Tweet
The Leader of the Opposition has charged that the Budget doesn’t have the people at the centre.
When we abolish tuition fees in high schools so that poor people’s children are not kept out of school because they can’t pay the fees, it is because the people are not only at the centre of the budget; they are at the centre of our minds!
When we abolish hospital charges so that poor people don’t have to stay home and die because they don’t have the money to pay the hospital fees, it is because the people are not only at the centre of the budget; they are in the centre of our hearts!
I found the comments by the member for Central Manchester most revealing. He disagrees philosophically with these initiatives. He calls it "freeness", "clientelism". He says people must take personal responsibility for themselves; they must be prepared to pay something. The Survey of Living Conditions reported in 2004 that Jamaican families spent $19 billion of their own money on education: uniforms, bus fares, lunch money, books and, at that time, tuition fees. They are taking as much responsibility for themselves, as they can!
We take the view that educating our children is more than just a parental responsibility. Yes, they must do everything they can. The Minister of Education is establishing a Parenting Commission to help them to do that, but educating our children is a national imperative! For we as a nation will be much better off, if our children are educated.
The member for Central Manchester was equally harshly critical of the abolition of hospital charges. In the short time since the decision was taken, there has been a significant increase in patient flow. We have managed that increased load well and I want to commend the Minister of Health and the Environment and his team for a challenging task, well executed.
Where we have encountered problems is in the shortage of hospital drugs because the number of patients turning up with prescriptions was greater than we had anticipated. Our next regular shipment of drugs is due at the end of the month but, in the meanwhile, the
Minister has made arrangements to source drugs locally to meet the shortfall and we should now be in a better position to fill those prescriptions.
We expect that the flow will taper off and even decline once the initial rush is over. What we have been seeing are weeks, months and, perhaps, years of illness that could not venture into the hospitals because they didn’t have the money to pay. And if we needed any vindication of the correctness of our decision, the increase in the number of patients provides it.
We must ask the question: Where were all these sick people before the fees were abolished? Going to private doctors? No! Private doctors are reporting that there has been no fall-off in their patient flow. So, where were all these sick people? They were at home bearing the sickness, trying a little bush medicine. They were taking personal responsibility! SLC 2006 reports that 35% of the poorest quintile said they were not able to seek medical help, because they had no money.
There is more data to support our position. SLC 2006 reports that there was a 50% increase in real terms in expenditure at public health facilities compared to 2004. At the same time, there was a 47% decrease in expenditure at private facilities and a 7% decrease in expenditure on education. What this means is that not only were they leaving the private doctor and turning to the public hospitals but they now had to make a choice between taking granny to the hospital and sending Junior to school. Nobody should have to make that kind of choice. This government is taking responsibility!
The position of the member for Central Manchester reveals not just a philosophical fixity. It reveals a myopic disposition. He says that government assistance should not be extended across the board because it is inherently inefficient. Rather, it should be targeted to those who are most vulnerable. Those who can pay should pay!
How do we determine that? When a woman is wheeled in to a hospital writhing in pain, how do you determine whether she can afford to pay? Ask her? And when she says she can’t pay, what do you do? Put her treatment on hold while you check it out?
It is a myopic view because it is unbalanced. The government grants billions of dollars of incentives, waivers and concessions to the hotel sector, farmers, manufacturers, exporters etc. Has the member ever argued that we shouldn’t do that, that those who can pay should pay?
We provide motor vehicle duty concessions to MPs. That is a subsidy. Has the member ever suggested that we shouldn’t do that; that those MPs who can afford to pay should pay?
I once heard the member for Eastern Hanover make the profound observation that when government provides assistance to people near the top it is called "incentives". When it is given to people at the bottom it is denigrated as "subsidies".
Removing tuition fees and hospital charges does not solve all the problems of our education system and health services…..far from it. But it helps poor people and the people are not only at the centre of this budget, they are at the centre of the concern of this government.
