I contend that politicians are in touch with the people, otherwise they would not be re-elected.
The reason that we do not perhaps have more long-term plans from our leaders or what some would regard as 'better policy' from our governments is that people are out of touch with politics. In general terms Australians have a very low interest level in politics, we vote (in a traditional manner and a kneejerk one for swingers) come election times and leave it at that. As a polity we do not engage in politics, we generally don't take and interest and so governments are largely left to do as they please.
We get the governments we deserve and if we don't take an active interest then is it any wonder that we percieve governments to be out of touch with us?
In the foriegn policy arena we leave the government of the day even more do just 'do its thing' because this having even less (percieved) impact on our day to day lives we really don't care. When it does intrude in the form of a sensationalist event (say the tsunami in SE Asia or the WTC attack) we demand instant kneejerk responses (aid and joining the coalition of the willing respectively) and then subside into apathy.
Also as an aside the image of an 'out of touch government' is deeply rooted in Australia and the US particularly - we have a historical antipathy towards governments in general. We love the underdog, the outsider of the political world. Politicians know this and so they stress this, governments win power riding the promise of tax breaks not spending sprees.
......................................
Moving on to the health/education debate:
As those who frequent this forum know - I love the free market, so it should come as no suprise to you that I am a fan of privately funded health, however I am less of a fan of privately funded education.
Health is a big area of spending, a big area of inefficiency and importantly an area that we as consumers do not link cause and effect in. As mentioned there is the simple inefficiency of suppliers sparing no expense and using the more expensive of two procedures available or performing the one with a higher profit margin and because they are not paying the consumer does not care. This is inefficient.
Arguably more importantly though the social marginacl costs (SMC) of some activities are far higher than the private marginal cost (PMC) and as such the consumer not paying the full cost will consume for longer (eg until the MB equals the lower PMC, which is more consumption because of a diminishing marginal benefit).
For example smoking, as consumers we do not pay for the treatment of our smoking related diseases (cancer, gangreen, emphasima (sp), etc etc) and so we do not consider these costs. Or in the reverse we do not consider how exercising and eating well can reduce our medical bills in the long run because we do not pay them.
Hence I believe that a private health system is by far preferable to a public one as it would lower costs overall by improving efficiency and encouraging a healthier lifestyle.
To pre-empt possible arguments against:
What of those who can not afford private health: Well firstly one would not generally be paying the full ammount upfront but rather be paying for some kind of medical insurance. You would have more money in your pocket because of lower taxes.
Poor medical services in the bush: If there are 20 of you then you are not going to get a high tech 500 bed hospital with the latest swanky machines, end of story. You live in the bush then you are going to have to travel to attend a hospital. As far as GPs go a subsidy of some kind could be considered to encourage them to practise in rural areas - however a sufficient customer base is still going to be needed.
What about the working poor who are injured at work/etc: Clearly the employer should pay for their medical treatment in its entirity and/or provide compensation for loss of earnings. This is because the injury is a negative externality of their operation and imposes a cost on the employee, this cost should be internalised to recognise that the emplyee should not be penalised for injuries suffered on behalf of the employer and to encourage the employer to provide a safe workplace.
.......................................................
Moving on to education:
Whilst I am a big free marketeer I do support public education, to a certain extent.
I believe that public education can be a great leveler and promote societal cohesion by instilling common values and more importantly common experiences. As an example of the possible results of a lack of cohesion, look to israel a deeply divided society with ultra-othodox haredi jews and secular zionists becoming increasingly polarized.
By bringing the different strata of society together the well to do are encouraged to help raise the condition of those lower and the lower are encouraged to strive to become the upper. Most importantly it breaks down class based distinctions.
A unified public education system serves to create a more cohesive society by instilling common values and experiences in a way that cuts across class, religious, ideological and racial divides. Regardless of whether or not the rich pay for pwn grades for their kiddies the fact is that students are bought into contact with other students who are not like themselves. This is a good thing.
Other issues and arguments:
Education in rural areas: another sticky issue, perhaps govt subsidised boarding at urban/sub-urban schools??
........................
I believe in a national education system because this facilitates student and teacher movement between states and enables our students and schools to more effectively engage in the international education market.
..........................
I would suggest that whilst it is possibly economically inefficient that it is socially optimal for our schools to be diverse in their teaching.* That is to say that rather than schools specialising in say 'academic subjects' and others specialising in 'technical/vocational subjects' that schools teach a broad variety of both.
My model of education would see an across the board years k-10 followed by specialisation by choice however in a way somewaht like the IB there would be requirements that force a general education. I believe that years 11/12 should be preparing you to be a functioning member of society and to move in a variety of directions. eg there could be say two 'mixes' available:
Academic: In this programme students would undertake say:
A minimum of 5 academic subjects being compulsoralily made up of english, maths, history, science and eco/comm at some level eg the history could be ancient or modern, the science could be chem, physics, bio or general.
A minimum of 1 vocational subject eg electronics, drafting, carpentry, metal fabrication, cooking etc
Upon completion a UAI is determined with which you can elect to attend university.
Vocational: Students would undertake:
A minimum of 4 vocational subjects.
A commerce/business studies course.
And an academic course.
Upon completion a TAAI (Traineeship/Aprenticeship Admissions Index) with which graduates could elect to undertake an apprenticeship.
Notes on this plan: Students could still leave and take up an apprenticeship following the completion of yr10 however if they stayed then took an apprenticeship they would begin their apprenticeship as a 2nd year or somesuch.
.................................
Other possibilities to promote societal cohesion:
National service, something along the swiss/israeli model:
Two years of service between 18 and 22, this conscript body would form the bulk of Australias standing army at any given time, with professional soldiers being for the most part officers, NCOs, specialists, training instructors and elite units eg forming the backbone, cadre, nucleus around which the rest of the services operates.
Following national service would be a month off in a soldiers home area and then two months full time as a reservist training to serve in the 'home unit' eg the nearest reservist unit to their residence. After this training would be one night a week, one weekend a month and one week a year.
The reservist home units would largely supplant RFS, SES, etc being the primary instrument of emergency/disaster response.
The advantages of this system are: rectifies the shortfall of recruits, creates a rapidly mobilisable and highly integrated force.
Notes: I also support women in combat roles without reservation (and without affirmitive action) and would suggest a relaxing of military formality/discipline along the lines of the swiss to abate dangers of an authority loving populace...
.....................
Well that turned into a pretty rambling and long post, kudos those who made it through, the summary for those that skipped to here:
I think people are apathetic and out of touch with politics. I like private health, wokers comp, public schools, a national education system, combined vocational and academic teaching and have a soft spot for national service.
....................
*Possibily economically inefficient because this entails schools not specialising - however given that it is logistically difficult to attend two schools it makes more sense to have large schools (exploiting economics of scale) and having internal specialisations (eg faculties/departments). I would suggest a size of aprox 1500 students.
