Peru announces free health-care for the poor

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Irish Sun

Peru announces free health-care for the poor
Irish Sun
Sunday 4th April, 2010
(IANS)

Peru has announced a new health-care plan to ensure free medical facilities for the poor in the country.

President Alan Garcia issued a decree to enact a new health-care law which seeks to ensure that free high-quality medical treatment is available to the poorest of society.

Under the new regulation announced Friday, the entire population will be able to get health benefits on the basis of three categories - contributory, semi-contributory and subsidised.

Government employees, retired people and professionals will fall under 'contributory' category, while people living in extreme poverty will be under 'subsidised' group and thereby be entitled to avail all the health-care benefits.

Read more: http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/619799/cs/1/

[old mark]

1. Great. No wonder people in other countries laugh at us. We are outdone

by one of our fiercest economic rivals - Peru!


mark

[Skratchez]

29. Oh good, we're running out 1st 2nd and 3rd world countries to

villify. Quick someone say they had aluminum tubes, (and we know what they're doing with them). America is number one!

[happygoluckytoyou]

70. IN A RELATED STORY.... peruvian coffeebaggers prepare stoopid protest signs, have teeth removed and

IN A RELATED STORY.... peruvian coffeebaggers prepare stoopid protest signs, have teeth removed and tattoos applied, poorly.

[laughingliberal]

72. ROFL!! nt

[Not Me]

2. "Oh but we can't afford it...it's too expensive."

...my ass.

[DesertDiamond]

26. Or is it really... the poor would get the same quality care as the rich? Heaven forbid!!!!

[Zavulon]

3. I'll bet they're not forcing people at gunpoint to go buy health insurance, either.

I can't believe we fought so hard to pass a bad Repuglican idea. :puke:

[Joey Liberal]

4. I agree with you. n/t

[JackRiddler]

5. Gunpoint?

[Zavulon]

7. It was shorter than quoting the entire description of the mandate on the bill. I figured most people

would get it. If you actually need it explained, let me know.

[naaman fletcher]

9. It is sort of, isn't it?

If you don't buy it, you have to pay extra taxes. If you don't pay those taxes, eventually men with guns will come to your door.

[AlbertCat]

33. Gunpoint?

I know.

Shhhhh.... don't tell anybody, but not buying insurance under the mandate comes with no penalties or law enforcement action. But that's a secret.


Watch this video: (alas you have to watch an ad)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#36155033

[mckara]

11. Read the Law!

It's an unenforceable statute! Don't listen to propaganda! Read the regulations.

[Voice for Peace]

24. can you explain what you mean?

I confess I am easily confused.

[mckara]

84. It Means that There is No Penalty for Violating the Statute

Keith Olbermann and Laurence O'Donnell were talking about the HCR bill last week on Countdown.

[ronnie624]

63. A link would be appreciated, thanks. n/t

[liberation]

73. Yeah, and taxes are "optional" too right?

LOL.

BTW, I know the red herring is delicious. But why on earth did they put the mandate then?

I must confess I don't know n-dimensional chess, my expertises are limited to the 2D version.

[liquid diamond]

27. Because keeping things the same way would be much better!

:sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

35. Why would we do anything for our citizens that no one will get rich off of?

What are we? Some kind of damned socialist republic hell bent to help people?

edited punctuation

[Truth2Tell]

56. ll you made me lol. nt

:)

[liquid diamond]

67. That's not the way this country works. Insurance companies

have embedded themselves so deep in the health care system that there is no way we could ever have a system like Sweden's or Cuba's. Obama understood that shit. His HCR is full of compromises to insurances companies, but it still improves health care for millions more.

[laughingliberal]

74. The point of this discussion is that Peru will now be covering all their citizens

under a system which allows everyone access to the same quality of health care.

I will always believe we could have had a better bill like one that includes a public option that people could choose with which the insurance companies would have been forced to compete. I am of the opinion that the 'shit' Obama understood was more about campaign donations than providing our people with a fair health care system. But as there is no way to prove my take on it or yours, the discussion is moot. What is clear is that even some poor countries are able to do a better job at this than the US and the lie of America being the land of equal opportunities is being exposed more every day.

[obxhead]

43. It was a corporate idea, supported by the republicans, at least until

Obama was for it. Then they repugs were against it and the industry spent a few cents on "fighting" it.

Don't be fooled, that was completely set up for and by the industry. Nothing more than a mass subsidy to the ins industry with minimal output of actual health care.

