JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC Archives

POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC  March 2009

POETRYETC March 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: pullman on liberty

From:

Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Poetryetc: poetry and poetics

Date:

Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:06:58 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (86 lines)

Christopher, Martin and Mark,
Thanks in part to some research by Robin Hamilton as we discussed the health
care topic you've raised, I've found a useful article by Princeton economist
Uwe Reinhardt [NYT 1 March 2009, from Economix 21 November 2008], entitled,
"Why Does US Health Care Cost So Much? (Part II:  Indefensible
Administrative Costs)".  His "Part I" helpfully lays out the context for
this article:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

Best,

Judy

2009/3/1 Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]>

> The UK government has stared into the bottoms of successive US presidents
> for close on 11 years now as though in search of the sun. That's been one
> of
> its many flaws. If Mrs Thatcher was 'neo-liberalism in one country' (in
> Susan Watkins' phrase) New Labour is its globalised extension. That's been
> another. What Martin rightly calls 'a new kind of fascism' is a third.
>
> At least Mrs Thatcher managed to make eye contact with President Reagan.
>
> <snip>
> The same kind of forces that have undermined health provision in
> the USA have seen to it that the NHS, conceived as a socialist innovation
> during WW2, is being hollowed out, whatever the surface rhetoric of the
> "managerial" Nu-Labour party. [Martin]
> <snip>
>
> It's actually worse than that. *Connecting for Health* is a quango which
> oversees and publicises the new ICT arrangements within the NHS, in which
> the 'internal market' continues to be key. Who runs it? Well there's a
> medic
> who knows about livers, but also a non medical IT 'consultant', an IT bloke
> who defines what he did in an earlier life as 'Government IT Profession:
> National Competency Lead for Delivery Management', plus another IT
> professional, this time a career civil servant. And so on. So who actually
> 'implements' all this clever ICT stuff? That comes about through tiered
> outsourcing, as far as I can tell. Lots of precarity. Lots of skimming of
> profits. Lots of transatlantic accents. And no one 'owns' any problems, to
> use that idiot phrase.
>
> So what about the system that has caused such chaos here in
> London? Ah yes. That's a Cerner system straight out of US health provision.
> It's been puffed as the beginning of a marvellously joined up NHS. My
> understanding is that at its core it's actually a suite of programs to
> account for transfer pricing.
>
> <snip>
> Which isn't to deny that the UK needs to invest more in
> education and medicine and less in prisons. [Mark]
> <snip>
>
> The problem isn't money. It's that New Labour has been sedulous in
> undermining the ethic of public service, or what was left of it. (See
> above.) NHS funding has roughly doubled under New Labour. However, much of
> it has been pissed away on bankrolling private contractors and their
> subcontractors and their subcontractors' mates and on producing dodgy
> statistics, which has developed into an industry (part of manufacturing
> consent). Conversely, the penal system is also close to collapse. In
> London,
> for example, the probation service is virtually non existent, bailed out
> (as
> it were) by yet more subcontracting. I haven't checked but I'm not even
> sure
> whether spending on prisons did increase by all that much until the sheer
> pressure of rising prison numbers (up by more than 50% by 2007, I believe)
> finally rendered the issue more or less unavoidable.
>
> What changed was the will to lock people up and otherwise hound them and
> interfere with them and menace them, which hugely increased under New
> Labour. The failed 90 days' detention proposal, for example, was a retread
> of Section 17 of South Africa's General Law Amendment Act of 1963,
> passed under Hendrik Verwoerd. The conceptual change, even with the
> current,
> more modest arrangements, is breathtaking.
>
> CW
> _______________________________________________
>
> We're not paying for your crisis!
> (Italian Student Slogan)
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager