October 7, 2024 – Consumer Choice Center

Majority of new Canadians feel they are being unfairly blamed for housing crisis: OMNI poll

As the housing affordability crisis continues to impact Canadians across the country, a majority of immigrants feels they are being unfairly blamed, as they themselves see the dream of home ownership slip further out of reach.

A poll commissioned exclusively for OMNI by Leger found that nearly seven in 10 new Canadians think politicians are using immigration as a “red herring” to distract from other factors contributing to the lack of affordable housing, such as government policies and economic conditions.

The federal government is planning on bringing the share of temporary residents to 5 per cent of Canada’s total population, down from 6.5 percent.

According to a housing expert, however, “relatively high immigration numbers” don’t necessarily mean newcomers are responsible for high shelter costs.

“One big issue, as we know, is that some areas just have a higher percentage of population of new immigrants than they used to, and as a result they get used as a scapegoat for the housing crisis,” says Prentiss Dantzler, the Director of the Housing Justice Lab at the University of Toronto. “People forget that this housing crisis is not new. We’ve been dealing with this for a long time.”

“There’s a lot of blame to go around, but a lot of time people are focusing on other individuals and not focusing on the housing system itself,” he told OMNI News.

Dantzler points out that a lot of the housing stock is not even being bought up by individuals, but by private equity firms or other companies, and that the number of condos on the market means the system “is not serving a diverse portfolio of families.”

Read the full text here

Johnson & Johnson’s ‘Texas Two Step’ Needs a Conclusion

One of the most followed corporate trials of the decade is drawing nearer to a close. Johnson & Johnson’s Red River Talc subsidiary in Texas filed a third time for bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas while a majority of affected plaintiffs have indicated they wish to settle. With more than 75 percent of plaintiffs on board, this case should be allowed to conclude instead of being held up by lawyers grasping for more cash.

In mid-August, a vote was held in another of the major baby powder cases where 83 percent of plaintiffs voiced their support for a whopping $6.5 billion settlement to be paid out over 25 years by LTL Management, J&J’s Texas-based subsidiary. About 61,000 lawsuits would be settled for 99.75 percent of the plaintiffs, leaving only a small amount of mesothelioma suits to be settled.

Now, it will be up to the judge to decide whether the settlement is appropriate and fair.

Though attorneys representing some of the victims in the case have supported the plan, others have decided to stick out the trial in the hopes of extracting a larger settlement. However, Johnson & Johnson’s recent commitments to increase the total amount of the settlement up to $9 billion may shore up more support for their proposal and boost the prospect of a final settlement among victims and their families.

Considering the tens of thousands of Americans involved in this case who claim injuries and cancer diagnoses, including many who’ve battled in the courts for years, the prospect of a resolution should bring relief and comfort. However, it is unclear whether that message will be pressed in court.

One lawyer in the case has warmed to the deal for his clients, but others are likely to seek an even larger payday that could come if they strike for a bigger deal and more delay. No surprise. It’s estimated that attorneys in this case could receive up to a third of the final settlement.

For years, Americans have seen hundreds of commercials related to baby powder cases used by attorneys to grow their roster of plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

This practice of mass tort advertising and recruitment is standard fare in today’s legal system and has been mainly responsible for delivering some of the largest settlements to date. However, many groups have warned that unchecked advertising could be creating more problems than solutions for vulnerable Americans.

The American Medical Association and the American Association of Retired Persons have made clear that “fear-mongering” legal ads are making elders reluctant to seek additional care. “Nothing could be more invidious than the exploitation of the aged. These pressures that plague older persons place their health in jeopardy and further deplete their reduced incomes,” said AARP’s founder, Ethel Percy Andrus.

Legal firms defend the practice as an effective method of reaching potential victims who may not otherwise know that a case exists, for which there is a kernel of truth.

After many years of delay and legal maneuvering, observers of the Johnson & Johnson case should have learned a few lessons about balancing plaintiff recruitment efforts and restoring faith in an otherwise bloated court system.

The voting mechanism by plaintiffs has proven to be an effective method to achieve a comprehensive settlement that will aid victims. We can only hope that the presiding judge will allow this settlement vote to be realized and seen through to its end.

Originally published here

EU-China Trade War on EVs Shortsighted

The European Union recently decided to impose tariffs on imports of electric vehicles from China. The reason is that the Chinese government subsidizes the manufacture of electric cars, which puts European carmakers at a disadvantage.

