When you work in the public sector as I do, you cannot help but come across some amazing people. I don’t mean those people who work as nurses, doctors, therapists, social workers even managers and who as many do carry on working after others have gone home, who go that extra mile. No I mean people who, on top of their usual lives actually do things for others because they want to, not because it is their job, but because of a sense that they can and should do more for others. Around us there are people who help out in schools, hospitals, charity shops, take people places, visit the elderly and disabled or who sit on committees and make a difference to the way those with jobs view the people they are there to support.
In my current job I come across many people who work hard but who aren’t paid for that work. Some do so knowing that they are already financially secure, that they have already had their careers or that they want to give something back for an experience or event that changed them. Generally these people do this work because they want to, not because anyone has told them it might be a good idea.
The voluntary sector doesn’t actually come for free. Charities need organising, charity shops pay rent, and those organisations which appear to function through good will actually needs people to recruit the volunteers, train them, galvanise them and maybe pay expenses. They need to check people working (even free of charge) with the vulnerable have suitable training and support. Voluntary organisations need premises to operate out of and they need to be able to provide services for others. None of this is free.
Good will is a valuable comodity, and people who expect others to provide services using it do well to remember that. Good will doesn’t come completely free, there is a cost. The big society is made up of good will, but if you think it is something you can have in lou of something that should be paid for then you are mistaken.
David Cameron would do well to remember that!
Comments on: "What is this big society?" (9)
“Good will is a valuable comodity, and people who expect others to provide services using it do well to remember that. Good will doesn’t come completely free, there is a cost. The big society is made up of good will, but if you think it is something you can have in lou of something that should be paid for then you are mistaken.”
Totally agree. All DC wants it to get the costs away from government.
I simply can’t grasp what he means by it. We had a big society, that cared for it’s old, weak and vulnerable and he’s just ripped it apart. The whole point of charity and volunteering is that people can get on and do what they want without Gov’t interference – and it just feels that he wants a bit of that action and all of the credit.
The scariest thing for us in the NHS at the moment is that the government who came in saying “rubbish labour, too many meaningless targets” are now saying “lets just introduce another 50 performance indicators to replace the 10 targets we just abolished”!
They truly are a nasty lot (though I am biased!)
Not so much nasty as indifferent. But Labour would have done the same thing. It was only a matter of time. The question now has to be ‘how will it be run?’. Will the new plans work, they will because people will just get on with making it work. It would be nice if targets and performance indicators were shall we say ‘lost on the operating table’. It truly is not about targets or performance indicators. It is about providing a mixture of state funded and private funded health care provision to a demand side that will not diminish, it will continue to rise.
Hi Julie, just wondered what you thought about this:
“The welfare state is out of date. The principle of ‘Free at the point of delivery’ must be replaced by ‘Paid for at the point of delivery’, so that those who can afford to pay for their healthcare and children’s education do so in proportion to their earnings. The result, argues Ross Harvey, would be huge savings as market efficiencies are introduced to moribund sectors, without leaving the country’s poorest behind.
After the Second World War, few people had a bank account. They were about one third as rich, had ten years less life expectancy, penicillin was the most expensive drug and a hip operation wasn’t even the stuff of sci-fi yet. So the state had to contrive a cashless system for the nation’s welfare and ‘free at point of delivery’ was born. This required a bureaucracy that over the years has fed on itself and is now so large that there is no template for its management and its expense devours funds needed at the coalface. It is a property of technology that it replaces people but change is the only constant and the only serious alternative to wider mpoverishment.
The sacred formula ‘Free at point of delivery’ must be stood on its head to become the next big idea ‘Paid for at point of delivery’ – except for those whose income tax returns entitle them to get it for free. Whatever the cost, the amount you pay will depend upon last year’s income tax return.” http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare/think-piece%3a-a-smarter-approach-to-the-welfare-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAdamSmithInstituteBlog+%28The+Adam+Smith+Institute+Blog%29
It is good to ‘blog’ with you.
Its good to blog with you too.
What a load of rubbish. How can the least fortunate within a society be judged upon the amount of tax they pay since if you earn the minimum wage you pay little tax.
Having said that, it is pretty clear that we can’t afford to fund the welfare state based on what people want rather than need and this has become pretty confused in my opinion. I think I might blog on that issue pretty soon. But as a precursor let me tell you that it is not unusual for doctors to operate on people on the nhs for what are purely cosmetic reasons. I have the misfortune to be part of a ‘prior approval’ team and saw such a case yesterday!
Yes the comment by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) leaves a lot to be desired! There seems to be a trend towards that way though.
I think the comment was leading to those on low wage and benefits (though the ASM would do away with the benefit system also) would get health-care free. So what inclination has a low paid worker got to to up the career rung slightly and suddenly have to pay all the care costs? I know the ASI would point to insurance and savings based remedies. That is one way of saying that people will only try to get health-care if they really need it. Not cost effective otherwise. Of course most low paid workers are mainly the ones who smoke, drink, have obesity and fitness problems, so will they be encouraged to continue in their lifestyle regardless of the cost to health-care funding? Whilst the more affluent will be able to just pay up front regardless of their irresponsibility towards their health-care. Definitely a two tier health service then I think.
Or will there be a situation whereby if the reason for the illness is lifestyle attributed regardless of wealth you will be refused treatment unless you take action? AS they say, watch this space.
Hi Julie.
?
Some time ago I found this site http://www.nursesforreformblog.com/
Very interesting and seems to be in favour of total private provision of health care – though maybe not private funding
Interesting concept I have to say from reading some of the posts. I wonder how this kind of thing pans out for those with less ‘sexy’ or common conditions. Who will want to provide care for those people? A bit like providing a mail service; everyone vires for the business post and deliveries in big cities, but what about the islands of scotland and cornwall?