[Kolesar]

54. It was Senator Clinton's idea when she was running for president

and it makes a lot of sense.

[laughingliberal]

62. I'm well aware of that and it was the precise reason I supported Obama in our caucuses

I liked his plan for providing competition for the vultures through a public option. Joke's on me, I guess.

[Lorien]

65. How so? When did she suddenly adopt the Gingrich plan? nt

[obxhead]

86. Yes, that is correct, Clinton, who is VERY close to the drug and insurance

industry was in support of whatever it would take to maximize profit for the industry. If she is elected after Obama I'm sure she will take every opportunity to continue modifying HCR to benefit the health industry.

[Lorien]

64. They have apparently figured out that they don't need to pay corporate CEOs

tens of millions every year to deny their people health care.

[laughingliberal]

75. +1000 nt

[BadGimp]

6. HELL NO YOU CAN"T!!!

sayeth the Tan Man..

[The Doctor.]

8. It's SOCIALIST- FASCIST- COMMUNISM!!!!

It's EVERYWHERE!

[hayu_lol]

10. Makes our congressional leaders(so-called)...

look like a group of simpleton morons.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Oh, I disagree.

It makes them look like a bunch of corporate lackeys.

[Cal Carpenter]

69. Very important distinction

It's frustrating seeing them called dumb and spineless and things like that. They are smart and they are doing exactly what they want, despite that they are (in theory) operating in a democracy to promote the needs/will of the people. There is nothing 'spineless' about doing the opposite of what you are (in theory) supposed to do. It's bold and shrewd and the longer we write it off as 'spineless' or 'dumb' the longer we'll never get what we need.

[2Design]

13. what no YEARS of drawn out rw crap against socialism n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

14. How un-Christian of them!

[Edweird]

15. So we are now behind Peru in healthcare. That's pathetic.

[dana_b]

16. go Peru! n/t

[mnhtnbb]

17. This will cover a LOT of people. There's extreme poverty in Peru;

the poverty rate is over 36% according to the article.


We were in Peru last November. It's a beautiful country but the poverty was evident.

[cutlassmama]

18. Our poverty may well get that low too with the economy taking a dump. Time to

move to Peru.

[BolivarianHero]

19. Ironically...

Garcia is a social-democrat who defeated a far-left candidate in the previous election.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Maybe this'll bump the corrupt, 'free trade for the rich,' president of Peru's approval rating,

which, last I checked, was at 25%. Buddy of Bush Jr.

This new policy in Peru is the result of the influence of HUGO CHAVEZ's government in the region. Also Cuba. Cuba is helping many a Latin American country with its superior--and FREE--medical system. But it is the political influence of the Chavistas in making health care a HUMAN RIGHT in such a large country as Venezuela that is prompting this policy in Peru. Peru's president Alan Garcia is a world class jerk and is desperate to hang onto power for further enrichment of himself, his cronies and the Peruvian "free trade" elite. He is in big trouble with the majority of Peruvians, who are dirt poor. His police, armed by the U.S., open fired on Indigenous protestors who were trying to protect the Amazon forest from rapacious mining and logging, and Garcia was forced to back down on further loosening of regulation. Peru now has leftist governments on almost all of its borders--Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. Those governments are also influential. This is especially true of Bolivia where the Indigenous majority now rules and a leftist democracy movement has changed everything--including Bolivia's utter rejection of the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs." Peruvian Indigenous and campesinos have many close tribal and other ties to the same political forces in Bolivia. But Venezuela was the leader on these social justice policies and has taken most of the U.S. corporate/war profiteer heat because of them (and also because the U.S. wants to "circle the wagons" in the Central America/Caribbean region, against the coming Latin American "common market," and likely plans to net in Venezuela's oil--and probably also Ecuador's--into that sphere of influence--or, I should say, that bullied "circle").

Credit where credit is due. If the Venezuelan people had not stopped the U.S. supported rightwing coup in Venezuela in 2002, and if they hadn't been giving the Chavez government huge electoral victories (and 55% to 60% approval ratings) in support of social justice policies, this would not be happening in Peru.

[Truth2Tell]

58. I know I've said it before, but

:yourock:

[Juche]

21. Doesn't only giving it to the poor backfire

I know in the US programs that only benefit the poor are used to divide the middle class vs. the poor (throw in some racial elements too to make it worse so the white middle class is resentful towards the black/latino poor) and then use that division to push right wing economics.

UHC should apply to everyone. Only giving subsides to the poor might backfire politically.

[SocialistLez]

37. Maybe they don't have the mindset

where they blame the poor for their plight....