The U.S. recently imposed a drastic increase in tariffs to 100% of the import value of the car, meaning that the tiny presence of Chinese electric cars on the U.S. market will remain so. Until now, Europe has applied customs duties of 10%, which will now be increased to between 17.4% and 37.6% depending on the brand.

SAIC is facing a substantial new tariff of 37.6%. As a state-owned enterprise, SAIC serves as the Chinese partner for both Volkswagen and General Motors. Additionally, it owns the MG brand, which produces the MG4, one of the top-selling electric vehicles in Europe.

In contrast, BYD, the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles in China, is subject to an extra duty of 17.4% on its shipments to the European Union. Geely, the parent company of Sweden’s Volvo, will encounter an additional tariff of 19.9%.

The proportion of electric vehicles sold by Chinese manufacturers in the European Union increased significantly, climbing from a mere 0.4% of the overall EV market in 2019 to nearly 8%.

Tariffs will most likely be imposed toward the end of the year, as the Chinese government is expected to make a decision on retaliatory tariffs. Beijing has attacked European agricultural products, such as French dairy products, which it believes are unfairly subsidized by the European Union.

Paradoxically, some European car manufacturers who produce parts for their vehicles in China will also be affected by EU tariffs.

Ultimately, this trade war is full of political inconsistencies. On the one hand, it is terribly strange that the EU should sanction the import of affordable electric vehicles into the European market, while simultaneously declaring that it needs to electrify the mobility sector, which is apparently an important immediate need.

But it is also true that China’s approach of transparently subsidizing its car industry violates every principle of free and fair trade and unfairly disadvantages European producers. It is a political version of having your cake and eating it, too.

China’s response on agricultural products is also correct. Even today, the European Union’s biggest expenditure is still on agricultural subsidies for producers who are not content to produce for the local market, but who enter foreign markets with competitively cheap products.

If China is the beginner when it comes to using subsidies, we are the experts.

The best approach to solving this conundrum would be for Europe to be more decisive. Either China remains a reliable trading partner, in which case the rules should be clearer —through treaties — or the EU should respond to unfair trading practices with real embargoes.

This is not to say that these drastic measures will ultimately be necessary, but it is an appeal to the EU to be more decisive. In the meantime, it must realize that a more effective way of stimulating European automotive construction and its competitive advantages is to create incentives through economic freedom.

Europe has a rich history of car manufacturing: We have high-quality designers, engineers and manufacturing experience — we should be able to create a regulatory and fiscal environment that encourages increased production, rather than trying to solve the problem with subsidies through a central committee.

At the end of the day, tariffs hurt consumers on both sides, to the benefit of the treasury.

If Chinese consumers end up paying more for dairy products, it’s a loss both for French dairy manufacturers and for the Chinese, who appreciate European products. If Europeans pay more for Chinese electric vehicles, it will toughen our energy transition, reduce choice and diminish the competition needed for the market to thrive.

Petty policies of token tariffs are bad for everyone. It’s true that China, because of the nature of its totalitarian regime, is a special case, but its growing consumer market is also an opportunity we don’t want to miss.

It’s time for policymakers to think about these longer-term issues.

Originally published here

Pendidikan Terjangkau dan Bekualitas serta Kebebasan Untuk Konsumen

Pendidikan merupakan salah satu aspek yang paling fundamental untuk menunjang dan mendukung kemajuan sebuah negara. Adanya masyarakat yang memiliki pendidikan yang baik merupakan modal manusia (human capital) yang sangat penting, karena melalui pendidikan, maka masyarakat akan memiliki tidak hanya keterampilan untuk bekerja, tetapi juga kemampuan untuk mengolah informasi dengan baik.

Tanpa adanya pendidikan yang baik, tentunya akan sangat sulit bagi masyarakat bisa berkembang dan beradaptasi dengan perkembangan teknologi. Untuk itu, kebijakan mengenai pendidikan umumnya merupakan salah satu kebijakan paling krusial yang sangat diperhatikan oleh negara.

Di Indonesia sendiri, isu pendidikan juga menjadi isu yang kerap menjadi perbincangan dan perhatian berbagai kalangan. Hal ini meliputi berbagai hal, mulai dari permasalahan biaya yang tinggi, gaji tenaga pendidik yang masih terlalu kecil, hingga permasalahan akses yang jauh dan sulit bagi para siswa untuk mencapai sekolah, khususnya siswa yang tinggal di daerah terpencil.

