UK Government To Install Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes

UK Government To Install Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, August 3, 2009

UK Government To Install Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes 030809top

The UK government is about to spend $700 million dollars installing surveillance cameras inside the private homes of citizens to ensure that children go to bed on time, attend school and eat proper meals.

No you aren’t reading a passage from George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, this is Britain in 2009, a country which already has more surveillance cameras watching its population than the whole of Europe put together.

Now the government is embarking on a scheme called “Family Intervention Projects” which will literally create a nanny state on steroids, with social services goons and private security guards given the authority to make regular “home checks” to ensure parents are raising their children correctly.

Telescreens will also be installed so government spies can keep an eye on whether parents are mistreating kids and whether the kids are fulfilling their obligations under a pre-signed contract.

Around 2,000 families have been targeted by this program so far and the government wants to snare 20,000 more within the next two years. The tab will be picked up by the taxpayer, with the “interventions” being funded through local council authorities.

Another key aspect of the program will see parents deemed “responsible” by the government handed the power to denounce and report bad parents who allow their children to engage in bad behavior. Such families will then be targeted for “interventions”.

Both parents and children will also be forced to sign a “behavior contract” with the government known as Home School Agreements before the start of every year, in which the state will dictate obligations that it expects to be met.

The opposition Conservative Party, who are clear favorites to win the next British election, commented that the program does not go far enough and is “too little, too late.”

Respondents to a Daily Express article about the new program expressed their shock at the totalitarian implications of what is unfolding in the United Kingdom under the guise of social services initiatives.

“Sorry, but what the hell? Why are people not up in arms about this?,” writes one, “This is a complete invasion of privacy, and it totally ignores the fact that the state does NOT own kids. It’s not up to them how parents choose to raise their children, as long as the parents do not actively harm them. Why on earth aren’t the public rioting? It’s completely anathema to basic British freedoms.”

“Excuse me!?! What an incredible intrusion into the privacy of a family! George Orwell must be spinning in his grave right now,” writes another.

“I have one comment to make: it completely violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998). Has this minister and his lackies even done any basic homework on basic human rights and civil liberties? Or rather they’ve just decided to completely ignore them,” adds another.

The move to install surveillance cameras inside private homes is also on the agenda across the pond. In February 2006, Houston Chief of Police Harold Hurtt said cameras should be placed inside apartments and homes in order to “fight crime” due to there being a shortage of police officers.

“I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?” Chief Hurtt told reporters.

Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association supported the proposal, saying privacy concerns would take a back seat to many people who would, “appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them.”

If such programs come to fruition and are implemented on a mass scale then the full scope of George Orwell’s depiction of a totalitarian society is his classic novel 1984 will have been realized.

The following passage is from Orwell’s 1984;

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Education Costs rising faster then Healthcare.....

« Joe Lierberman Is Very Wrong | Main | Video Ads in Print: Innovation or Gimmick? »

Aug 24 2009, 11:40 am by Niraj Chokshi

Education Costs Rising Faster Than Health Care
A little more than a week ago, the Labor Department announced that, among other things, the price of education increased faster than the price of medical care over the last year, according to its July Consumer Price Index report.

That got us wondering what the historical trend has been, so we looked it up and the results are interesting. And a little scary.

For 27 of the past 30 years, the price of education has grown at a faster rate than that of medical care. Education also grew faster than inflation for 29 of the past 30 years, while medical care beat inflation 27 of those years. Could education be our next health care crisis?

The answer is probably no, at least not for a long time. Average spending on medical care was between three and four times more than that of education in any given year from 1984 to 2007, the only range that the Labor Department's spending data was available. In 2007, the average consumer unit, similar to a household, spent $2,853 on medical care and $945 on education.

But that doesn't mean the cost of education isn't on a terrifying tangent. Just last year, the College Board reported that most students and their families could expect their 2008-2009 tuition and fees to increase by $108 to $1,398. Private colleges are reporting a dip in enrollment as this recession compounds the monetary burden for families.




Last Thursday, on the Tavis Smiley show, Education Secretary Arne Duncan predicted that students will increasingly turn to schools that are more creative at keeping their costs low, and he has offered a $5 billion sweepstakes for districts that demonstrates extraordinary results. President Barack Obama has pledged a $4,000 tax credit and often talks about improving access to education, but the early months of his presidency have been dedicated to bailouts and health care. The sad thing is that everyone -- politicians, parents, kids, even the schools themselves -- agrees that the rising costs are a huge problem, yet the 30-year trend demonstrates and even steeper curve than our much-maligned health care inflation.

