Firmen / Companies / Company

I know it's cliche to say so, but this hospital charging parents "$39.95" to hold their newborn baby is a REALLY tight microcosm of capitalism.
“I know it’s cliche to say so, but this hospital charging parents “$39.95″ to hold their newborn baby is a REALLY tight microcosm of capitalism.” (src: twitter.com)

(scroll down for German)

Does privatization of health care system pay off in terms of:

  • cost-effectiveness/efficiency
  • better quality of service for the patience
  • or is it yet another privatization-trap – where costs go up and quality goes (even further) down?

comparison of Canada vs USA:

if you want to increase inequality:

keep up austerity and privatization of HealthCare.

 

Pain is massive in the British health care system:

…and it also starts to grow in other European countries – especially those with harsh austerity measures (Greece, France but Germany also where privatization of health care is in full throttle with e.g. investors buying private practices as an crisis secure investment or US-Mars buying 2000 pet health care doctor pracices and now also goes shopping in Europe)

“University city the British on: A senior doctor has announced there, chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients would have to be rationed because the hospital has too few qualified nurses” …

“The news also struck the death of a senior citizen in the English seaside resort of Clacton, who died last week after having to wait four hours for an emergency ambulance at her home.”

“The NHS, founded 70 years ago and free for all patients, is considered by millions of Britons, despite its weaknesses ” (massive under funding, austerity measures) “to be the proudest achievement of their welfare state” …

“In light of disaster reports from hospitals, a debate has begun on reforms that would be virtually revolutionary for Britain: the introduction of an” NHS tax “, the proceeds of which will be used to finance health care only.

In fact, this would be a change of system – away from tax financing, towards a contributory state health insurance. ” …

“It is largely undisputed among experts that the huge health service, which is one of the largest employers in the world with around 1.5 million employees, not only needs to become more efficient, but also needs more money.” …

in Germany: The British model would thus still be similar to the highly controversial “Citizens’ Insurance”, for the introduction of which in this country, the SPD has advertised in the explorations with the Union parties. The Social Democrats want to oblige all citizens to join such a unitary insurance. …

“The hard state austerity measures in the United Kingdom in recent years has left deep marks, not least in the health care system.” …

“In terms of infant mortality, the UK has fallen from seventh to 19th place in the EU in 25 years, 40 percent fewer nurses and 30 percent fewer doctors than in Germany.

This is also due to the fact that too few specialists were trained for cost reasons.

Healthcare spending is a quarter lower than in Germany.

If you can afford it, you can get private health insurance, but nine out of every ten Britons rely on the NHS alone.”

(src)

What about US and Canada?

“In 1972 the Yukon Territory became the last jurisdiction in Canada to adopt the Medical Care Act, which set up a system to provide hospital and physician care to all Canadians. Before then, the Canadian and US health care systems were similar. Both were partly public, partly private, partly for profit and partly nonprofit. Both also left a great many citizens uninsured

The costs were also about the same — a little over $300 per person in 1970 — as were outcomes. At that time, life expectancy was about a year longer in the United States.

But with the implementation of Canadian medicare, the 2 systems rapidly began to diverge in all respects.”

The US (health care) system became more and more costly, leaving increasing numbers of Americans — now about 46 million people (15%) — uninsured.

In 2005, expenditures were twice as high in the US as in Canada — US$6697 per person v. US$3326 in Canada.3

37% of Americans reported that they went without needed care because of cost, compared with 12% of Canadians.

life expectancy of Americans is now 2.5 years shorter than that of Canadians.  …

contrary to popular belief, people in the US do not receive more health care services. They visit their doctors much less often and spend less time in hospital than Canadians do (Table 1). Per population, there are also fewer nurses and hospital beds in the US, although there are slightly more doctors and many more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units.,

“health care is distributed not according to medical need but, rather, according to the ability to pay”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health

John Dingell Kept the Faith, From the New Deal to ‘Medicare for All’

The veteran congressman, who has died at age 92, always understood that health care is a right.

src: https://www.thenation.com/article/john-dingell-obit-medicare-for-all/

Privatisierung des Deutschen Gesundheitssystems: (nicht nur Krankenkassen, sondern auch Krankenhäuser und Arztpraxen)

rentiert es sich? Gesellschaftlich? Wird es günstiger und die Servicequalität besser?

Oder handelt es sich um eine weitere Privatisierungsfalle? (Mit steigenden Kosten und (noch weiter) sinkender Qualität?)

A Lesson from Canada: – wenn man die Ungleichheit weiter befeuern möchte: weiter so!

15% aller Amerikaner sind nicht krankenversichert.

37% können sich keine ärztliche Behandlung leisten.

Wie sieht es aus in USA und Kanada?