Isu mengenai ketimpangan akses misalnya, merupakan salah satu masalah yang menjadi fokus untuk diatasi Bagi banyak anak-anak Indonesia, khususnya yang dari kelas menengah ke bawah, pendidikan merupakan pintu bagi mereka untuk keluar dari kemiskinan dan menaiki tangga sosial. Bila mereka tidak mendapatkan akses terhadap pendidikan yang memadai, tentu akan sulit bagi mereka untuk memiliki masa depan yang lebih baik

Beberapa waktu lalu, untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut, Menteri Pendidikan Republik Indonesia (Mendikbud) mengeluarkan aturan baru untuk mengatur zonasi sekolah negeri di Indonesia (sindonews.com, 30/4/2024). Tidak mengherankan, adanya aturan ini menimbulkan pro dan kontra. Salah satu alasan keberatan sebagian pihak, khususnya dari anak dan orang tua adalah, anak-anak yang mendapatkan nilai tinggi namun tinggalnya tidak di wilayah yang terdapat sekolah favorit, maka terpaksa harus memilih sekolah lain yang berada di dekat rumahnya.

Besarnya masalah akses pendidikan di Indonesia tersebut tentu akan sulit bila kita hanya bergantung pada pemerintah saja. Untuk itu, tidak sedikit dari pihak-pihak penyelenggara pendidikan swasta yang berinisiatif untuk mendirikan mengembangkan sekolah swasta berkualitas tinggi dengan harga yang terjangkau untuk masyarakat.

Bahkan, tidak sedikit dari sekolah-sekolah tersebut yang tidak meminta bayaran sama sekali untuk siswa yang memang berasal dari keluarga menengah ke bawah. Berdasarkan penelitian tahun 2016 terkait dengan sekolah swasta terjangkau di Jakarta misalnya, ada 9 sekolah yang diteliti yang, antara hanya mengenakan biaya sekitar 30.000 — 130.000 rupiah, atau sekitar 2 — 10 USD per bulan hingga keringanan gratis untuk siswa dari keluarga menengah ke bawa, atau tidak mengenakan biaya sama sekali. (Center for Indonesian Policy Studies, 2016).

Hasil dari sekolah swasta tersebut terbukti memuaskan. Nilai matematika dari para siswa di sekolah swasta terjangkau tersebut misalnya, bisa melampaui nilai para siswa di sekolah negeri di Jakarta dengan rata-rata 23,84%. Sekolah-sekolah tersebut juga memiliki kelebihan dibandingkan dengan sekolah negeri, yakni mereka memiliki kebebasan untuk mengelola sumber daya finansial yang mereka miliki dengan cara yang efisien.

Selain itu, berbagai sekolah swasta terjangkau untuk anak-anak di daerah terpencil dan berasal dari keluarga kelas menengah ke bawah juga hadir di berbagai wilayah di Indonesia, seperti Aceh, Lampung, Jawa Tengah, Sulawesi Utara, dan juga Nusa Tenggara Timur. Anak-anak yang belajar dan dididik di sekolah-sekolah tersebut hasilnya juga bisa bersaing, bahkan lebih baik dari sekolah negeri.

Tidak hanya di pendidikan dasar misalnya, di pendidikan menengah, berbagai sekolah swasta berkualias juga tersebar di seluruh Indonesia. Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (SMK) Wisudha Karya di kota Kudus misalnya, merupakan sekolah SMK yang memiliki fokus pada bidang robotik dan teknologi. Sekolah ini juga telah mendulang berbagai prestasi dan telah bekerja sama dengan berbagai perusahaan besar seperti perusahaan otomotif Jepang, Mitsubishi (betanews.id, 25/4/2021).

Kerja sama antara sekolah swasta dengan pelaku industri, terlebih lagi industri besar misalnya, merupakan salah satu inovasi dari sekolah swasta yag harus diapresiasi, karena hal ini akan mempermudah para alumni untuk masuk ke dunia kerja. Dengan demikian, para siswa, khususnya dari kalangan menengah ke bawah bisa lebih mudah untuk mengalami mobilitas sosial ke atas, dan membantu keluarga mereka.

