Quotulatiousness

September 2, 2009

NHS better than Canadian health system, says Jeremy Clarkson

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Health — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:03

It’s always surprising to find a British author willing to call their massive National Health Service (NHS) “a monster that we can barely afford”, but that’s exactly what Jeremy Clarkson says in his latest Times column. But that’s merely an aside. The venom in this article is reserved for Canadian healthcare, specifically in Quebec:

Some say America should follow Canada’s lead, where private care is effectively banned. But having experienced their procedures while on holiday in Quebec, I really don’t think that’s a good idea at all.

[. . .]

Now, we are all used to a bit of a wait at the hospital. God knows, I’ve spent enough time in accident and emergency at Oxford’s John Radcliffe over the years, sitting with my sobbing children in a room full of people with swords in their eyes and their feet on back to front. But nothing can prepare you for the yawning chasm of time that passes in Canada before the healthcare system actually does any healthcare.

[. . .]

After a couple of hours, I asked the receptionist how long it might be before a doctor came. In a Wal-Mart, it’s quite quaint to be served by a fat, gum-chewing teenager who claims not to understand what you’re saying, but in a hospital it’s annoying. Resisting the temptation to explain that the Marquis de Montcalm lost and that it’s time to get over it, I went back to the boy’s cubicle

[. . .]

And they also had the cash to employ an army of people to slam the door in your face if you poked your head into the inner sanctum to ask how much longer the wait might be. Sixteen hours is apparently the norm. Unless you want a scan. Then it’s 22 months.

At about 1.30am a doctor arrived. Boy, he was a piece of work. He couldn’t have been more rude if I’d been General Wolfe. He removed the bandages like they were the packaging on a disposable razor, looked at the wound, which was horrific, and said to my friend: “Is it cash or credit card?”

August 28, 2009

Chilling the news, Toronto style

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:45

Matt Gurney risks being sued by taking a stand against Toronto city government’s latest brain fart:

Setting aside the oddity of Toronto’s politicians suing their cheerleaders at the Star, there are serious issues at play here. Despite having recently voted down a proposal that would have let city councillors sue citizens on the taxpayers’ dime, it is still permissible for the city to fund lawsuits approved by various officials at city hall. What could be more chilling to free speech than a thin-skinned politician or bureaucrat with a taxpayer-financed legal team? Remember, folks — even asking reasonable, fair, and completely valid questions might bankrupt you, if you can’t afford to pay for your defence.

Beyond that issue is a more philosophical one. When does criticism of a government program become an attack on those running it? Depending on how broad an interpretation the courts choose to settle upon, opinion journalism and political reporting in this country could grind to a halt. Is a criticism of Ottawa’s handling of the isotope shortage an attack on the bureaucrats involved? Imagine a reporter discovering that a department was blowing millions or billions of dollars on a program with almost no practical benefit (Think long-gun registry). Would that reporter dare report it, and risk a ruinous lawsuit filed by the people running the program? Where does political commentary end and defamation begin? I don’t know, but the Toronto city government seems determined to find out.

These worrisome legal and philosophical issues might pale in comparison to the sheer logistics of such a regime. If the Toronto government, or any other, can go after anyone who criticizes it, how long until there is an entire cadre of bureaucrats whose job it is to seek out and bankrupt critics? It might sound paranoid, but remember this is government we’re talking about.

H/T to Elizabeth for the link.

August 12, 2009

Even more “rejected from the App Store” tales

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Humour — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:26

Lore Sjoberg joins all the other sad-sack would-be iPhone/iPod Touch developers, having had all of his application rejected by those capricious Apple gatekeepers:

I, myself, have submitted several applications to the iPhone Developer Program, and have been rejected every time. I think if you look over my list of apps and the supposed reasons for their rejection, you’ll see that Apple’s decisions are pure whimsy, drawn up from the whimsy mines deep beneath the company’s headquarters in sunny Cupertino, California.

Low-Fat Chicken Breast Recipe Book
Apparently, Apple can’t even handle the word breast, because it rejected this app, which is nothing more than a guide to cooking healthful, delicious, boneless, skinless chicken breasts. Each recipe comes with detailed instructions and a helpful video showing the dish being prepared by a naked porn star.

[. . .]

Steal Me!
This handy app uses motion detection to determine when your iPhone has been set down for three minutes or more, at which point it begins to yells a recorded message: “Steal me! Just grab me and run! You can get a hundred bucks or so, easy! Spend it on drugs! Anyone who buys an iPhone has too much money anyway! Go for it!” I have no idea why Apple rejected this app, but I suspect the company is working on its own version and didn’t want the competition.

August 5, 2009

QotD: It’s not about politeness

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:25

I really don’t think think this is a debate about politeness. I mean, I’m happy to have that debate, too, but it’s not as important. Is it polite to call someone a liar? Probably not; but if they are a politician, like Jennifer Lynch is, and they really are lying, as I’ve meticulously documented, and the lies are important lies, then I think that politeness must take second place behind public accountability. I think it would be unethical to elevate mere politeness for politeness’s sake ahead of responsible government. Those who think that one can expose the lies — and corruption and abuse and neo-Nazi activities(!) — of a 200-person, $25-million/year government agency without marshalling the full force of the English language are either naive and inexperienced, or — as Jennifer Lynch is doing — simply trying to change the subject from the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s bad behaviour.

