TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-11, 12:57 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
So I had a look at some numbers and defense, education and health seems like the big tickets. Can you provide any kind of numbers on state support to shipping magnates vs. growth in public sector workforce? I am not saying that the magnates didn't get a meaningful slice compared to their numbers (i.e. a handful of them vs. millions of public sector employees) but in terms of budget items, I suspect it's somewhat more balanced...
Some things:

Quote:
Greece's GDP growth has also, as an average, since the early 1990s been higher than the EU average.
Quote:
The country suffers from high levels of political and economic corruption and low global competitiveness compared to its EU partners
Quote:
The Greek labor force totals 5.05 million, and on average work the second most hours per year among OECD countries, after South Korea.[36]

The Groningen Growth & Development Centre has published a poll revealing that between 1995 and 2005, Greece was the country whose workers worked the most hours/year among European nations; Greeks worked an average of 1,900 hours per year, followed by Spaniards (average of 1,800 hours/year
Quote:
Population below poverty line: 20% live below the annual €6,000 threshold (2008)
Economy of Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
The basic components of this accelerating outlay are primary expenditures such as the purchase of goods and services, pensions, subsidies, and interest payments on the public debt. Because of the accumulation of public debt on large deficits that have persisted since the late 1970s, between 1980 and 1992 interest expenses grew quite rapidly from less than 2 percent of GDP in 1980 to 11.4 percent of GDP in 1992. On the other hand, since the late 1980s primary expenditures have stabilized at between 35 and 38 percent of GDP. Thus, about half of apparent growth in the public sector, as compared with GDP, comes from the Greek state's bulging interest expenses. About 75 percent of this interest expense is service of domestic debt, held by Greek residents and denominated in drachmas (for value of the drachma--see Glossary). Thus, this expenditure is a transfer payment within the country, from taxpayers to the creditors of the state, through the mediation of the state.
...
On the other side of the ledger, public revenues have grown significantly over the last two decades. From about 22 percent of GDP in 1970, they had risen to almost 33 percent by 1992. That year, according to the National Statistical Service, primary expenditures were nearly 36 percent of GDP, so had there been no public debt, the Greek budget would have been close to balance.
...
The low yield of direct taxation in Greece is not the outcome of low tax rates. Rather, it is due to low income tax compliance. Tax enforcement is problematic in a country with a high percentage of self-employed workers and a large service sector. For many years, salaried employees and pensioners have paid the largest share of direct taxes, when in fact these categories of the working population are not the wealthiest or the most able to shoulder the tax burden. In addition, Greek tax collection is riddled with inefficiency, lax enforcement, and even corruption--factors that have survived numerous reform efforts.
from here
Greece The Public Sector and Taxation - Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System
but the cite is CIA world factbook

So, yes the Greeks had debt, but that allowed them to modernise and become EU competitve at least in growth terms. But they were saddled with serious corruption, and a fifth of the population was below the poverty line, while most of the taxes were being raised from ordinary working people. Contrary to current rumours, ordinary Greeks are not lazy, working comparatively long hours and no retiring unusually early. They started getting into trouble not because of bloated entitlements but becuase of increases in interest rates.

Is it any wonder, then, that the population doesn't regard itself to have benefitted?

Quote:
I mean, it seems that even Greek GPs were bold enough to refuse paying taxes... GPs aren't exactly magnates by any stretch of the imagination...
Seeing as waged workers and pensioners were paying the bulk of the taxes:

Quote:
A new set of tax reforms was passed in 1994 to broaden the tax base and make the tax burden more equitable. The top income tax rate was cut to encourage those with higher incomes to participate. A "profession tax" now sets a minimum taxable income for every member in prescribed levels of each profession, and tax inspectors can examine personal financial records to establish tax liability.
... they slashed tax rates for the wealthy. Surely the Laffer Curve should have ridden to their rescue? The rest of the system seems pretty wierd, but that probably just demonstrates how endemic corruption was. Andn indeed, GP's may not be "magnates", but they may well have been very well off; after all, in the UK they're making about 120 grand, which puts them firmly into the upper professional, tax-evading band.