Ini lah salah satu kelebihan utama sekolah swasta dibandingkan dengan sekolah negeri. Karena tidak mendapatkan dana yang pasti pemerintah, hal ini mendorong dan memberi insentif kepada setiap sekolah swasta untuk melakukan berbagai inovasi dan memperbaiki kurikulum serta program dan fasilitas untuk menarik para orangtua mendaftarkan anak-anak mereka di sekolah tersebut.

Sebagai penutup, dibandingkan dengan “memaksa” para orangtua untuk mendaftarkan anak mereka di sekolah tertentu sesuai wilayah tempat mereka tinggal, sudah semestinya pemerintah memperluas kebebasan bagi para orangtua untuk memilih sekolah bagi anak mereka, termasuk juga tentunya sekolah swasta berkualitas.

Melalui sekolah swasta terjangkau, yang diuntungkan juga bukan hanya para orang tua dan anak-anak dari keluarga kelas menengah ke bawah karena mereka memiliki lebih banyak pilihan. Masyarakat secara umum juga akan diuntungkan karena dengan demikian kompetisi akan semakin sehat dan kuat antar lembaga pendidikan, yang tentunya akan meningkatkan inovasi mengenai cara dan metode terbaik untuk mendidik dan mencerdaskan anak-anak Indonesia.

Originally published here

Attenzione a come il Neo-Proibizionismo influenza le politiche mondiali sull’alcol

“Non esiste un livello di consumo di alcol senza effetti sulla salute”. Questa è la sentenza, o l’epitaffio se preferite, emanata nel gennaio del 2023 dall’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità, che, come ormai è noto, ha intrapreso una spietata crociata verso il consumo di alcol tout court. L’obiettivo è proteggere le generazioni presenti e future dagli effetti sanitari, sociali, ambientali ed economici del consumo di bevande alcoliche.

L’urgenza è quella di una grave questione di salute pubblica. Il tanto caro “Bevi responsabilmente” è stato sacrificato sull’altare dell’astinenza fondamentalista e sostituito da uno slogan decisamente più incisivo: “L’alcol nuoce gravemente alla salute e provoca il cancro”.

Nell’articolo “How Neo-Prohibitionists came to shape alcohol policy”, pubblicato a marzo su Wine Business Monthly, la reporter Felicity Carter ricostruisce l’iter che ha condotto a questo punto di non ritorno, svelando l’ambiguo profilo delle eminenze grigie che stanno collaborando con l’OMS per la stesura delle linee guida sul consumo di alcol: movimenti per la temperanza e l’astinenza. Un po’ come chiedere ad un gruppo di Amish di scrivere un decalogo sull’AI.

Read the full text here

Myths about vaping do more harm than good

Few topics in mental health create as much attention and misunderstanding as the rise of vaping. The mainstream media has painted a grim picture of these devices as a looming crisis, particularly for young folks, often referring to vaping products as “gateway devices”. While undoubtedly born of genuine concern, this narrative fails to acknowledge the reality of the role of vaping in tobacco harm reduction. This can unintentionally risk pushing smokers away from what can be a lifesaving alternative. When one directly examines the scientific literature on vaping, a completely different story emerges from the ones most public commentators speak of.

Several studies conducted by authoritative sources such as Public Health England suggest that e-cigarettes are about 95 per cent less harmful than ordinary cigarettes. The effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool is another area where public perception often trails behind scientific evidence. For instance, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that e-cigarettes were twice as effective at aiding smokers to quit compared to traditional nicotine replacement therapies. This finding, backed up by real-world data from countries like the United Kingdom, emphasizes the strong potential of vaping as a formidable weapon in the battle against smoking and smokingrelated diseases. As such, policy approaches that incorrectly treat vaping as equivalent to smoking or, worse, seek to ban it entirely do more harm than good.

Once celebrated as visionary, Bhutan’s attempted comprehensive tobacco ban ultimately led to a sharp growth in smoking rates and fostered a thriving black market, forcing a repeal of the policy. Similarly, South Africa’s temporary ban during the Covid-19 pandemic barely made a dent in smoking, with analyses after the fact showing that 93 per cent of South African smokers continued to practice the habit despite the ban. Moreover, rates returned to their prior values once the policy was repealed, leaving no hint of any lingering benefit. At the same time, the ban significantly increased prices of cigarettes by 240 per cent, a burden that fell disproportionately on lower-income individuals.

