Thai NRC ponders free medical care and art funding

[webfact]

NRC ponders free medical care and art funding
Nitipol Kiravanich
The Nation

Many people unable to access services under old charter, member says

BANGKOK: -- THE National Reform Council (NRC) spent a second day yesterday scrutinising proposals for the new constitution - from wider access to free medical care and social services, funding for art and cultural organisations, and issues concerning religion.

After its deliberations, the NRC will pass recommendations on these and other items to the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).

NRC member Pannee Jarusombat received many of yesterday's proposals from Amphon Thongrat, secretary of the State Enterprises Workers' Relations Confederation (SERC). Pannee said that in the area of labour reform, people should have access to public services in the form of free medical treatment provided by the government. There should also be cover for the homeless, including those who do not earn enough for their living expenses, she said.

"Under the 2007 Constitution, public services could not be accessed by a wide range of people and failed to promote basic living structures for many," Pannee said.

Naovarat Pongpaiboon, chairman of a panel on art, culture, integrity and religion reform, proposed strengthening of these areas through more funding to develop research into Thai art and culture.

"These areas of reform can be considered as a tree, in which the roots are politics and branches are business. Hence it is everyone's duty to ensure this tree is healthy and the government will play an important role in strengthening it by focusing and funding the projects for the country's development," the panel chairman said.

He suggested imposing a tax of one to three per cent on international performers who come with their own shows to boost the budgets of art and cultural organisations.

"The government should really focus on cultural and integrity reform more, because it is a fundamental ideology for everyone in |the country and integrity must be inserted in politicians' thoughts to produce a better society," Naovarat said.

There was also discussion on how religious leaders should people to realise its role in caring for others. This would lead to a better society, Naovarat added.

He said forums should be arranged in which people can express knowledge of local cultures and inform those with few ideas how to preserve Thai art and culture.

His views led many committee members to reserve their ideas and opinions about cultural reform for further discussion.

Another NRC member, Trungjai Buranasomphop, raised questions about preserving Thai culture. |She pointed out the many historical ruins in Thailand must be taken care of because they are both tourist attractions and important for business.

She said that for integrity and religious reform, the state must be promoted in the form of an ideology embedded in everyone's mind. There should be a committee to ensure everyone in the society realises how important such issues are.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/NRC-ponders-free-medical-care-and-art-funding-30250013.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-17

[NongKhaiKid]

Funding for art and culture ?

Does that mean more use of images etc of Hitler ?

[Thailand]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

[Boxclever]

More populist policies? Isn't this called "vote buying"?

[NongKhaiKid]

More populist policies? Isn't this called "vote buying"?

At this time of the year it's a ' New Year Gift ', later there can be gifts for Songkran and other public holidays or auspicious days.

Populist policies, definitely not as the PM made it clear that sort of thing's not on it's just to make people happy and that's not populist is it ?

[ricklev]

Obviously nothing is perfect but kudos to them for recognizing access to medical care as a human right. That's better than my country is doing!

[Qent]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

The 30 baht health care system, as it was implemented, was wholly deserving of its wide criticism.

[ricklev]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

The 30 baht health care system, as it was implemented, was wholly deserving of its wide criticism.

Of course it was flawed and badly implemented and underfunded etc. etc. It also gave access to health care to thousands of people who never could afford it before. And that is well recognized by people who study the economics of health care in developing countries. It was and is a base to build on.

Edited December 17, 2014 by ricklev

[Qent]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

The 30 baht health care system, as it was implemented, was wholly deserving of its wide criticism.

Of course it was flawed and badly implemented and underfunded etc. etc. It also gave access to health care to thousands of people who never could afford it before. And that is well recognized by people who study the economics of health care in developing countries. It was and is a base to build on.

Good of you to agree that the wide criticism of the program was wholly deserved and that the changes made to it, eg. making it free, increasing the expenditures, and increasing accessibility, have been vast improvements on the utter crap program it began as.

[Toknarok]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

[Qent]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

Yes, they thanked him because, due to his public relations machinations, many of these poor people were misled into believing he was actually paying for their medical care out of his own pocket.

[Thailand]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

The 30 baht health care system, as it was implemented, was wholly deserving of its wide criticism.

Free would be better wouldn't it? Where would the funding come from. Foreign investment? A slice off the rapidly declining tourism income?

[Thailand]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

Yes, they thanked him because, due to his public relations machinations, many of these poor people were misled into believing he was actually paying for their medical care out of his own pocket.

Ah, seeing your posts so far are you a newb or simply a name change?

Just asking.

