About Robert Watkins

My name is Robert Watkins. I am a software developer and have been for over 15 years now. I currently work for Wotif.com, but my opinions here are in no way endorsed by them (which is cool; their opinions aren’t endorsed by me either). My main professional interests are in Java development, using Agile methods, with a historical focus on building web based applications. I’m also a Mac-fan and love my iPhone, which I’m currently learning how to code for. I started this blog as a sort of public professional notebook, and it is mostly devoted to my professional interests. That said, I do have the occasional opinionated rant on other things, but if you steer clear of the “General” category, you should be able to avoid them. I live and work in Brisbane, Australia, but I grew up in the Northern Territory, and still find Brisbane too cold (after 14 years here). I’m married, with two children and one cat. My politics are socialist in tendency, my religious affiliation is atheist (aka “none of the above”), my attitude is condescending and my moral standing is lying down. The name of the blog comes from a one liner I posted ages ago to the XP mailing list. It reflects an attitude that software development is a very expensive process, and cutting corners by trying to do things cheaply will merely result in a lot of waste. I have a picture in my mind about a table, with one corner cut so deeply that the leg has been chopped off. I’ve used that line as my email signature for almost ten years, so it was a natural title for my profession-related blog. The name of the site is an anagram on my surname.

Why I don’t like government subsidy of private education

Because, as shown in the Gonski report (and reported on the excellent Global Mail), it’s not effective.

Private schools perform better than state schools because they cherry-pick students – by and large, they reject problem students or students with higher educational needs. This gives them a more capable student base – so naturally they will receive higher scores on average. But that’s not a good measure – the correct measure is how well do those students improve, compared to similar students in the state system. Thanks to longitudinal studies such as the NAPLAN tests, we have an answer – students in the private system, on average, demonstrate no significant difference in performance. All that money – both public funding and the fees levied on parents – tossed away for no benefit over state schools.

(Yes, there are some schools that do cater to students who are educationally difficult – Montessori schools in particular are known for this. But they aren’t the rule in private schools – most private schools pride themselves on strict discipline and regimen – the opposite of a Montessori school)

I showed in an earlier post that the Catholic school system costs three times as much per student (by their own figures, taken from the website for the NSW Catholic Schools association). But it doesn’t deliver any additional value, let alone three times as much. While, as a nation, we should allow private education for those who insist on it, there isn’t any reason to toss public money on an inefficient system.

We, as a country, are literally pissing away the future by underinvesting and incorrectly investing in the education of our children. Instead of subsidising private education, how about we ensure that the public system provides good education for all students?

On the private health insurance rebate means test…

Personally, I think it’s a good idea. And not just because I’m a slavish fan of every utterance of the Labour government. Which of course I am. Except when it’s trendy and hipster not to be, of course. Because that’s how I roll.

More to the point, I actually think private health insurance in Australia is a screwed up business model that survives only with government support in the form of the aforementioned rebate and the regulation that allows insurers to charge discriminatory prices based on pre-existing conditions (those conditions being age and lack of continuous coverage). This support is wrong, and needs to be removed.

When the Howard government introduced the health care “reforms” in the 1990s, the stated promise was that private health insurance would – as long as it had sufficient membership – reduce health care costs and promote greater efficiencies. In particular, the reforms were going to encourage the health care funds to grow to a critical mass so that they could achieve economies of scale. This would reduce overheads and allow premium prices to drop. To ensure that, the government was going to regulate price increases – they’d only be allowed if they were shown to be needed.

It’s funny, though – every year since then, health insurance premiums have increased, usually by more than CPI. No fund has shown any breakaway improvements in administration costs. There has been relatively little consolidation in the market place, and private health care has not taken on a large share of the health care market. Instead, what we have seen is the public system continuing to take on more and more of the burden, despite a huge uptake in private health membership. This problem was identified back in 2003 - we’ve known for over 8 years that subsidising private health insurance has been a failing experiment.

The majority of health care costs are borne by the elderly. 5 out of 6 patients in hospital care are over 65. But the elderly aren’t as likely to have health care – people living on fixed income arrangements can’t afford it, by and large. In case you haven’t noticed, Australia – like most of the Western world – has an ageing population. So the number of old people are growing, and so are their medical expenses. This is why the public health system is struggling.

Private health care in Australia, by contrast, is a joke. I have private health insurance – just under the best possible to get. And I find it useless. My son broke his arm a few years back. He is autistic and non-verbal, so we went for a private hospital for the two nights he had to stay in (they needed to operate it and set it) so that he could have a private room and one of us could stay with him. The private hospital costs were reasonable – all we paid was the excess. We got to pick the surgeon – and we picked one who charged a small gap so it wasn’t a very large costs. But the only anaesthetists available – at a hospital recommended by our health care fund! – charged thousands of dollars over the rebate, and we were not informed that would be the case until after the operation. Had we known, we would have opted for a private room at a public hospital.