The unintended consequences of overly rigid policies are, thus, not mere speculation. Flavour bans, often proposed to supposedly reduce youth appeal, represent another well-intentioned but counterproductive policy. Evidence suggests that curiosity, not flavours, is the primary driver of experimentation. Furthermore, vaping flavours are key players in assisting smokers to move away from cigarettes. Hence, eliminating this option could push former smokers back to more harmful tobacco products. But by far the most pernicious myth surrounding vaping, one that has captured the minds of many policymakers (here in India included), is the “gateway effect,” which fears that young people who take up vaping will eventually end up smoking cigarettes instead.

In reality, multiple studies, like a comprehensive review of fifteen articles, fail to demonstrate any causal link between vaping and subsequent smoking initiation. Indeed, the evidence is in population numbers. Until 2016, India was the second largest tobacco consumer in the world, second only to China. However, since the advent of vaping, youth smoking rates have been at an all-time low, with a substantial 6 per cent decline in smoking rates among teens in India when vaping rates have been going up. Far from a gateway effect, these figures indicate that vapes are used as a safer alternative for cigarettes. As we navigate the intricate landscape of tobacco control in the 21st century, it’s imperative to embrace a comprehensive harm reduction approach, one that recognizes the potential of e-cigarettes as a less harmful alternative to smoking.

Such an approach calls for nuanced policies that balance youth protection with the needs of adult smokers seeking to quit. The stakes measured in lives saved and improved are simply too high to let misinformation guide our approach to what could be one of the most significant public health innovations of our time.

Originally published here

Die besten Bahnhöfe Europas stehen in der Schweiz

Zürich und Bern haben laut dem European Railway Station Index 2024 die besten Bahnhöfe Europas. Sie überzeugen mit geringen Verspätungen, guter ÖV-Anbindung und Barrierefreiheit. Nur das Gastroangebot hat noch Luft nach oben.

Die Schweiz dominiert den European Railway Station Index 2024. Laut den Konsumentenschützern des Consumer Choice Centers sind pünktliche Züge, vielfältige Ticketoptionen, eine breite Auswahl an Shops und Restaurants, barrierefreie Zugänge und eine gute Anbindung an andere Verkehrsmittel entscheidend für einen Top-Bahnhof.

Der Zürcher Hauptbahnhof thront an der Spitze des Rankings, dicht gefolgt vom Bahnhof Bern auf Platz 2. Beide Schweizer Bahnhöfe glänzen mit «minimalen Verspätungen» und «hervorragender Vernetzung» mit dem öffentlichen Verkehr. Auch bei Barrierefreiheit und Services wie Gratis-WLAN punkten sie, wie das Portal Travelnews berichtet. Einzig das Gastro- und Shop-Angebot hat laut dem Ranking noch Luft nach oben.

Read the full text here

Zwei Schweizer Bahnhöfe lassen den Rest von Europa alt aussehen

Der European Railway Station Index kürt jährlich die besten Bahnhöfe Europas – und sorgt hierzulande für Stolz. Die zwei vordersten Plätze gehen an Zürich und Bern.

Du stehst gerade in Zürich oder Bern am Bahnhof und ärgerst dich, dass dein Zug ein paar Minuten Verspätung hat? Denn meckerst du auf dem europaweit höchsten Niveau – denn der HB in Zürich und der Bahnhof in der Bundesstadt sicherten sich in der neuesten Ausgabe des European Railway Station Indexgerade die Gold- und Silbermedaille.

Pünktlich wie ein Schweizer Uhrwerk

Der Index kürt jährlich die besten Bahnhöfe Europas und bewertet dabei unter anderem das Shopping- und Gastronomieangebot, das Passagieraufkommen, die angebotenen Ticketoptionen und die Pünktlichkeit der Züge. Letzteres war dann auch eines der ausschlaggebenden Kriterien für den Sieg: Mit gerade mal 1,28 Minuten durchschnittlicher Verspätung holt sich Zürich wie schon 2023 die Goldmedaille. Nur 6,28 Prozent der Züge hatten mehr als fünf Minuten Verspätung. Auch die gute Anbindung an den ÖV, die Barrierefreiheit und das kostenlose WLAN gaben Punkte. Bern schafft es vom dritten Platz im letzten Jahr auf Platz zwei, weil nur 1,71 Prozent der Züge mehr als fünf Minuten verspätet waren. Auf dem dritten Platz landet Utrecht in den Niederlanden.