Even with a single-payer system, the poor will have subsidies.
In Canada I believe the Medicare premiums are based on age and income or at least just income.

[laughingliberal]

39. Short sighted of them. America promotes welfare for the rich & personal responsibility for the poor

How backwards of Peru to go the other way.

[daleo]

44. Most Canadian provinces don't have premiums

Health care just comes out of general tax revenue.

[SocialistLez]

45. As I understand it

In the Alberta province, people have to pay a monthly premium.

From other websites, I've read from some Canadians where they do have Medicare premiums.
I know in other provinces the money is taken out of general tax revenue, as you state.

[polly7]

51. I believe that was discontinued Jan. 1 though I could be wrong,

My province has no premium. Others have nominal ones, but I don't believe they're based on income at all, perhaps a slight difference for adults vs. children.

[TrogL]

66. There is no health care premium in Alberta

[eridani]

46. They are giving it to everybody. Those who can pay, do

There are partial and full subsidies as well.

[defendandprotect]

22. Peru can do it, but poor, poor little America can't . . .

[Oregone]

23. Doesn't sound very bipartisan

Has the Whitehouse officially expressed their disappointment yet?

[laughingliberal]

59. ROFL!! nt

[Dob Bole]

25. I know a missionary who lived in Peru...

ate with him at lunch today, actually...anyway, he had people in his community who would die of diseases that could be cured for twelve dollars. He ended up having to leave the country because druglords were trying to kidnap his kids for ransom.

We don't have that kind of poverty...I used to think the $5,000 a year I made when I first joined DU was bad. Not so much. And everything we do that causes inflation here, is that much worse on them.

[laughingliberal]

41. We do have people who die for lack of $200 dollars worth of medication

Really. And it's probably a prescription which would cost $12 in some other countries.

[Kolesar]

55. American customers pay the development costs of medication

Sales in Canada and elsewhere are just gravy for Big Pharma

[laughingliberal]

61. Actually, we pay twice

Our tax dollars actually fund a lot of the research and development the companies tell us they are having to recoup by charging us the high prices. It is also abundantly clear they spend scads on marketing which our high prices also fund.

Aren't we just lucky to have the greatest health care system in the world?

[liberation]

76. I understand what you are saying, but you are implying the US is the only country developing drugs

or with the capacity to do so.

Nothing of the sort. In fact many pharmacologists in the US are not "American born and grown."

[jwirr]

28. Okay I think we have found that place where all the baggers can move

to. PERU.

[jwirr]

52. Sorry misread the post and thought they denounced HC for the poor.

So now just another place for the baggers to squeal about.

[troubledamerican]

30. Garcia's 1980s Death Squads targeted the poor

http://thekomisarscoop.com/2007/12/peru-us-govt-document-links-garcia-to-1980s-death-squads/

[Judi Lynn]

40. So glad to see this link. It will be useful. "Two Breakfasts" Garcia is one creepy character.

Any step forward in Peru will undoubtedly be accomplished IN SPITE of him.

[eridani]

47. This proves that effective social movements can extract concessions

--even from conservative jerks.

[dotymed]

83. The I M F

will probably step in and demand "privatization." I wonder how long, one mans stoopidity (accepted as brilliance by the GOP), can affect the world, especially the USA? Milton Friedman and his "Chicago School" of economics, destroyed most of the "New Deal." I hope it is just a coincidence ;-) that President Obama came from there....well somewhere Muslim if you ask a teabagger.

[NorthCarolina]

31. Wow, so even Peru is more Progressive than America. Who'da thunkit....n/t

[mrs_p]

32. this is the only country i have ever been to

that seems to really take care of the poor. my peruvian friends say it is a disgrace to have any family member living or begging on the streets. way to go peru - love you even more!

[NBachers]

34. Well it's time for the teagaggers and Republican slime molds

to rush down there and straighten these backward primitives out right now! And bring some Jaysuss Tough Love along too.

[laughingliberal]

36. That's just immoral! In America we don't heal the sick unless someone can profit from it

Go USA! Isn't it exciting to part of an empire!?!? I couldn't feel prouder.

[laughingliberal]

38. Must have missed this part

"the entire population will be able to get health benefits on the basis of three categories - contributory, semi-contributory and subsidised."

Looks like a progressive system where people pay according to their means. The good news about that is they all get the same access to the same level of health care.