A similar situation occurred with my wife (though at least this time we went into it knowing that there would be extra costs). A broken knee 18 months ago costs us – _after_ insurance – almost $10,000. Plus she needs another operation to put an implant in which we have been told isn’t covered by our medical insurance (apparently prosthetic implants are only covered on the very best level of coverage, where they are described as “geriatric care”). So if we want them, it’s twelve months waiting to qualify on the coverage – which will let us pay through the nose for care again. Elective surgery through the public system would be free, and with a similar wait – though the post-op rehab wouldn’t be as good.

Nearly every single time I have to use my health insurance, I find the same thing – massive costs which are unexpected and which make having the insurance pointless. The only area where I feel I get value for money is with optical care – and that’s because of discounts offered by optical stores, not rebates. (I just bought new glasses last week – the insurance policy covered about 40% of the cost, while the store discount for members of my health fund was 20% on top! And it wasn’t the frames – the frames were covered 100% by insurance).

This is why private health insurance in Australia is a failure – it provides an expensive level of coverage, and when it’s needed you still end up thousands of dollars out of pocket. It provides little to no financial security. My car insurance gives me financial security: I know that if my car gets written off or stolen, I will get compensation enough to get a new one. My home and contents gives me financial security. My health insurance gives me no financial security – in fact, I can contribute many of my financial problems over the last twenty years to using private health care.

You may wonder why I still have private health insurance – and the answer is simple: my wife and kids. But I’d rather have a solid public health system than have private health care.

In 2003, the government subsidies had a direct cost to the budget bottom line of $3.6 _billion_ dollars. That was over 8 years ago – it’s grown since. That is  billions of dollars every year taken out of the public health system, and given mainly to the upper quartile of income earners (which includes me, BTW). This contributes to growing economic inequality and isn’t needed – the system enables a relatively small slice of Australian society who couldn’t afford private health insurance otherwise to obtain it. Neither the carrot of the rebate or the stick of rising premiums if you decide to join later in life (when you are more likely to need it!) have resulted in private health funds becoming efficient or providing solid value.

The entire system represents a subsidy to high income earners and wealth transfer to the medical system. It does not result in reduced health care costs to society, or better care in general, which should be the goals.

The private health care rebates, and the government support to private health insurance in general, is a failure. Take it away, and let it die – the only downside is that the removal of easy money might actually make private health funds have to become efficient to survive.

 

The “truth” behind Whitney’s song price increases

Ever since the death of Whitney Houston, the twitter-sphere has been abuzz with stories about price hikes on her songs. For example, the iTunes Music Store now has a large number of her songs on the highest pricing tier. So does Amazon. This is being seen as an example of greed by Apple or by Sony (the latter for the people who realise that its the labels that set the price, not Apple).

However, it’s not as cynical as a label cashing in on the death of an almost forgotten music star who hasn’t sold very much for the last decade. (Seriously – when was the last time before a week ago that you bought or even listened to a Whitney Houston song?) I am willing to bet that nobody at Apple or Sony said “let’s raise the price for the Bodyguard song!”. Instead, what people are seeing is automatic price settings.

The pricing of songs at digital music stores – such as, but not exclusively, the iTunes Music Store – often include triggers. “When sales increase by X% or cross this threshold, increase the price to the next level”. These triggers are worked out by the labels – Apple dictate what price points are available, but which one gets used are up to the labels. (Amazon does a similar thing). When sales spikes, the price goes up.

Note that the algorithm doesn’t care about _why_ the price has gone up. Nobody at Sony decided to profit on Whitney Houston’s death explicitly. It just worked out that way.

And it’s not like the labels are completely insensitive either – as of last night, the most popular Whitney Houston song on iTunes (“I Will Always Love You”, aka “the Bodyguard Song”) is back at the mid-tier price point. And that would have been a decision by a human.

Not _everything_ is an example of corporate greed, you know.

Podcasts that I listen to

A work colleague asked me the other day for podcast recommendations, so I’m belatedly putting this list together. I tend to listen to podcasts when commuting and on my daily walks – about 90 minutes a day, more or less – and I usually listen to stuff that’s interesting or work-related.

Continue reading

My heart bleeds for Karen Gee…

School maths causes pain – Sydney Morning Herald

The woman featured in this story is complaining about high education costs, and wishes that the government could contribute more. My heart bleeds for her – at about 5.25 litres/minute. Seriously, hasn’t she got better things to whinge about?

Let’s actually put some numbers on this, and see what exactly she’s complaining about.

Continue reading

iBooks Author – what’s the fuss about?

So it’s been a couple of days now since Apple did their press event where they announced a new focus on education. A key part of this was the rollout of a new application – iBooks Author – and a new version of iBooks for the iPad and iPhone/iPod. Well, since then there’s been a flurry of outrage on the twitter-sphere.

TL;DR – People see Apple making cool tools, they hating. Apple only added options – maybe not as much as people like, but they didn’t take anything away. Biggest bitch seems to be that people won’t be able to use Apple’s free tool to write stuff for non-Apple platforms, and it’s so much better than the existing tools that people want to do exactly that.

Continue reading