OpinionJournal Article: Unsocialized Medicine

Your friend Patrick Aldridge thought you might be interested in this article from OpinionJournal and forwarded it to you.

Patrick Aldridge included a message:

A article from June 2005, well worth the read!

---

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Unsocialized Medicine

A landmark ruling exposes Canada's health-care inequity.

Let's hope Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy were sitting down when they heard the news of the latest bombshell Supreme Court ruling. From the Supreme Court of Canada, that is. That high court issued an opinion last Thursday saying, in effect, that Canada's vaunted public health-care system produces intolerable inequality.

Call it the hip that changed health-care history. When George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he would have to wait a year for a replacement for his painful, arthritic hip, he did what every Canadian who's been put on a waiting list does: He got mad. He got even madder when he learned it was against the law to pay for a replacement privately. But instead of heading south to a hospital in Boston or Cleveland, as many Canadians already do, he teamed up to file a lawsuit with Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal doctor. The duo lost in two provincial courts before their win last week.

The court's decision strikes down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance and is bound to upend similar laws in other provinces. Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance, according to Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and author of a recent book on Canada's health-care system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.

The ruling stops short of declaring the national health-care system unconstitutional; only three of the seven judges wanted to go all the way.

But it does say in effect: Deliver better care or permit the development of a private system. "The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance might be constitutional in circumstances where health-care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness," the ruling reads, but it "is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The Justices who sit on Canada's Supreme Court, by the way, aren't a bunch of Scalias of the North. This is the same court that last year unanimously declared gay marriage constitutional.

The Canadian ruling ought to be an eye-opener for the U.S., where "single-payer," government-run health care is still a holy grail on the political left and even for some in business (such as the automakers). This month the California Senate passed a bill that would create a state-run system of single-payer universal health care. The Assembly is expected to follow suit. Someone should make sure the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling is on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's reading list before he makes a veto decision.

The larger lesson here is that health care isn't immune from the laws of economics. Politicians can't wave a wand and provide equal coverage for all merely by declaring medical care to be a "right," in the word that is currently popular on the American left.

There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy, or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system. The socialist claim is that a single-payer system is more equal than one based on prices, but last week's court decision reveals that as an illusion. Or, to put it another way, Canadian health care is equal only in its shared scarcity.

When asked whether he was worried about being known as the man who helped bring down his country's universal health-care system, Mr. Zeliotis told the Toronto Star, "No way. I'm the guy saving it." If the Canadian ruling can open American eyes to the limitations of government-run health care, Mr. Zeliotis's hip just might end up saving the U.S. system too.

Who Are The Uninsured?

Who Are The Uninsured?

Shared via AddThis

Reuters.com - U.S. grants $1.2 billion for electronic health records

Patrick (porquepine@gmail.com) has sent you this article. Personal Message: U.S. grants $1.2 billion for electronic health records Thu Aug 20 14:53:05 UTC 2009 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Thursday announced grants of almost $1.2 billion to help hospitals and healthcare providers implement and use electronic health records. The Obama administration has made the overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system the centerpiece of its domestic agenda, including the use of technology to improve efficiency and cut costs. The grants include $598 million to set up some 70 health information technology centers to help healthcare institutions acquire electronic health record systems and $564 million to develop a nationwide system of health information networks, Vice President Joe Biden's office said in a statement. "Expanding the use of electronic health records is fundamental to reforming our healthcare system," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, unveiling the grants with Biden in Chicago. "Electronic health records can help reduce medical errors, make healthcare more efficient and improve the quality of medical care for all Americans." The grants will be funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and be made available in 2010, the statement said. (Editing by John O'Callaghan) This service is not intended to encourage spam. The details provided by your colleague have been used for the sole purpose of facilitating this email communication and have not been retained by Thomson Reuters. Your personal details have not been added to any database or mailing list. If you would like to receive news articles delivered to your email address, please subscribe at www.reuters.com/newsmails © Copyright Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Thomson Reuters and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Private health numbers on rise (The Australian Article)

If you're having trouble viewing this article, click here to view it in your browser