[somo]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

The 30 baht health care system, as it was implemented, was wholly deserving of its wide criticism.

Ah but it developed into something wonderful. None of these schemes come out of the box in perfect form they all take time to mature - look at the Obama care shambles.

It is the same with the various attempts to help poor farmers. What we are witnessing is an irreversable process. Bangkok, although the centre of things now has to pay attention to the needs of all the people of Thailand. Power is spreading outwards despite despite the best efforts of the elite to stem the flow. Even the army is now talking about free health care for all although a bit late to the party it shows how Thaksin has permanently altered the political landscape for the better.

[Eric Loh]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

Yes, they thanked him because, due to his public relations machinations, many of these poor people were misled into believing he was actually paying for their medical care out of his own pocket.

You mean like the PM new year present to the people by reducing petrol price and expect people to believe him? Tell me which government PR machinery don't do that.

[quidnunc]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

Yes, they thanked him because, due to his public relations machinations, many of these poor people were misled into believing he was actually paying for their medical care out of his own pocket.

You mean like the PM new year present to the people by reducing petrol price and expect people to believe him? Tell me which government PR machinery don't do that.

Petrol prices have declined worldwide. I thought it was due to market conditions. Apparently, the PM is not just in chrge of thailand, but the world as well.

[Qent]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

The 30 baht health care system, as it was implemented, was wholly deserving of its wide criticism.

Free would be better wouldn't it? Where would the funding come from. Foreign investment? A slice off the rapidly declining tourism income?

Yes, free WAS better.

That's why the Democrats big improvement to it was warmly welcomed as the beginning to try and fix the myriad of problems with the original plan.

While the Democrat Party was the government, there was a new scheme that replaced 30 baht healthcare, which was dubbed the Free Medical Scheme. People can use only the ID card to access all health care services in every public hospitals. People didnt have to pay 30 baht anymore as it was all-free.

https://healthcarejm211.wordpress.com/previous-works-2/

[Qent]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

Yes, they thanked him because, due to his public relations machinations, many of these poor people were misled into believing he was actually paying for their medical care out of his own pocket.

You mean like the PM new year present to the people by reducing petrol price and expect people to believe him? Tell me which government PR machinery don't do that.

No leader in Thailand in living memory matches the deceptive manipulations more so than the Thaksin regime because no one has employed the well-oiled machinations he employed.

The result is the wide-spread, still-believed BS that he funded medical care himself, that he paid off the IMF loan by himself, and a plethora of other horse crap like he actually gives a rat's ass about the poor.

[somo]

No leader in Thailand in living memory matches the deceptive manipulations more so than the Thaksin regime because no one has employed the well-oiled machinations he employed.

The result is the wide-spread, still-believed BS that he funded medical care himself, that he paid off the IMF loan by himself, and a plethora of other horse crap like he actually gives a rat's ass about the poor.

You've got to be joking. Every politician in living history has tried to take credit for everything the electorate likes + disown everything the don't like. It's what politicians do.

Mr T was just better at it than most and a lot cleverer at identifying what the people wanted/needed so he gave it to them. Those that followed just copied him by refining what he introduced and are continuing to do so today. It never occured to the dems to introduce free health care or farming subsidies because they considered the poor masses irrelevant to their Bangkok power games. Now everyone is competing as to how much they can do for the poor but that is only because Mr T thought to do it first. I agree that his motivation was probably purely selfish as all politicians are power hungry (he had more than enough money) but so what when the end result was to drag Thailand into a new era where the people tilling the land and growing the food get to have a say in things and to live a bit longer without bankrupting themselves.

[tbthailand]

Will the nimrods on the CDC ever realize that healthcare and arts & culture funding are part of government policies and not constitutions?

Not that the yellow Thai elite have much experience with constitutions and democracy.

[billd766]

Free medical care as opposed to the 30 baht care that was widely criticised?

Why not? It was 30 baht under the TRT and PPP but when the Democrats came to power they made it free.

Of course when the PTP came to power they brought the 30 baht back again. A truly caring sharing government that was.

[billd766]

The introduction of the 30 baht scheme in 2001 was a much needed scheme to introduce health sufferage for the poor. I well remember what health services were like prior to this date. People were literally dying or getting into huge debt in order to (n many cases) stay alive.

It was a mess at first, one of the main reasons being that doctors and medical staff opposed it, fearing they would loose out on the enormous profits they were making on medical care as it stood. Once it was up and running, properly funded it was an enormous boon to the poor people of this Country, like it or not many remember and thank Thaksin for implementing it.