Quote:
'must be nice to live in a world where everything is black and white.
Lol. Oh but it isn't. That's why you have such trouble recognising it.

Quote:
' worked pretty well in France to keep the spending, present and future on an ever growing path while tax revenues stagnate...
Well, if they had real power, couldn't they have imposed taxation on the rich to raise revenues?

Quote:
Hence the correct one.
No, the conspiratorial one, full of evildoers and villains twiddling their handlebar mustaches.

Quote:
There's a difference between being overleveraged and between booking the sale of an asset and expensing a yearly rent... Unless there's a tax treatment difference in there, it makes no business sense and the only time businesses do that, outside of tax optimisation, is with the full intent to hide their true B/S position. Say, like Enron.
Absoluetly not true at all. As I have pointed out at great length on many previous occassins, all sorts of companies divested themselves of all sorts of assets to trim themselves down to their "core business". PFI is just governmental outsourcing, precisely in line with private sector "best practice". The present government is going down the same road, intending to make the NHS a kitemark overseeing mutliple private sector suppliers rather than being a suppplier itself. And indeed, shares would rise would corporations acted in this manner, or sometimes fall if investors became unhappy that "reform" was not proceeding fast enough.

Quote:
So, on this, we will just have to agree to disagree. I think Greece is basically the equivalent of Lehman. The contagion risks are a clear and present danger to the survival of the EU banking system and the EU-as-is itself.
Well that might be true, but if it is, then we are acting to save ourtselves - it's still between us and the banks, and not the Greeks.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-11, 01:40 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
So, yes the Greeks had debt, but that allowed them to modernise and become EU competitve at least in growth terms.
Growth terms are just catch up effects. The point was they got into too much debt. And unless all that money was spent on magnates, the Greek public profited. As you said, they modernised. That's fine. But they do have to pay. Or not?



They seem to have gotten themselves into a bit of bind, spending more than what they were earning... Or is it all these shipping magnates again?

Quote:
But they were saddled with serious corruption...
How is that anyone but the Greek's own fault? Surely, they should have sorted themselves out?

Quote:
Seeing as waged workers and pensioners were paying the bulk of the taxes...
So maybe the Greek should have requested greater tax fairness and going after tax evaders more aggressively rather than borrowing and hoping it would all end well...

Quote:
Well, if they had real power, couldn't they have imposed taxation on the rich to raise revenues?
Clearly, they don't really want to. Partly out of fear of losing competitiveness, I think. Partly because France is already taxing individuals pretty heavily and it is not so difficult to end up within the higher bracket of taxation i.e. they are quite a few people resisting the idea of increasing taxation. And partly because French are silly and, like the Americans, think they're all going to end up rich. 80% of them support the cancellation of inheritance taxes, despite the fact that they typically apply to the top 20% 'only'.


Quote:
No, the conspiratorial one, full of evildoers and villains twiddling their handlebar mustaches.
Right. Enron never existed. Coz it's not systematic.

Quote:
Absolutely not true at all. As I have pointed out at great length on many previous occassins, all sorts of companies divested themselves of all sorts of assets to trim themselves down to their "core business". PFI is just governmental outsourcing, precisely in line with private sector "best practice". The present government is going down the same road, intending to make the NHS a kitemark overseeing mutliple private sector suppliers rather than being a suppplier itself.
And divesting isn't the same thing as PFIs and while PFIs may well be involved in the NHS mess, I don't think that having the NHS overseeing private suppliers (whether that's a good or bad idea) has anything to do with PFIs.