“1972 wurde das Yukon-Territorium das letzte Land in Kanada, in dem das Medical Care Act verabschiedet wurde, mit dem ein System geschaffen wurde, das allen Kanadiern die Versorgung von Krankenhäusern und Ärzten ermöglicht.1

Bis dahin waren die kanadischen und US-amerikanischen Gesundheitssysteme ähnlich teils öffentlich, teils privat, teils gewinnorientiert und teils gemeinnützig, beide haben auch viele Bürger unversichert gelassen

Die Kosten waren ebenfalls ungefähr gleich – etwas mehr als 300 US-Dollar pro Person im Jahr 1970 – und die Ergebnisse.

Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war die Lebenserwartung in den Vereinigten Staaten etwa ein Jahr länger.2

Mit der Einführung der kanadischen Medikamentenentwicklung begannen die beiden Systeme in jeder Hinsicht rasch voneinander zu abweichen.

Das US-amerikanische Gesundheitssystem wurde immer kostspieliger, so dass immer mehr Amerikaner – jetzt etwa 46 Millionen Menschen (15%) – nicht versichert waren.

2005 waren die Ausgaben in den USA doppelt so hoch wie in Kanada – 6697 USD pro Person gegenüber 3326 USD in Kanada.3

37% der Amerikaner gaben an, dass sie aus Kostengründen auf die notwendige Pflege verzichten mussten, verglichen mit 12% der Kanadier.3

Die Lebenserwartung der Amerikaner ist jetzt 2,5 Jahre kürzer als die der Kanadier.2

Entgegen der landläufigen Meinung erhalten die Menschen in den USA nicht mehr Gesundheitsleistungen.

Sie besuchen ihre Ärzte viel seltener und verbringen weniger Zeit im Krankenhaus als Kanadier (Tabelle 1).

Pro Einwohner gibt es in den USA auch weniger Krankenschwestern und Krankenhausbetten, obwohl es etwas mehr Ärzte und viele weitere Magnetresonanztomographen (MRI) gibt.5,7 …

Gesundheitsfürsorge wird nicht nach medizinischem Bedarf, sondern nach Zahlungsfähigkeit behandelt”

AutoTranslated Quelle: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/

D.h. es steht VIEL EQUIPMENT herum welches nicht zum Einsatz kommt – weil es sich die US Bürger gar nicht mehr leisten können.

“SUPER!” X-D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health

Links:

Cuba’s HealthCare System: governmental – free for all – prevention is cheaper – efficient – WHO 2016 Data – Life Expectancy in Cuba better than USA – UK France Germany

 

Money is a little like an inverted pain system in the company-body: It does especially hurt when it goes missing.

That is, when laws and regulations come and companies take the implementation of these seriously-when it starts to hurt financially.

Money is also lacking – if banks give all sorts of reasons – why they cannot finance a “productive Investment“. (only 8% of the newly created money (digitally by private banks and in cash by central banks) “arrives” at the productive economy)

Geld ist wie ein invertiertes Schmerzsystem im (Gesellschafts/Unternehmens)Körper: Es tut besonders weh wenn es fehlt.

D.h. wenn Gesetze und Auflagen kommen und Unternehmen die Umsetzung dieser erst ernst nehmen – wenn es finanziell weh tut.

Geld fehlt auch – wenn Banken alle möglichen Gründe nennen – warum diese kein “produktives Investment” finanzieren können. (nur 8% des von privaten Banken digital und von Zentralbanken bar erstellten Geldes kommt in der produktiv Wirtschaft an)

One thing is for sure – without transparency – there is no democracy.

Varoufakis is often provoking and sometimes even rude – but he is right when he says:

politicians (also Theresa May with Brexit) should put all their cards on the table:

  1. what do they want to achieve and
  2. how they want to achieve it

otherwise the public is almost clueless left in the dark – about where their elected and unelected leaders of EU and country members are steering or trying to steer – leading probably to more problems than solutions and to legitimite nationalistic resentment about the whole EU project that feels like member countries are (on purpose?) pitted and set up against each others – Greeks people (“lazy money lenders”) vs German (“hard working Nazis”) – which is surely not the Europe we all want to see. (except for weapons manufacturers and others profiting from increased instability and insecurity (George Soros once betted against the Euro, as he did in 1992 with the British Pound – crazy world that such things are even POSSIBLE)

“Brussels, 31 January 2019 – Today, the European Parliament voted in favour of MEPs publishing their meetings with lobbyists.

This is the first mandatory lobby transparency measure to apply to EU parliamentarians and a huge step forward for transparency.

Transparency needs to be a cornerstone of EU policy making

(it not always is… see Meeting of Ministers of Finance of EU without protocols/minutes: EuroGroup)

so we are glad to see that the Parliament has delivered concrete results today,” said Vitor Teixeira, Policy Officer at Transparency International EU.

This is a strong signal ahead of the European elections that the Parliament is serious about being transparent about the influence of lobbyists.”

The European Commission, which has been publishing its meetings since 2014, should now accept this as a good signal from the Parliament and use it to reignite the negotiations on the mandatory lobby register.