It was a good idea but sadly underfunded from the first day. Good publicity for the PM who introduced it, Thaksin Shinawatra.

Pity he forgot to mention it was a plan devised by the Democrats under Chuan Leekpai.

[mikemac]

More populist policies? Isn't this called "vote buying"?

Not really, "vote buying" is when a representative of the PTP actually puts cash in your hand in return for your promise to vote for them.

That's vote buying.

I have had a bit of experience with Thai hospitals in the past 9 years, myself, friends and family having had to use them. I found out a long time ago that you only get what you pay for, the "cheap charlie" hospitals are just that.

People who made a big deal out of the 30 baht a visit healthcare program happily forget that there was a lot of user dissatisfaction with the service provided and the medicines/drugs provided by the hospitals, it received a lot of criticism from doctors, and created a debt of nearly 8 billion baht.

But it won votes.

[smutcakes]

More populist policies? Isn't this called "vote buying"?

Not really, "vote buying" is when a representative of the PTP actually puts cash in your hand in return for your promise to vote for them.

That's vote buying.

I have had a bit of experience with Thai hospitals in the past 9 years, myself, friends and family having had to use them. I found out a long time ago that you only get what you pay for, the "cheap charlie" hospitals are just that.

People who made a big deal out of the 30 baht a visit healthcare program happily forget that there was a lot of user dissatisfaction with the service provided and the medicines/drugs provided by the hospitals, it received a lot of criticism from doctors, and created a debt of nearly 8 billion baht.

But it won votes.

This is an odd post even by your exulted standard!

If there was a lot of user dissatisfaction with the 30 baht scheme, but it won votes? i would say that is the whole idea of having policies which people can vote on is it not. Those who were dissatisfied would consider voting against the party who implemented it, and those that enjoyed the benefits would vote for the party accordingly?Is that not how politics works in pretty much every country in the world?

Again i would like you to name any country in the world which has social policies which don't create debt? I presume every publicly available health care service in the world creates a debt by its nature. I stand to be corrected but i doubt there are many countries in the world who have a balanced budget.

Creating a debt by providing a service for people in the country is not necessary a bad thing if it assists the people. With any policy not everyone will agree with it. That is why you have things called elections so those who like policies can vote for a party proposing those policies, and those who don't like the policies can vote against them.

Yes there were large problems with the whole scheme, but it would be unlikely to get it right first time.At least they tried to do something for a lot of the population, whatever the end intentions may have been.

[mikemac]

More populist policies? Isn't this called "vote buying"?

Not really, "vote buying" is when a representative of the PTP actually puts cash in your hand in return for your promise to vote for them.

That's vote buying.

I have had a bit of experience with Thai hospitals in the past 9 years, myself, friends and family having had to use them. I found out a long time ago that you only get what you pay for, the "cheap charlie" hospitals are just that.

People who made a big deal out of the 30 baht a visit healthcare program happily forget that there was a lot of user dissatisfaction with the service provided and the medicines/drugs provided by the hospitals, it received a lot of criticism from doctors, and created a debt of nearly 8 billion baht.

But it won votes.

This is an odd post even by your exulted standard!

If there was a lot of user dissatisfaction with the 30 baht scheme, but it won votes? i would say that is the whole idea of having policies which people can vote on is it not. Those who were dissatisfied would consider voting against the party who implemented it, and those that enjoyed the benefits would vote for the party accordingly?Is that not how politics works in pretty much every country in the world?

Again i would like you to name any country in the world which has social policies which don't create debt? I presume every publicly available health care service in the world creates a debt by its nature. I stand to be corrected but i doubt there are many countries in the world who have a balanced budget.

Creating a debt by providing a service for people in the country is not necessary a bad thing if it assists the people. With any policy not everyone will agree with it. That is why you have things called elections so those who like policies can vote for a party proposing those policies, and those who don't like the policies can vote against them.

Yes there were large problems with the whole scheme, but it would be unlikely to get it right first time.At least they tried to do something for a lot of the population, whatever the end intentions may have been.

Boxclever made a comment and asked a question regarding populist policies and vote buying and I answered accordingly.

And yes, I do understand how politics works around the world, I just don't like the shady way the Shins go about it. Reading the family's long and dismal criminal history tells me they don't do things quite above board.

I don't know why the NRC is considering this proposal, maybe they want the people to see they are not the big ol' mean junta that TVF members try to portray all the time.

........................"If there was a lot of user dissatisfaction with the 30 baht scheme, but it won votes?"....................................

The scheme was implemented after the Shin party was safely in power. What happened after that did not really matter. Refer to PTP Rice Scheme.