Sounds like the choice between a separate clinical test for a rarer diagnosis, (which generally means more expenses for a smaller market) or just leaving it to doctors to do off label use.
I don't get the TV license model myself. I think a government should collect taxes and provide services without adding elaborate schemes to pretend something else is happening.
the point is that it partially takes it out of the hands of the government of the day. if it were solely funded by taxes, it would be long since dead or privatised by now, and if it weren't it would be entirely beholden to pleasing the government. maybe in a more mature country it could work, but not here
I think the license fee, with a couple of tweaks, could be absolutely ingenious. the best of both worlds. the freedom of choice of the free market, and the lack of commercialism of the public sector, and no one has to pay taxes for it. however, it does restrict user choice somewhat by forcing them to pay for it to watch any live tv, even football on streaming platforms. I think there could be a discussion to be had about changing it to where users pay just to watch the BBC and not live tv in general
If you want to change it to a BBC subscription fee, then you're just changing the BBC into Netflix. The whole point of the BBC is that everyone pays and everyone can benefit - same as the NHS, or libraries, or roads.
I think the only way that change could work while protecting the BBCs editorial independence and maintain its public service remit would be to have it as part of council tax. A £160 a year charge on a band D house (with appropriate discounts for Band A-C and excess for E-H). The default amount would be set as the license fee is now.
that's not the point of the BBC whatsoever, otherwise it would just be a tax like everything else publicly owned. it's precisely the opposite in fact. it's voluntary
It's never been changed to a direct tax to prevent direct interference from the government
The BBC has an obligation to serve everyone, not just subscribers. Netflix has an obligation to serve subscribers, at least well enough that they don't leave.
>It's never been changed to a direct tax to prevent direct interference from the government
that's half of the reason, and also feeds into the other reason. if it's not a direct tax and it's semi-voluntary it's harder for people to criticise as unfair. not that they don't find a way
>The BBC has an obligation to serve everyone, not just subscribers. Netflix has an obligation to serve subscribers, at least well enough that they don't leave.
this is an intrinsic property of Netflix being a private business, not Netflix being a subscription service. the BBC could comfortably move to a subscription model and still have the exact same ethos. the BBC's payment model is not so different from a subscription model that right now a private company would be serving license fee payers rather than everyone in general
Seems like an awful lot for TV, and where most of the friction in the custom design is for the public.
All the other areas that republic misdesign hits have much larger budgets and much more corruption, but those topics are a bit harder for the public to engage with so a special program does very nicely at preventing any system corrections.
I enjoy the way you think and phrase your thoughts (are you on ketamine?), but I think that publicly-owned broadcasting, particularly (exclusively) the entertainment side of things, is the opposite of republic misdesign. it's a freak accident of something very very positive and joyful and broadly selfless rising above the waves of self-interest and corruption and misery.
I think the news part of the BBC should be removed, maybe spun off into a separate entity
I think you misunderstood my sub-point.. I think we both agree about the BBC as a wonderful result. I question the motives for a special system of protecting it in a government that doesn't seem to get any better at other sectors.
Of of the BBCs jobs is to scrutinise the government. Editorial independence is essential. You can argue how well it does this, but if the government has direct control over its funding, it clearly won't be doing that task any better.
my understanding of the justification for a special system is that it's inherently more fragile and more tempting to attack than other government services, which generally provide tangibly vital, life-preserving services, rather than less tangible artistic and cultural ones, and the particular form of the service lends itself to being funded in a way that wouldn't work for other more vital services
healthcare is possibly one of the few that could (i.e. does in other Western countries) work similarly, but people including me would undoubtedly despise it. most things need some kind of mandated funding otherwise they would fail and people would die, go homeless, not have a military or live tangibly worse lives, and mandated taxed funding is generally better because it relies more on those with broader shoulders
overall I personally reject your notion that there's some kind of subversive justification for it