When Canada’s censorship laws are finally repealed, and the abusive, corrupt staff at the CHRC and other HRCs are disciplined for their outrageous (and, in some cases, illegal) behaviour, we can then have a debate as to whether or not it is fair game to call their chief politician and spin doctor “haggard”. Until we have shut down the real and pressing menace to our civil liberties, I’m not too interested about whether or not I’m using the wrong fork for my salad, or other exquisite courtesies.

Ezra Levant, “More letters”, EzraLevant.com, 2008-08-04

August 4, 2009

California looking for all kinds of new sources of income

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:34

Neil Gaiman has some issues with the California tax department (individual Twitter messages, in sequence):

It wasn’t identity theft screwing up my credit rating. Twas the idiot state of idiot california deciding I lived there & wasn’t paying tax.

I know that California is bankrupt and stupid, but ohhhh the stupidness and ohhh the cupidity. Twerps.

They decided I lived there & wasn’t paying tax & took out a Tax Lien; then cancelled it when we yelled, but it lives on in the credit rpt.

Right. I just spoke to a nice man who pretended he wasn’t in India who said he’d get onto fixing it. We shall see what happens.

July 24, 2009

QotD: Government waste

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Humour, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 16:01

For the people in government, rather than the people who pester it, Washington is an early-rising, hard-working city. It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.

P.J. O’Rourke, “The Winners Go to Washington, D.C.”, Parliament of Whores, 1991

July 22, 2009

Looking for Canadian health stats?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Health — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:59

Kathy Shaidle has some useful advice for Americans who may be looking for information on the Canadian healthcare system.

Up here, the key word in discussions is “wait times”. That’s what we say, when you say “rationing.” The ONLY way for our system to work is to “hope” somebody ahead of you in the line for care dies, and you can take their place. A very cynical, nasty way to run a country, to say the least.

So go to Google.ca (especially the “News” section) and look up “wait times” if you want to get the real Canadian conversation on our health care system.

July 20, 2009

Decoded: the secret of modern education

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Education — Nicholas @ 17:06

Tyler Cowen provides the skeleton key to understand the modern education system:

Placebo effects can be very powerful and many supposedly effective medicines do not in fact outperform the placebo. The sorry truth is that no one has compared modern education to a placebo. What if we just gave people lots of face-to-face contact and told them they were being educated?

[Ben Casnochna writes:] He reluctantly provides the terrifying conclusion: Maybe that’s what current methods of education already consist of.

July 12, 2009

Sauce for the goose

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 13:08

Rick Newcombe provides an insight into why Los Angeles is suffering from a killer combination of rising unemployment and tax rates that no longer meet expenses:

[. . .] 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an “occupations and professions” classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a “wholesale and retail” classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.

After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.

You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.

Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city’s decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.

Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings — only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.

The rule of law requires that both parties are equally subject to the outcome of a trial, win or lose. The city clearly feels that it’s above that.

(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005574.html.)

July 11, 2009

Parkinson: the man behind “the Law”

Filed under: Books, Bureaucracy, History — Tags: — Nicholas @ 00:04

He may be less familiar now, but most of us have heard of his most popular work: Parkinson’s Law:

The book expanded on an article of his first published in The Economist in November 1955. Illustrated by Britain’s then leading cartoonist, Osbert Lancaster, the book was an instant hit. It was wrapped around the author’s “law” that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion”. Thus, Parkinson wrote, “an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis . . . the total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day of doubt, anxiety and toil.”

Parkinson’s barbs were directed first and foremost at government institutions — he cited the example of the British navy where the number of admiralty officials increased by 78% between 1914 and 1928, a time when the number of ships fell by 67% and the number of officers and men by 31%. But they applied almost equally well to private industry, which was at the time bloated after decades spent adding layers and layers of managerial bureaucracy.

(Crossposted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005572.html.

July 10, 2009

Maybe photographers in the UK actually do have rights

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:56

Clive sent me this update from The Register:

The Metropolitan Police has issued guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence.

There has been increasing concern in recent months that police have been over-using terrorism laws and public order legislation to harass professional and amateur photographers. The issue was raised in Parliament and the Home Office agreed to look at the rules.

The guidance reminds officers that the public do not need a licence to take photographs in the street and the police have no power to stop people taking pictures of anything they like, including police officers.

The over-used Terrorism Act of 2000 does not ban photography either, although it does allow police to look at images on phones or cameras during a search to see if they could be useful to a terrorist.

This is a belated follow-up to incidents like this one (oh, and this one, too). It’s refreshing to see that at least one government recognizes that recent police enforcement of a non-existant law must be curtailed. It’s also sad that this sort of thing is still so rare as to be noteworthy.

Oh, and Canadians shouldn’t try to be smug about this . . . we have over-enthusiastic police enforcement of mythical laws as well.

(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005569.html.)

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress