Thailand's 30 Baht Health Care a Huge Success

[Robby nz]

The reason I assumed that it was originally a Democrat proposal is this: why else would you bring it up? How is it relevant? Take these examples from U.S. Politics;

Financial stimulus during a deep recession despite deficits was the idea of John Maynard Keynes. , Obamacare was originally a proposal from conservative economists at the Heritage society But how is this relevant to the issue? There are hundreds, make that thousands of polcy proposals out there. But the person who deserves th credit or the blame is the one who makes it law. The rest is an interesting historical footnote but no more.

I can't find a link but I have asked a person who follows Thai politics closely and she said the democrats were opposed to the 30 baht plan. So yes, there was a program, it died, and the democrats were opposed to its revival. So who exactly should get credit for the program in its current incarnation?

I mentioned it so that people were informed that it wasn't a wonder idea from Thaksin. I actually believe that the health care scheme is a valuable addition for Thailand.

Although many health care experts are saying it's always been underfunded, but I think that's the nature of general schemes like this.

Seeing as how neither of us can find ANY reference to the Democrats opposing the scheme we will have to believe "a person that follows Thai politics " that they did oppose it.

The problem with saying one party or the other opposed something is that it is a blanket statement that covers a whole policy.

I don't know but it may have been, in this case, that the Dems opposed a part or a clause in the bill to bring in the scheme, possibly even proposed an amendment.

This then gets twisted for political purposes into saying they opposed the whole thing.

A great example of this was the amendment to section 190 of the constitution to make all senators elected.

The first reading which, if I understand correctly, only covered the election of senators was agreed to by all parties.

Then before the 2nd and 3rd readings clauses were added to allow relations of sitting members of parliament to stand as senators and to abolish the 6 year term.

These were 2 things which the Dems objected to, that objection has now been twisted into "They opposed the election of senators" which was not the case.

So things are not always as they seem when politicians and their spin doctors get hold of them.

[Sheryl]

Please have pity on your Moderator and do not veer off into political debates...that's what the News forum is for (that, and masochists).