Read the full text here

These two Swiss train stations are better than any other in Europe

What makes a good train station? According to consumer advocates at the Consumer Choice Center, these are factors such as on-time trains, a variety of ticket options, a variety of shops and restaurants, barrier-free access for people with disabilities, and good connections to other local and national transportation.

Analysis based on 16 criteria European Railway Station Index 2024 createdwhich ranks the 50 busiest train stations in Europe. The index shows which European train stations stand out and which ones still have room for improvement. Fun: Two Swiss train stations are at the top of the ranking.

There are almost no delays and good connections to other public transport networks.

That Zurich HB As was the case last year, the country is the European leader. Compared to the previous year, it has increased by one rank. Bern train station. He is now in second place.

Both Swiss train stations are impressive for their short delays. They also score points for their good connections to the rest of the public transport network, accessibility and a range of services such as free WiFi. There are discounts for restaurants and shops. Other train stations there sometimes perform much better.

Right behind Bern, the Dutch railway station also made it onto the podium. Utrecht Central Station takes third place in the ranking. Three train stations from the French capital, Paris, follow in other places: the North Station(4.), that Lyon Airport and it Montparnasse Station (both 5.).

Read the full text here

Starmer is intent in creating more problems for himself

The government intends to introduce a ban on TV advertisements of junk food before 9 PM, a proposed tax on salt and foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS), and a strengthened version of the previously failed Tobacco and Vapes Bill that extends the prohibition of smoking to outdoor space.

This comes as a set of so called preventative measures to bolster public health.

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), argued that this is not the right approach to improve public health:

“Time and time again, we have seen failures of policymakers to understand what “preventative measures” actually mean. The reality is that taxing these goods will only hurt the worse off, who will continue to consume these products, at a distorted price or downgraded quality.”

Salem added that taxes on goods create a “deadweight loss”, which is a loss of welfare for everyone, including consumers, producers, and the government due to markets not reaching equilibrium.

Read the full text here

Reduce wait times by allowing patients to seek care of out of country

October 7, 2024
By Fred Roeder
In Healthcare, Public Health, Recent Media
0 comments

The European Union has set an example for how to reduce health-care waitlists. Canada should follow suit

It’s no secret that if you need elective surgery in Canada, you’d better be prepared to wait for a very long time.

Is the problem a shortage of doctors and nurses? Underfunding? Administrative inefficiency? Pretty much everything has been blamed at one point or another. Despite decades of attempts at reform, long wait times continue to be a problem across Canada.

No matter the cause, we know the result: long wait times, lost income, chronic pain and, in some cases, avoidable patient deaths.

Canada is not the only country to be plagued with such issues. Some European nations have had to deal with long wait times, as well. The difference is that they were able to resolve the problem. Part of their solution came from what’s called the “Cross-Border Directive.”

This policy allows European patients to seek treatment in any EU member country and get their medical expenses reimbursed at a level equivalent to what their national health insurance plan would have covered.

Like most policy innovations, this directive emerged out of necessity. In the early 2000s, many British citizens found themselves struggling with long medical waitlists. But through their membership in the European Union, some saw an opportunity to address the delays.

One of these people was Yvonne Watts, who suffered from arthritis in her hips. Unable to get care from Britain’s National Health Service in anything resembling a timely fashion, she requested that it pay for a hip replacement in another EU country. She was declined.

Deciding to take the matter into her own hands, Watts had the procedure done in France at her own expense, paying the equivalent of $10,673 in today’s Canadian dollars. Post-operation, she requested reimbursement from the U.K. government, but again was refused.

Watts never was reimbursed for the cost of her surgery, but she did pave the way for the EU directive on patients’ rights in cross-border health care.

Today, patients in a situation like Watts can decide to receive elective surgery in another country when domestic wait times are too long.

Thanks to the Cross-Border Directive, over 450,000 EU residents sought treatment in another EU country in 2022 alone.

This policy has brought about a significant reduction in wait times, but it has another noteworthy side effect: it helps reduce the overall cost of individual ailments, both to the patients who suffer from them and the states that pay the bills.

This is because the longer a health problem goes untreated, the more the treatment will cost, due to an increased risk of complications. The longer people wait, the more likely it is that their intervention will need to be more invasive (and thus riskier) and will also require more resources to perform.

