party there is; which directly contradicts libertarian philosophy of bottom up government.
UKIP are the only mainstream party that markets itself as libertarian, a google search of them yields the introduction of: "libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." On economic issues they are certainly the closest to libertarian in the mainstream, supporting a flat tax system, the abolition of inheritance tax and of course, EU withdrawal. However why do they wish to remain in Afghanistan? Why do they not want to legalise drugs, guns and prostitution? And worst of all, why do they make such an anti-libertarian immigration policy one of their leading areas of focus?
Finally we have the conservative party, which also contains a large libertarian wing with MP Alan Duncan and MEP Daniel Hannan both arguing for free-markets and social liberalism. However, the majority of the party have come under criticism from libertarians for being "blue labour" - and David Cameron himself once stated: "that is not conservative, that is libertarian, and that is NOT me." Too many conservative MP's have voted against equal rights for homosexuals, too many conservatives support tough immigration policy and the pursuit of this war on drugs - and yes even some conservatives now support the NHS and membership of the EU!
It is no wonder that LPUK formed. The ideal situation would be for the libertarians that are currently spread across three mainstream parties to unite under the banner of just one party, LPUK. However this is the real world, and councillors, MP's and MEP's have their jobs to consider. This is why I have so much respect for Gavin Webb, who has probably compromised his opportunity to be re-elected next time around in order to stand up for his principles. The more people that join him, the closer this country will come to uniting the philosophy of libertarianism - but there is a long way to go yet, it still remains a distant dream.
The healthcare debate II
A couple of nights ago I watched Obama deliver his plan on healthcare to congress. I feel like his plan deserves another blog entry, even though my previous one was on healthcare as well.
Firstly there are a couple of simple points he made that would have an instant positive impact; insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse treatment based on pre-existing conditions, and also the ban on annual or lifetime caps on coverage that may be received. Even if the plan achieved only this it would have been worthwhile, although it doesn't resolve the issue of people not being able to afford health insurance to begin with, or choosing not to have it. However the latter problem was also resolved by the plan to make health insurance compulsory for all, just like car insurance.
The only contentious issues seems to be the methods of allowing everybody to have access to universal healthcare. The proposal allows an insurance exchange which enables individuals and small businesses to gain insurance collectively, and shop around for a variety of private plans; which is how large corporations currently get insurance. However, the plan includes a public option to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks, and also to create competition and prevent cartels forming.
This aspect of the plan is being greatly exaggerated; Obama himself assured congress that there would be no public treatment for illegal immigrants, and also confirmed that "death panels" were an outright lie. Nor would this public option be compulsory for anyone, or effect anyone who already has private insurance. It merely exists to provide an alternative to private health insurance; and as a supporter of the private and free-market, I have faith that the private options will remain preferable. It is a contradiction to state that the free-market is superior to public options, and then assume the public option will replace the private options when both are competing fairly against one another.
The danger is that the public option will have an unfair advantage as it can collect taxes; however this was also covered in the speech. Obama stated that the public insurance option would be self-funding, using money given to it in the form of insurance premiums rather than taxes. Not only this, but he promised that if taxpayers money was used, there would be tax cuts elsewhere to balance this. This aspect of the plan is worthwhile if it stops private cartels forming, and gives access to insurance for the 40 million people in America currently going without. Especially when the costs are estimated to be lower than that of the Iraq and Afghan wars; which many, including myself, didn't even support to begin with.
The fact Obama stated in this speech his back-up plan in case the government overspent on healthcare shows the key difference between British and American politics. In the UK the government will make a proposal, follow it, and be genuinely suprised if and when it overspends and goes wrong - in contrast America has a healthy mistrust for large government. I for one would vote in favour of Obamas healthcare reforms, and I hope it is passed - if it successfully becomes a universal healthcare system with low tax costs and maximum competition, innovation and efficiency, I would certainly prefer their system to the NHS. I think the UK needs to keep a beady eye on the state of American healthcare in the future.
Firstly there are a couple of simple points he made that would have an instant positive impact; insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse treatment based on pre-existing conditions, and also the ban on annual or lifetime caps on coverage that may be received. Even if the plan achieved only this it would have been worthwhile, although it doesn't resolve the issue of people not being able to afford health insurance to begin with, or choosing not to have it. However the latter problem was also resolved by the plan to make health insurance compulsory for all, just like car insurance.
The only contentious issues seems to be the methods of allowing everybody to have access to universal healthcare. The proposal allows an insurance exchange which enables individuals and small businesses to gain insurance collectively, and shop around for a variety of private plans; which is how large corporations currently get insurance. However, the plan includes a public option to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks, and also to create competition and prevent cartels forming.
This aspect of the plan is being greatly exaggerated; Obama himself assured congress that there would be no public treatment for illegal immigrants, and also confirmed that "death panels" were an outright lie. Nor would this public option be compulsory for anyone, or effect anyone who already has private insurance. It merely exists to provide an alternative to private health insurance; and as a supporter of the private and free-market, I have faith that the private options will remain preferable. It is a contradiction to state that the free-market is superior to public options, and then assume the public option will replace the private options when both are competing fairly against one another.