Quote:
Well that might be true, but if it is, then we are acting to save ourtselves - it's still between us and the banks, and not the Greeks.
Of course, we are acting to save ourselves! What else matters?
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-11, 02:06 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
Growth terms are just catch up effects. The point was they got into too much debt. And unless all that money was spent on magnates, the Greek public profited. As you said, they modernised. That's fine. But they do have to pay. Or not?
Well, if one fifth of the population are below the EU poverty level, that seems rather optimistic.

Quote:
They seem to have gotten themselves into a bit of bind, spending more than what they were earning... Or is it all these shipping magnates again?
Axes on that graph have no labels so I don't know what it refers to. But anyway, the argument was not that Greece was economically healthy as such.

Quote:
How is that anyone but the Greek's own fault? Surely, they should have sorted themselves out?
So now suddenly you're an advocate of revolution and blood in the streets? We've often discussed how wealth in the West has grown at the top whilemost incomes stagnate - is that our personal fault, now?

Quote:
So maybe the Greek should have requested greater tax fairness and going after tax evaders more aggressively rather than borrowing and hoping it would all end well...
But the PEOPLE did demand exactly that.

Quote:
Clearly, they don't really want to.
Why is it "clearly"? Again, it's the same pattern everywhere. We used to have a 90% tax rate, and now we don't, and even the recently re-introduced 50% tax rate is probably going to be done away with soon. The American debt negotations have just resulted in massive cuts in services without raising revenues from taxation of the rich. Surely its pretty damn obvious what's going on: the rich are running the show, and democratic power of any sort is insignificant by comparison.

Quote:
Right. Enron never existed. Coz it's not systematic.
I didn't say Enron didn't exist, I'm saying it's different. Enron was not a case of simply outsourcing and then renting back assets it had previously owned, it was purposeful fraud. But to the extent that PFI has an off balance sheet element, and I agree that it does, then how can it be argued that we-the-people have given our consent and are responsible?

Quote:
And divesting isn't the same thing as PFIs and while PFIs may well be involved in the NHS mess, I don't think that having the NHS overseeing private suppliers (whether that's a good or bad idea) has anything to do with PFIs.
Well, not ALL PFI's no, they cover quite a range, but definitely those that involve us selling our hospitals to private firms and then leasing them back for 30 years. Exactly the same argument was made for the privatisation of the railways, and in both cases we actually went and discounted the assets allegedly to ensure private investors were keen to take on the "burden".

As I said, the dogma of the day was that only a fool held assets; that was old thinking. The new thinking was endless free flowing credit and, as Gordon Brown fatefully declared, an end to boom and bust. Those PFI outsourcing deals were an example of the "unimaginative" public sector learning from the innovative and forward looking private sector.

Quote:
Of course, we are acting to save ourselves! What else matters?
Nothing, but then don't whine at ordinary Greek citizens, who see just as little benefit from "growth" as you and I do.

Last edited by contracycle; 03-08-11 at 02:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-11, 02:14 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

The UK’s Odious Debts
November 22, 2010

Many PFI deals were undemocratic and against the national interest. It’s time we stopped honouring them.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 23rd November 2010

You’ve been told that nothing is sacred; that no state spending is safe from being cut or eroded through inflation. You’ve been misled. As the new public spending data released by the government show, a £267bn bill has been both ring-fenced and index-linked(1). This sum, spread over 50 years or so, guarantees the welfare not of state pensioners or children or the unemployed, but of a different class of customer. To make way, everything else must be cut, further and faster than it would otherwise have been.

This is the money the state now owes to private corporations: the banks, construction and service companies which built infrastructure under the private finance initiative. In September 1997 the Labour government gave companies a legal guarantee that their payments would never be cut(2). Whenever there was a conflict between the needs of patients or pupils and PFI payments, it would thenceforth be resolved in favour of the consortia. The NHS now owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges(3).

PFI contracts typically last for 25 or 30 years; in one case (Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals) for 60 years(4). In 1997 the British Medical Association warned that “the NHS could find itself with a facility which is obsolete in 10 or 20 years’ time, but for which it will still have to pay for 30 years or more.”(5) No one’s celebrating being proved right.

This summer Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, thanks to the extortionate terms of its PFI contract, found itself with a shortfall of £70m. Under other circumstances it would suspend maintenance work and cut ancillary services until the crisis had passed. But its contract demands that it does the opposite: it must protect non-clinical services by cutting doctors, nurses and beds(5).

If a hospital no longer requires the services it contracted to buy, tough. If clinical needs or local demographics change, tough(6). Where hospitals can’t pay the massive penalty clauses said to lurk in the agreements, the NHS must be re-shaped around contractual, not clinical, needs.

The cost and inflexibility of PFI is an outrage, a racket, the legacy of 13 years of New Labour appeasement, triangulation and false accounting. At first sight, it looks as if nothing can be done: contracts are contracts. What I’m about to propose is a wild shot, but I hope it deserves, at least, to be discussed. I contend that the money we owe to the PFI consortia should be considered odious debt.

Odious debt is a legal term usually applied to the endowments of dictators in the developing world. It means debt incurred without the consent of the people and against the national interest(7). While the concept is not accepted by all legal scholars, it has some traction. In 2008 Ecuador refused to pay debts which, it argued, had been illegitimately acquired by previous governments(8). I believe it applies to at least some of our PFI liabilities.

PFI was a Tory invention but became a Labour doctrine. The 1997 Labour manifesto announced that the party would “reinvigorate the Private Finance Initiative”(9). But it was vague about the detail. Labour front-benchers had announced that some areas of public provision were off-limits. For example, John Prescott pledged that “Labour will take back private prisons into public ownership”(10). Jack Straw promised to “bring these prisons into proper public control and run them directly as public services.”(11) But within two months of taking office, Straw had renewed one private prison contract and announced two new ones. There was no democratic mandate for this policy, which appears to have arisen from secret talks with companies.

Secrecy surrounded the whole scheme. To this day, PFI contracts remain commercially confidential. You can’t read them; MPs can’t read them(12). We don’t know what we are being stung for or whether the costs are justified. But there are some powerful clues.

Blair’s administration gave public bodies no choice: if they wanted new projects, they had to use the private finance initiative. In some cases private companies weren’t interested, so the schemes had to be reverse-engineered to attract them. In Coventry, for example, NHS bosses originally sought £30m of public money to refurbish the city’s two hospitals. When the government told them it was “PFI or bust”(13), the refurbishment plan was dropped in favour of a scheme to knock down both hospitals and build a new one – with fewer beds and doctors and nurses – at an eventual, corporate-friendly cost of £410m(14). A report commissioned by the local health authority found that the scheme had been “progressively tailored to fit the needs of private investors”(15).

To get their new buildings or services, public bodies had to show that PFI was cheaper than public procurement. The system was rigged to make this easy. They could choose their own value for “optimism bias” in public procurement, which means the amount by which they guessed that a public project might overrun its budget. But, by official decree, optimism bias was deemed not to exist in private procurement(16).

They could also attach whatever price they wanted to the risk ostensibly being transferred to the private sector. A paper published in the British Medical Journal shows that, before risk transfer was costed, the hospital schemes it studied would have been built more cheaply with public money. After the risk was estimated, they all tipped the other way; in some cases by less than 0.1%(17).

These valuation exercises were notional anyway, because as soon as a preferred bidder for the contract had been chosen, the agreed prices were junked. The winning consortium had the public authority over a barrel, and could renegotiate at leisure(18). Desperate public bodies were gulled and outmanoeuvred with the blessing of central government, which sought only to keep the corporations off its back and the liabilities off its balance sheets. Was this a legitimate means of loading our schools and hospitals with debt? I don’t think so.

I know that the chances of getting any of this debt recognised as odious, especially by the current government, are small to say the least. But where else do we go with this? I’ve been writing about inflexible PFI contracts since 1998(19). I’ve wasted months on this mission, trying to understand and explain the most complex issue in public life. For all the good it’s done, I might as well have gone fishing.

Now I see corporations squatting like great cuckoos on our public services, while officials pour the money which should have been spent on nurses and teachers into their widening bills. Yes, I’m bitter. Yes, I’m clutching at straws. But have you got a better idea?

George Monbiot – The UK’s Odious Debts
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-11, 03:44 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
So now suddenly you're an advocate of revolution and blood in the streets? We've often discussed how wealth in the West has grown at the top while most incomes stagnate - is that our personal fault, now?
It certainly is our collective responsability.


Quote:
But the PEOPLE did demand exactly that.
When? And, if they did, why didn't it happen?

Quote:
Why is it "clearly"? (...) Surely its pretty damn obvious what's going on: the rich are running the show, and democratic power of any sort is insignificant by comparison.
Really? They vote more often that you and I? No, the only thing is that they have managed 2 things: First, they use, more or less consciously, the lack of coordination between gvts to induce a race to the bottom in terms of taxation. It's classic prisoner dilemna stuff and they're winning hands down. And, two, they have a good PR machine which has allowed them, to some degree, to control the discourse. But when Obama came on the scene with "Hope and Change", he got elected. And he had a mandate strong enough to do nearly anything he wanted to the rich. However, they took control of the discourse, yet again and manage to pour enough scorn to get their nutters elected in the mid-term elections.

It's the same in France. Sarkozy got elected on a program of "making work pay" and blablabla, which is code for "let's get closer to the American model". But nobody put a gun to the French voters' face.

"The rich control everything" seems just the kind of conspiracy you decry when I say it applies to average voters and elected officials...

Quote:
But to the extent that PFI has an off balance sheet element, and I agree that it does, then how can it be argued that we-the-people have given our consent and are responsible?
Because the gvt does that so that it doesn't have to force us to choose between our goodies and raising taxes...

Quote:
Nothing, but then don't whine at ordinary Greek citizens, who see just as little benefit from "growth" as you and I do.
However little they saw, it was already too much... And, if they want some payback, I am just behind them. But not if they want to steal from me on top. As with babyboomers. It doesn't matter that the rich has fucked you. It doesn't entitle you to fuck me as a way out.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-11, 12:50 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Greece's healthcare system is on the brink of catastrophe

Patients who cannot afford treatment and hospitals without critical supplies are among victims of the financial meltdown

Peter Beaumont in Perama
guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 August 2011 22.00 BST


Adonis Kostakos is unemployed and diabetic. Aged 50, he last worked regularly four years ago in the port of Piraeus. Back then he used Greece's public hospital system to have his blood sugar checked and get his medication.

These days, receiving no unemployment benefit, he cannot afford to pay for his drugs or the new €5 hospital fee introduced as part of Greece's austerity measures.

So today Kostakos has come to a free clinic in the shipbuilding town of Perama, where he lives, to pick up his medication. The drop-in surgery run by the global charity Médecins du Monde was originally set up to cater for illegal immigrants. But today, there are only native Greeks.

Posters on the wall show war and famine, but the solitary doctor, George Padakis, 30, is dealing with a different kind of catastrophe – victims of the financial meltdown, which has pushed Greece's health system to the brink.

"I have no insurance and I'm unemployed," says Kostakos. "I heard about this clinic from a friend. I was going to the public hospital, but nowadays I can't afford to do even that. I know lots of people in this town who are in the same situation as me, 10 of them personally."

Next in line is Nikos Famalis. He is 72 and has multiple health problems.

"I've been coming here since it opened," he says, when he emerges clutching a handful of boxes of medicine. "I used to have insurance when I was younger, but I don't have the right papers now. I'm trying to get papers for free treatment in the public hospital but it takes time."

The Greek system is a bureaucratic nightmare, with endless paperwork to fill in and hoops to jump through. Those without resources of any kind can qualify for free healthcare, but even then the state will only pay for some medicines.

And even those entitled to reduced or free medication often cannot find pharmacists to provide them and are instead asked to pay the cost up front and seek reimbursement. Others come into the clinic. A middle-aged man with swollen legs from heart disease needs diuretics; a younger man, who once worked in the nearby shipyards, comes in to be treated for high blood pressure.

"When I came here," says Padakis, "I didn't expect to be treating Greeks. I had no idea so many Greeks had these problems. I thought I would be working with illegal immigrants.

On a typical day the clinic sees around 20 people. "The problems are never simple. Sometimes people don't have the correct insurance or it takes time for the right papers to come through. Sometimes it is as simple as the fact that they don't have a few euros for the bus to go to the hospital for an appointment, so they come here.

"These people are often new poor [created by the financial crisis] and an additional problem is that the hospitals are now charging each time someone visits. The Greek heath system is just getting worse and worse," he adds sadly. "A health system that was not the best is becoming worse and worse."

"The people who can afford it can get immediate treatment. But what is happening in areas like this with high unemployment is that people with health issues are not getting checked up or, perhaps, like one patient – a 42-year-old man with diabetes – have not been taking medication when they should because they can't afford it, so what should be a manageable health problem turns into a crisis.

"He said to me: 'Look, I have four children and I only worked three days last month."'

If the clinic in Perama is an example of how bad things have got for those at the bottom of Greece's ruined economy, elsewhere doctors and patients have their own horror stories to tell in a corrupt health system where paying bribes to doctors is commonplace.

As a result of the crisis, doctors' wages in the public system have been cut in line with other government workers, while hospitals fear being merged and face regular shortages of materials.

Most damaging is how an already unequal health system has become more unequal still – a three-tier affair that discriminates systematically against those most vulnerable and least able to afford health care, marginalising them still further in society.

Even the private hospitals have not been immune to the crisis. In the Iasso maternity hospital Jenny and Pantedis Ioannidis, two young registrars, are celebrating the birth of their first child.

A bright, busy and modern place which handles 16,500 deliveries a year, the hospital has had to cut its fees by 35% in response to the crisis to ensure the flow of patients through its doors continues.

The man who performed the operation is sitting with them, Anastasios Pachydakis, 38, who trained for a while at London's Homerton hospital in Hackney. Pachydakis has performed two operations this year for free for some long-term patients whose business he hopes to keep in the future, because they did not have the money to pay him.

"Most colleagues working in private hospitals have had to cut their fees," says Pantedis Ioannidis.

Working in public hospitals – Jenny as a radiologist and Pantedis as an ophthalmologist – they have seen where the impact of the crisis has hit most acutely.

It is a crisis whose consequences will be inherited by their newborn son, not least the €35,000 of debt now owed by every new child born in Greece.

For the two doctors so far one of the biggest impacts has been on their income in a country where the salaries of public servants, including doctors, had traditionally been bumped up by bonuses at Christmas and for the Easter and summer holidays, amounting to an extra two months' earnings. Those "presents", as they are known, have been abolished as part of the Greek government's austerity programme.

"It is not just the bonuses," says Pantedis, "they have cut other allowances as well including an allowance for expensive medical text books."

Then there are the problems confronted by the hospitals. In one busy Athens accident and emergency department the ambulance drivers complain they are not always sure if they will be paid, while many hospitals have periodic shortages of equipment.

"I work in Athens's biggest hospital," says Jenny, "and there have been times this year when we've been missing a lot of important stuff. Because the hospital owed suppliers money, we had no stents. Then there were two weeks when we had none of the paper towels we use for wiping gel off patients. We were using toilet paper and kitchen towels. That was six months ago."

Pantedis's story is more shocking. A says a shortage in interocular lenses for cataract operations earlier this year at hospitals in Athens meant a run on his own hospital, which was still well stocked, forcing his hospital to refuse new patients needing the procedure.