But the effect on spending is not the only one that needs to be considered. Health issues can have an adverse effect on government revenue, as well.

While elective treatments are not considered urgent, the ailments they hope to treat can still have an effect on our lives. For example, some of the people on waiting lists are workers who are unable to do their jobs, or who are forced to reduce their workloads, due to the pain they’re experiencing. Some are even on worker’s compensation.

Even looking at it solely from a revenue standpoint, it should still be in the state’s best interest to get those workers the treatment they need so they can start paying taxes again. Letting them obtain the required medical attention out of province or out of the country — for the same price the system would pay domestically — should be a no-brainer.

Let’s not forget just how many Canadians can’t get the treatment they need within the recommended timelines.

In 2019, 30 per cent of patients needing a knee implant were unable to receive it within the recommended 26-week period. By 2023, that number had climbed to 41 per cent. Similarly, the proportion of patients needing hip replacements who couldn’t get them within the established time frames rose from 25 per cent to 34 per cent over the same period.

Public coverage of a Canadian cross-border directive would help bring these figures closer to zero and address our substantial surgical backlog. This would allow Canada to better cope with patient needs and improve efficiency across the board.

Originally published here

Tingginya Harga Beras di Indonesia

Beras merupakan bahan makanan pokok yang sangat penting bagi jutaan penduduk di Indonesia. Oleh karena itu, politik kebijakan terkait dengan beras kerap menjadi isu yang sangat sensitif, karena kebijakan tersebut akan membawa dampak yang sangat besar bagi keseharian jutaan orang di Indonesia.

Terkait dengan kebijakan beras, salah satu aspek yang paling menjadi perhatian adalah ketersediaan beras yang bisa diakses oleh masyarakat. Sebagai salah satu negara penghasil beras terbesar di dunia, tidak mengherankan kalau banyak orang yang berharap adanya pasokan beras yang cukup sehingga mudah diakses oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat.

Untuk tujuan tersebut, pemerintah memberlakukan serangkaian kebijakan, salah satunya adalah yang dikenal dengan kebijakan swasembada. Swasembada ini menitikberatkan pada kemampuan negara untuk bisa memenuhi kebutuhan pangan secara mandiri (self-sufficient), misalnya melalui pembatasan atau pelarangan impor. Tetapi, kebijakan yang diambil ini bukan tanpa konsekuensi, salah satunya adalah terkait dengan harga yang harus dibayarkan oleh masyarakat.

Bila dibandingkan negara-negara tetangga misalnya, yang juga menjadikan beras sebagai bahan pangan pokok mereka, harga beras di Indonesia termasuk salah satu yang tertinggi. Berdasarkan data bulan Februari lalu misalnya, harga beras di Indonesia berkisar Rp.18.000-18.500 per kilogram. Harga ini jauh di atas negara tetangga, seperti di Malaysia, yang bila dikonversi dengan rupiah, harga beras di negara tersebut sekitar Rp.6.240-9.984 per kilogram, sementara di Singapura sekitar Rp12.324 per kilogram (cnnindonesia.com, 20/2/2024).

Sementara itu, di negara tetangga lainnya, seperti Vietnam dan Thailand misalnya, yang juga merupakan negara penghasil beras di Kawasan Asia Tenggara, harga beras di kedua negara tersebut juga jauh di bawah Indonesia. DI Thailand misalnya, harga beras yang dijual sebesar 9.417 per kilogram, dan juga 9.091 kilogram di Vietnam (conversation.com, 27/5/2024).

Hal ini semakin memprihatinkan mengingat bahwa beberapa negara tetangga kita di atas memiliki tingkat penghasilan yang lebih tinggi daripada Indonesia. Malaysia misalnya, memiliki tingkat pendapatan per kapita 3 kali lipat lebih tinggi bila dibandingakan dengan Indonesia (statista.com, 4/7/2024). Selain itu, kalau Singapura tidak perlu dibahas lagi. Negara kota tersebut merupakan salah satu negara dengan tingkat pendapatan 17 kali lipat lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan negara kita (statista.com, 4/7/2024).

Harga beras yang lebih murah, dan juga penghasilan yang lebih tinggi, membuat para penduduk di negara-negara tetangga kita di atas memiliki pendapatan yang siap dibelanjakan (disposable income) yang lebih tinggi, Dengan demikian, mereka memiliki uang yang lebih untuk untuk digunakan atau ditabung. Tingginya harga beras di Indonesia dibanding dengan negara-negara lain tentunya berpotensi membuat masyarakat Indonesia memiliki disposable income yang lebih kecil dibandingkan dengan penduduk di negara-negara lain di ASEAN.

