Malaysian health reform socio-economics — David KL Quek
FEB 7 — Is the Malaysian health system really in trouble that it requires such a drastic revolutionary change? Is 1 Care for 1 Malaysia Health Reform the answer? Will this proposed radical change make our health system more efficient and effective as touted by officials?
Or, is this proposed reform too ambitious and sweeping that it could possibly lead to severe disruptions to our current health system that we are so used to?
More importantly, would this health reform plan become another government-linked corporate entity which, instead of benefiting the public, only enriches a few favoured cronies or insiders? The difference now is that this will be a humongous multibillion-ringgit exercise and the fattest cow to milk to date!
Sadly, at this juncture in time — in the name of social development, modernisation, and economic necessity even — there have been so many government-linked projects being scandalised and mired in corruption accusations and profligate leakages.
Thus, it would be foolhardy to implicitly trust the government to do the right thing despite the economic rationale or correctness, indeed despite even the most honourable intentions! We are dealing with the health choices and rights of the public, which could become severely disrupted and endangered if or when hurried reforms turn out to be another debacle of catastrophic proportions! We cannot afford a failed social experiment of this magnitude!
Economics and health care rights
Let’s examine the proposed 1 Care Health Reform. What indeed is this new concept that we are dealing with? The Ministry of Health has stated and defined the objectives of this 1 Care transformation as follows:
“1 Care is the restructured national health system that is responsive and provides choice of quality health care, ensuring universal coverage for the health care needs of the population based on the spirit of solidarity and equity.
Define Universal Health Insurance - News
By Fred Clark, February 6, 2012 11:39 pm William D. Lindsey is not pleased that his church's leaders are rallying all their political power in order to avoid providing health care to women: I'm well aware that Planned Parenthood does also provide
The Ministry of Health has stated and defined the objectives of this 1 Care transformation as follows: “1 Care is the restructured national health system that is responsive and provides choice of quality health care, ensuring universal coverage for the
That's true in the United Kingdom's National Health Service, but it is unarguably false with respect to Quebec. Shumlin's Green Mountain Care will operate exactly like Quebec Medicare, right down to the controlling board, government definition of
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) obligates every American to purchase a qualifying health insurance policy by 2014 or be subject to a tax penalty, with failure to pay possibly resulting in imprisonment.
As a part of the guidelines for implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Department for Health and Human Services issued a fiat stating that by Summer 2012 all individual and group health insurance plans, including self-insured
Denis J. Kucharski's Blog: Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen ...
The controversy over the funding of Planned Parenthood from the Susan G. Komen Foundation is an interesting one from a cognitive science point of view. George Lakoff, a linguist and cognitive scientist, points out in his book, "Don't Think of An Elephant", that how we think about an issue is automatically determined by the language that is used to define the problem. For example, if I say to you "don't think of an elephant", you can't help but imagine an elephant. No amount of mental work can stop this. It is part of how the mind works. The ability to define the parameters of thought is called "framing". In politics, the framers are able to win arguments before the battle even begins. This is especially true considering many people don't think more than superficially. Most people make decisions based upon their emotions. This is why marketing and advertising work so well. Just look at the Super Bowl ads. Corporations spend millions of dollars on commercials featuring half naked women selling cars, celebrities telling us to buy things, and animated characters hocking a variety of wares. These ads work, otherwise corporations wouldn't waste the money. But the criticism of the reporter remains valid. By defining someone as being opposed to someone else's rights, the minds of the listener have already been framed and primed toward the issue. People who are opposed to abortion aren't mean, nasty, small-minded turds who hate women, despite some attempts to paint them that way. Many of them consider human life to begin at conception. If this is one's position, then it makes sense that the right to life of the unborn would be hierarchically more important than the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Given this understanding, using terms like "anti-choice" and "anti-woman" are unfair and mean spiritedly biased. This goes both ways. If I support the repeal of Roe v.