The Nikaia public hospital is very different to the modern Iasso. It is clean but old with gloomy corridors, the rooms bare and functional. Outside one of its buildings a dog suns itself where the ambulances drop off their patients.

Dr Olga Kosmopoulou, a specialist in infectious diseases including HIV, is wearing a badge on her coat. She explains it marks a six-year-old campaign to eradicate corruption by doctors and others in Greece's health system. It is a campaign, she explains ruefully, that was "completely unsuccessful".

"We have a private sector that has been highly profitable and we have had a public sector that has delivered good results," she says. "But the fact is it is not working now and it is not because doctors have had their wages cut.

"The problems are the shortages of materials that are essential in the public system and the fact that I don't feel I really work in public medicine any more because people have to pay at so many points," she adds.

"I chose to work in the public sector," she says with emphasis. "I had plenty of offers to work in the private sector, but I chose to work for people who could not pay."

Defiantly, she says she has only charged one of her patients the new €5 fee. The rest were simply too poor, so she refused to charge them. She is aware her stand against the new rule could get her into trouble, but says she is not scared"I have a patient who is HIV positive," says Kosmopoulou. "He was a journalist who worked on a little paper in Piraeus. He wasn't working and he owed his insurance company money and now he is uninsured. He has cancer. He can stay in the hospital and not pay. He can get his HIV medication and not pay. But I have a huge problem trying to get his chemotherapy paid for."

She returns to the same story I have heard from Jenny Ioannidis and other doctors – about endemic shortages.

Kosmopoulou reaches into her pocket and pulls out a needle required for affixing an IV line. "I always keep one in my pocket because the right size is so difficult to find."

She says bleakly: "We can't survive this crisis," and adds that she is afraid there is a plan to destroy Greece's public health system. In some respects, it is already in ruins.

Greece's healthcare system is on the brink of catastrophe | World news | The Guardian
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-08-11, 01:01 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
It certainly is our collective responsability.
Not until we have collective power. I will not be held responsible for decisions I did not endorse.

Quote:
When? And, if they did, why didn't it happen?
Greece is one of the few places were anarchist and revolutionary olitics has remained pretty live. And the answer to why things didn;t happen is pretty obvious: we are not a democracy.

Quote:
Really? They vote more often that you and I?
No - when you and I vote IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Quote:
But when Obama came on the scene with "Hope and Change", he got elected. And he had a mandate strong enough to do nearly anything he wanted to the rich. However, they took control of the discourse, yet again and manage to pour enough scorn to get their nutters elected in the mid-term elections.
Well precisely. The "commanding heights of the economy" are not in popular hands. This is not a society of free individuals deciding among themselves what policy to adopt, it is just another system of class rule, with fake institutions that exist to mask that reality.

Quote:
"The rich control everything" seems just the kind of conspiracy you decry when I say it applies to average voters and elected officials...
Observing that "the rich" controlled "everything" isn't very controversial when we're talking about feudalism, is it? So the only difference here is the ideology that you've been fed that claims that our society is different - even when with your own eyes you can how little the interests of ordinary people are present in the decisions "our" governments actually make. And even that is even to the extent that our governments matter, which they don;t very much.

Quote:
Because the gvt does that so that it doesn't have to force us to choose between our goodies and raising taxes...
And I repeat the question, how can this be argued to demonstrate that we have given our consent? your efectovely admitting that the government is working to deceive the populace, so how can it be construed as acted on the behalf of the populace? Isn;t it rather obvious that the objectives of the goverbnment are not coterminaus with the objectives of the populace?

Quote:
However little they saw, it was already too much... And, if they want some payback, I am just behind them. But not if they want to steal from me on top. As with babyboomers. It doesn't matter that the rich has fucked you. It doesn't entitle you to fuck me as a way out.
Neither they nor the babyboomers are stealing from you. You're just allowing yourself to be conned into a two minutes hate.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 5
AnonymousIdiotSavant, A_A, contracycle, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0