(PM's presentation).
When we abolish tuition fees in high schools so that poor people’s children are not kept out of school because they can’t pay the fees, it is because the people are not only at the centre of the budget; they are at the centre of our minds!
When we abolish hospital charges so that poor people don’t have to stay home and die because they don’t have the money to pay the hospital fees, it is because the people are not only at the centre of the budget; they are in the centre of our hearts!
I found the comments by the member for Central Manchester most revealing. He disagrees philosophically with these initiatives. He calls it "freeness", "clientelism". He says people must take personal responsibility for themselves; they must be prepared to pay something. The Survey of Living Conditions reported in 2004 that Jamaican families spent $19 billion of their own money on education: uniforms, bus fares, lunch money, books and, at that time, tuition fees. They are taking as much responsibility for themselves, as they can!
We take the view that educating our children is more than just a parental responsibility. Yes, they must do everything they can. The Minister of Education is establishing a Parenting Commission to help them to do that, but educating our children is a national imperative! For we as a nation will be much better off, if our children are educated.
The member for Central Manchester was equally harshly critical of the abolition of hospital charges. In the short time since the decision was taken, there has been a significant increase in patient flow. We have managed that increased load well and I want to commend the Minister of Health and the Environment and his team for a challenging task, well executed.
Where we have encountered problems is in the shortage of hospital drugs because the number of patients turning up with prescriptions was greater than we had anticipated. Our next regular shipment of drugs is due at the end of the month but, in the meanwhile, the
Minister has made arrangements to source drugs locally to meet the shortfall and we should now be in a better position to fill those prescriptions.
We expect that the flow will taper off and even decline once the initial rush is over. What we have been seeing are weeks, months and, perhaps, years of illness that could not venture into the hospitals because they didn’t have the money to pay. And if we needed any vindication of the correctness of our decision, the increase in the number of patients provides it.
We must ask the question: Where were all these sick people before the fees were abolished? Going to private doctors? No! Private doctors are reporting that there has been no fall-off in their patient flow. So, where were all these sick people? They were at home bearing the sickness, trying a little bush medicine. They were taking personal responsibility! SLC 2006 reports that 35% of the poorest quintile said they were not able to seek medical help, because they had no money.
There is more data to support our position. SLC 2006 reports that there was a 50% increase in real terms in expenditure at public health facilities compared to 2004. At the same time, there was a 47% decrease in expenditure at private facilities and a 7% decrease in expenditure on education. What this means is that not only were they leaving the private doctor and turning to the public hospitals but they now had to make a choice between taking granny to the hospital and sending Junior to school. Nobody should have to make that kind of choice. This government is taking responsibility!
The position of the member for Central Manchester reveals not just a philosophical fixity. It reveals a myopic disposition. He says that government assistance should not be extended across the board because it is inherently inefficient. Rather, it should be targeted to those who are most vulnerable. Those who can pay should pay!
How do we determine that? When a woman is wheeled in to a hospital writhing in pain, how do you determine whether she can afford to pay? Ask her? And when she says she can’t pay, what do you do? Put her treatment on hold while you check it out?
It is a myopic view because it is unbalanced. The government grants billions of dollars of incentives, waivers and concessions to the hotel sector, farmers, manufacturers, exporters etc. Has the member ever argued that we shouldn’t do that, that those who can pay should pay?
We provide motor vehicle duty concessions to MPs. That is a subsidy. Has the member ever suggested that we shouldn’t do that; that those MPs who can afford to pay should pay?
I once heard the member for Eastern Hanover make the profound observation that when government provides assistance to people near the top it is called "incentives". When it is given to people at the bottom it is denigrated as "subsidies".
Removing tuition fees and hospital charges does not solve all the problems of our education system and health services…..far from it. But it helps poor people and the people are not only at the centre of this budget, they are at the centre of the concern of this government.
(PM's presentation).
Comment