In recent months these negotiations hit a stalemate and the Commission warned it would stop the discussions if there was no meaningful commitment by either the Parliament or the Council.

We now urgently need to resume the negotiations for the mandatory lobby register to adopt it before the elections,” continued Mr Teixeira. “We now need a similar signal from the governments of member states in the Council to bring about more transparency on which lobbyists are influencing decisions.”

Although the vote was ultimately successful, it was not an easy fight.

“Centre-right members of “(Donald Tusk‘s)” the European People’s Party (EPP) requested that the ballot was held in secret – thereby omitting which MEPs voted against.

Nonetheless, the result achieved today is a big accomplishment.”

src: https://transparency.eu/press-release-european-parliament-to-end-secret-lobby-meetings/

Sven Giegold Green Party Germany – strongly pro transparency

“The establishment of the transparency register of beneficial owners was a great success for the European Parliament in the fight against money laundering and corruption under the green reporting.

However, the German transposition of the EU directive has been completely misguided (4. EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive).

On the publication of data from the Transparency Register of Correctiv, NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung says the spokesman of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen im Europäischen Parliament, Sven Giegold:

“The publications on the transparency register show that the German transparency register is useless.

The Register does not make shady companies transparent.

In the case of the crucial companies, it is an transparency register because it keeps obscuring the true owners.

When a dubious entrepreneur intervenes in two special purpose entities, he remains unrecognised.

The German law contradicts EU law, because the true owner can still remain non-transparent.

Minister of justice, Barley, must now quickly improve the law and bring it into line with EU law.

Until now, the Transparency Register has missed its purpose and only generates bureaucracy.

(same goes for EU-Dataprotection law DSGVO/GDPR… started good theory, badly put into practice completely fails it’s goals, everyone keeps using WhatsApp/Facebook and they don’t care about EU law X-D… goal failure ON PURPOSE? by WHOM? (TRANSPARENCY!))

The fees for using the register are dissuasive, even for journalists. Because of the shortcomings in the implementation of EU law, I lodged a complaint with the EU Commission several months ago. The introduction of the transparency register was a great success in the fight against money laundering. Transparency is the greatest enemy of companies that have something to hide. We must finally sharpen the Register.” (autoTranslated by Yandex)

German:

“Die Einrichtung des Transparenzregisters über wirtschaftlich berechtigte Eigentümer war ein großer Erfolg des Europaparlaments im Kampf gegen Geldwäsche und Korruption unter grüner Berichterstattung. Die deutsche Umsetzung der EU-Richtlinie ist jedoch völlig missraten (4. EU-Anti-Geldwäscherichtlinie).

Zur Veröffentlichung von Daten aus dem Transparenzregister von Correctiv, NDR, WDR und Süddeutsche Zeitung sagt der Sprecher von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen im Europäischen Parlament, Sven Giegold:

“Die Veröffentlichungen zum Transparenzregister zeigen: Das deutsche Transparenzregister ist nutzlos.

Zwielichtige Firmen werden durch das Register nicht transparent.

Bei den entscheidenden Unternehmen ist es ein Intransparenzregister, weil es die wahren Eigentümer weiterhin verschleiert.

Wenn ein dubioser Unternehmer zwei Zweckgesellschaften dazwischen schaltet, bleibt er unerkannt. Das deutsche Gesetz widerspricht EU-Recht, weil die wahren Eigentümer immer noch intransparent bleiben können. Justizministerin Barley muss nun zügig das Gesetz nachbessern und in Einklang mit EU-Recht bringen. Bisher verfehlt das Transparenzregister seinen Zweck und erzeugt nur Bürokratie. Die Gebühren zur Nutzung des Registers sind abschreckend hoch, auch für Journalisten. Wegen der Mängel bei der Umsetzung des EU-Rechts, habe ich schon vor Monaten bei der EU-Kommission Beschwerde eingelegt. Die Einführung des Transparenzregister war ein großer Erfolg im Kampf gegen Geldwäsche. Transparenz ist der größte Feind von Unternehmen, die etwas zu verbergen haben. Wir müssen das Register endlich scharfstellen.”

Die Schlechtumsetzung des Transparenzregisters ins Deutschland haben wir bereits am 15. März 2018 in einer schriftlichen Anfrage an die Kommission kritisiert:

https://sven-giegold.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Anfrage-an-die-Kommission_Transparenzregister-Deutschland.pdf

Die Kommission versicherte uns in ihrer Antwort vom 22. Mai 2018, sich die Konformität des deutschen Transparenzregisters anzuschauen und gegebenenfalls weitere Schritte einzuleiten. Seitdem sind wir im regelmäßigen Kontakt mit den Zuständigen in der EU-Kommission, die sich inzwischen in der Sache an die Bundesregierung gewandt hat. Wir bleiben hier dran.

https://sven-giegold.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Antwort-von-Frau-Jourová_Transparenzregister-Deutschland.pdf