Freedom from Mis-information, Patrick (porquepine@gmail.com) thought you might find this article from interesting:
Private health numbers on rise August 18, 2009 From: The Australian A system that already has socialized medical in place and the population is purchasing private medical faster then expected! CANBERRA will use new figures showing continued growth in private hospital membership to counter the opposition's bid this week to block $1.8billion in budget cuts to the health insurance rebate in the Senate. The data, to be released today by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC), is expected to show an extra 43,125 people took up hospital cover in the June quarter, pushing nationwide membership to 9.75million. Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the statistics underlined the Coalition's fiscal irresponsibility in opposing the key budget savings measure. Click here to read the full article on the website Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link into your browser: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25944064-23289,00.html

A look at the Military Pay System

Why does the American public fail to see the obvious? We already have a government provided health care system, several of them! We have Medicare which is a federal program, Medicaid, which is a state funded program -if you do not already qualify for Medicare.

As mentioned in my previous post, the Veterans have Tricare if you are active duty and Tricare Prime if you are a Retired veteran or one that is eligible to claim medical benefits once you are honorably discharged. All of the programs that I have mentioned are severely under funded, stretched beyond their capabilities and having trouble meeting the demands.

I am a veteran. I can go to the Veterans Administration for my medical care (for free) if I so choose do so. I have never chosen to do so. In the military we have a word for the system, it is called quacks! If you want to wait in long lines to see a doctor that does not totally seem qualified to care for you, then the military Tricare plan is for you!

With Tricare, when I was a member in the military, you would have to call your "team representative" before you would go in to see a doctor. The representative would make your appointments, tell you when you can go to the appointment and so on. You had no choice in regards to your care.

Here is a true story for you all to think about. I was on Submarines in Groton, CT. I had fallen down a stair way on the boat and my left thumb had gotten caught up in a rung on the stairwell. My thumb was pulled...ripped...to the point where the tip of my thumb was able to touch the back of my inner arm. I went to the Emergency room, it was pretty obvious that something was not right. X-rays were taken of my hand and the initial findings were, "you sprained your thumb, take some Motrin and you will be ok. At this point I was a bit confused because I was pretty sure that a sprain did not include the ability to move appendages like a circus freak. While the doctor was in my presence, I said, "sprain huh, well does a sprain do this too?" I had pulled my thumb all the way back to touch my inner arm. The doctor was taken back and told me, "Don't do that!" Of course a few minutes later, I had to do the same thing for the nurses, other doctors and so on. Finally a orthopedic surgeon was called out of surgery to come and see my hand. I had to show him the same thing. He said, you have tore tendons, you will require surgery. Had I not performed my circus act, I would have been sent back to my boat to go to sea with the crew, while walking around with torn tendons.

The military is a 'socialized health system.' The entire medical facility is government ran and you are a number. You do not get individualized care and forget having just one doctor that you get to know, you see who ever is there.

I pray that the American people see what is happening and help to stand up and voice their opposition to such socialist tactics by the government!

"Brits Healthcare system is not too rosy"

For those of you that are still not sure if we should have a government run health system, just look across the ocean and take a look at the British and their system.

For a very informative article on the British Healthcare system, please go to:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=648634

Government Provided Health Care is a good thing- You better think again!

Ok, we have heard so much about a "one payer system" from the Hill and we are being told that if we do not make a change then we will end up in more trouble then we are already in...but the question is, will a one payer system put us better off then where we are currently at now?

As a veteran of our military service I have had the personal experience of dealing with a 'one payer' system, and I will tell you that I did not like it!

TRICARE formally CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program for Uniformed Services) has been in full operation since 1997 and is under the authority of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs).

TRICARE recently awarded two contracts to completely new contracted medical providers, United Health in Minnetonka, MN and Aetna Government Health Plans of Hartford, CT.

"Transition to new managed-care support contractors for 6 million TRICARE beneficiaries across 30 states has been halted while the Government Accountability Office reviews protests filed by losing bidders." [Source: Cnj, Aug 18, 2009; http://www.cnjonline.com/opinion/tricare-34806-health-contract.html]

As so government tries to convince the American population that a self payer medical system would be the best thing, they are trying to hide the fact that one of their very own self pay systems is having major difficulties at this very moment!

So many people are going to be "Halted" for medical/dental benefits right now because the government decided to make a switch in the contracts which has completed screwed up millions of individuals and their benefits that they thought that they had.