The danger is that the public option will have an unfair advantage as it can collect taxes; however this was also covered in the speech. Obama stated that the public insurance option would be self-funding, using money given to it in the form of insurance premiums rather than taxes. Not only this, but he promised that if taxpayers money was used, there would be tax cuts elsewhere to balance this. This aspect of the plan is worthwhile if it stops private cartels forming, and gives access to insurance for the 40 million people in America currently going without. Especially when the costs are estimated to be lower than that of the Iraq and Afghan wars; which many, including myself, didn't even support to begin with.
The fact Obama stated in this speech his back-up plan in case the government overspent on healthcare shows the key difference between British and American politics. In the UK the government will make a proposal, follow it, and be genuinely suprised if and when it overspends and goes wrong - in contrast America has a healthy mistrust for large government. I for one would vote in favour of Obamas healthcare reforms, and I hope it is passed - if it successfully becomes a universal healthcare system with low tax costs and maximum competition, innovation and efficiency, I would certainly prefer their system to the NHS. I think the UK needs to keep a beady eye on the state of American healthcare in the future.
Thursday 3 September 2009
The healthcare debate
Recently conservative MEP Daniel Hannan hit the headlines by appearing on fox news to warn America about the NHS;
Some went so far as to call Hannan 'unpatriotic' for his opinions, and David Cameron was very quick to side with the NHS. In reality the most common criticism of what Hannan said is invalid, which is not to say that I agree with him, because there are genuine flaws in his ideas - but before I address those I want to discuss the myth that have emerged at what Hannan said.
The leading argument in favour of the NHS, and against Hannan, seems to be that the American private healthcare system is worse. This is true by nearly anyones standards, except a few delusional republicans - however Daniel Hannan never said he supported the American system of healthcare.
The argument is not as simple as saying America have it worse, case closed. Instead the NHS should be compared with the Singapore health system which combines private and public care. The concept of the private market providing the care under state regulations and controls makes the debate far more interesting, and not as simple as those on the left would want it to be. I would go as far as to say the system in Singapore is superior to the NHS in the same way the NHS is superior to the USA. The only issue is whether it is possible to implement such a system here. The population of Singapore is smaller than London, and there are just 23 hospitals in the entire country.
The issue is not that private healthcare is a totally undesirable system, but instead that it is difficult to implement - especially when the NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs in the UK (the Chinese red army and the Indian nationalised railways employ more.) However more of these jobs are held by administrators and government officials than by doctors and nurses.
The best plan on healthcare I have seen from any party in the UK is actually from a totally unknown party, LPUK - now the libertarian philosophy certainly dictates that healthcare should be private, yet the party leader Ian Parker-Joseph realises that the NHS is too engrained in society to eliminate quickly. His plan is progressive and sensible, and puts emphasis on eliminating the layers of beaurocracy within the NHS without closing down any clinics or losing any doctors. Contrary to popular belief, these plans would benefit the poorest in society by relieving them of a large chunk of their tax burdens without reducing the quality of servise given to them. It is a long read but here is a link to LPUK's leaders plans for healthcare.
Some went so far as to call Hannan 'unpatriotic' for his opinions, and David Cameron was very quick to side with the NHS. In reality the most common criticism of what Hannan said is invalid, which is not to say that I agree with him, because there are genuine flaws in his ideas - but before I address those I want to discuss the myth that have emerged at what Hannan said.
The leading argument in favour of the NHS, and against Hannan, seems to be that the American private healthcare system is worse. This is true by nearly anyones standards, except a few delusional republicans - however Daniel Hannan never said he supported the American system of healthcare.
The argument is not as simple as saying America have it worse, case closed. Instead the NHS should be compared with the Singapore health system which combines private and public care. The concept of the private market providing the care under state regulations and controls makes the debate far more interesting, and not as simple as those on the left would want it to be. I would go as far as to say the system in Singapore is superior to the NHS in the same way the NHS is superior to the USA. The only issue is whether it is possible to implement such a system here. The population of Singapore is smaller than London, and there are just 23 hospitals in the entire country.
The issue is not that private healthcare is a totally undesirable system, but instead that it is difficult to implement - especially when the NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs in the UK (the Chinese red army and the Indian nationalised railways employ more.) However more of these jobs are held by administrators and government officials than by doctors and nurses.
The best plan on healthcare I have seen from any party in the UK is actually from a totally unknown party, LPUK - now the libertarian philosophy certainly dictates that healthcare should be private, yet the party leader Ian Parker-Joseph realises that the NHS is too engrained in society to eliminate quickly. His plan is progressive and sensible, and puts emphasis on eliminating the layers of beaurocracy within the NHS without closing down any clinics or losing any doctors. Contrary to popular belief, these plans would benefit the poorest in society by relieving them of a large chunk of their tax burdens without reducing the quality of servise given to them. It is a long read but here is a link to LPUK's leaders plans for healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