[craigmatic]

42. Great now they have medicaid they're only 40+ years behind us

[laughingliberal]

60. Doesn't sound like Medicaid to me. From the article it sounds as if the poor will have access to the

same health care system and same care as everyone else. A lot of states here Medicaid patients can't find doctors who will treat them.

[liberation]

77. Wow, the "hope" brigade sure turns nasty the minute the hubris gets exposed

[Ken Burch]

48. Does this mean the new teabagger chant will be "Go Back To Machu Picchu"?

n/t.

[liberation]

79. LOL Zing!

To be fair though, I pretty much doubt the average assholebagger knows what Machu Picchu is, much less where it is located.

[Chisox08]

49. How will the insrance companies make a profit off of not covering claims.

:shrug:

[Overseas]

50. K&R . //nt

[ooglymoogly]

53. Ahh yes, and we call Peru a 3rd world country.

what does that say about us. Let me count the ignorance's..

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theFrankFactor]

68. We're So Fucking Stoopit in th US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

[AllyCat]

71. And if we ended corporate welfare to defense contractors, banksters, and insurance cos

we could afford it too! But some "people" are just mre important than others.

[liberation]

80. Actually we can afford it right now. We pay over twice as much as the next country (per capita)

on health care.

Meaning, that implementing a single-payer or universal healthcare would save us at least 50% of costs. Maybe slightly less if we were to be really "revolutionary" and cover every US citizen and increase funding for training more medical professionals.

Just don't fall into the whole "it would be very expensive" meme. Sure it would be expensive, but it would be at the very least half as expensive as it is right now. And we're paying for it this very minute, no?

Think of it as if we had to buy a car every year, except that for the past few decades we have been buying a Mercedes. And assume that we really do not care about the make, as much as the fact that we need to get from point A to B. Then it would follow, that buying a Chevy which costs half as much as the Mercedes is not necessarily in the best interest of the Mercedes dealer. It is just that the Mercedes dealer claiming that "the Chevy is real expensive, so we should just buy the mercedes instead" would be laughed out loud. Alas, this is America so what would make sense otherwise is frowned upon.

In other words, we can afford it right now. Who can not afford it are the insurance companies, who would have to actually find a new line of business or start working to provide an actual value added. Funny, how we hold hostage the health care of millions to the entitlement to profit of a few thousands (at the very best case) of insurance execs.

[AllyCat]

88. I'm being snippy. I completely believe and understand your argument

but the people who spout this "we can't afford it" crap won't understand anything other than what they hear over and over again from the MSM, public officials, etc.

We can't afford NOT to have single-payer, but that is exactly what the Med ind complex found against as hard as they could and won handily.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Good for Peru

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.:thumbsup:

[Little Star]

81. +1

[alp227]

82. This economically tiered system looks good. eom

This ain't "socialism" like the Republican Party wants people to think UHC is. How much you pay depends on how much you can afford.

[sasquuatch55]

85. Bravo!!!!!

nt

[bamacrat]

87. Im proud to be an Amurcun! An idea below.

Imagine if everyone was taxed just 5% for a single payer system starting at an income of $20,000 for singles and $45,000 for families. But you no longer had to pay insurance premiums, and here is the big one neither would your employer. Health insurance for most is more than 5% of their income. Savings all around.

median family is around $60K
150,000,000 households x average of say $3000/yr = 450,000,000,000 thats 450Billion with a B. now that doesn't into account the people making tens of millions per year. That would cut many peoples premiums in half and they would never lose it. Hospitals wouldnt be hurt because they would no longer have to deal with insurance companies.

But some on the right would say we need a cap like with social security. fuck that.

someone who makes $20M/yr would pay $1,000,000 for healthcare, boo hoo, thats just one less house to ensure that all Americans are healthy.

I know this is long but I love doing statistics etc but there are supposedly 1million millionaires so...

1,000,000 x 50,000/yr = 5 Billion. Now we are up to 455B, it would work it would be cheaper. The government could just absorb all the insurance companies keep the employees make them government workers, fire all the CEOs and boom there you have it, minimal job loss, maximum gain by society.

It would benefit all sectors of society because 150million people would all of a sudden have more money to spend, buy cars and houses and tvs and invest in new clean energy a new small business then bam more jobs. I know this is a lost cause to argue for but maybe just maybe we will see this in the next 30 years.

sorry for the rant it just sucks to see smart fiscally responsible good ideas never given a chance.

Oh and legalize weed. had to get that in there.

[yurbud]

89. In other news, Bangladesh enacted free college education and Somalia switched to all clean energy...

but our corrupt pols think we're too stupid to know they are bought.