Terkait dengan hal ini, para pembuat kebijakan di Indonesia sepertinya juga menyadari adanya fakta tersebut, dan memberi justifikasi bahwa penting agar bisa menyenangkan semua pihak, salah satunya adalah melalui kontrol harga. Padahal, adanya kebijakan dari pemerintah untuk mengontrol harga merupakan hal yang tidak tepat karena bisa merusak mekanisme permintaan dan penawaran, dan juga sangat sulit bagi pemerintah untuk bisa memiliki seluruh informasi yang cukup agar bisa menentukan harga komoditas tertentu dengan tepat.

Terkait dengan menjaga kepentingan produsen misalnya, hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang penting, tetapi bukan berarti hal tersebut harus mengorbankan hak dari konsumen untuk mendapatkan bahan pokok pangan yang sangat penting seperti beras dengan harga yang murah. Thailand misalnya, juga merupakan salah satu negara negara produsen nasi terbesar di Asia Tenggara. Tetapi di negara tersebut, harga beras bisa lebih murah karena proses pengolahan beras di Thailand bisa lebih efisien dengan bantuan teknologi (finance.detik.com, 9/7/2019).

Tidak hanya mampu menyediakan beras dengan harga yang lebih terjangkau, penggunaan teknologi yang inovatif juga membuat kualitas beras menjadi lebih baik, seperti tidak cepat busuk, dan lain sebagainya. Hal ini diakui sendiri oleh Direktur Utama Bulog, yang memiliki peran untuk mengelola ketersediaan bahan pangan esensial di Indonesia, seperti beras, gula, terigu, dan lain sebagainya (merdeka.com, 17/1/2022).

Selain itu, sebagaimana yang sudah dibahas sebelumnya, kebijakan pembatasan impor juga berkontribusi terhadap permasalahan tersebut. Hal ini dikarenakan kebijakan pangan yang berdaulat merupakan salah satu platform kebijakan yang sangat popular di Indonesia, dan didukung oleh tidak hanya sedikit pihak.

Tetapi tentunya hal ini merupakan pandangan yang sangat keliru. Ekonom Universitas Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) misalnya, Manuntun Hutagol, menyatakan bahwa yang menjadi masalah bagi para petani di Indonesia adalah para petani diharuskan menjual gabahnya langsung ketika dipanen (republika.id, 1/2/2024).

Hal ini dikarenakan para petani di Indonesia banyak yang petani kecil dan tidak memiliki akses terhadap kredit bank, sehingga harus meminjam uang kepada rentenir. Agar bisa melunasi hitang tersebut, mereka akhirnya diharuskan untuk menjual hasil panennya dengan cepat. Apabila pemerintah melalui Bulog tidak memiliki cukup gudang untuk membeli hasil panen tersebut, maka hasil panen petani tersebut akan dijual kepada para agen dan operator penggilingan padi dengan harga murah.

Dengan dilarangnya impor beras, maka yang menguasai pasar beras di Indonesia adalah para pedagang dan agen serta para operator penggilingan padi dalam negeri. Mereka bisa mengendalikan harga beras di pasar, dan juga mendapat untung besar dengan cara membeli beras dengan harga rendah dari petani dan menjualnya dengan harga yang tinggi kepada konsumen (republika.id, 1/2/2024).

Oleh karena itu, kebijakan penutupan impor beras merupakan kebijakan yang keliru dan tidak tepat, dan justru membawa masalah seperti tingginya harga beras di Indonesia bagi para konsumen. Persaingan pasar yang bebas merupakan cara yang efektif agar pra produsen mengutamakan efisiensi dalam kegiatan produksinya.

Sebagai penutup, beras merupakan bahan pangan yang sangat esensial bagi masyarakat Indonesia. Dengan demikian, adanya kebijakan pangan dan pertanian beras yang tepat adalah hal yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan oleh para pembuat kebijakan, dan harus memfokuskan pada puluhan juta rakyat yang menjadi konsumen dan mengonsumsi nasi setiap hari untuk memenuhi kebutuhan nutrisi mereka. Jangan sampai kebijakan yang dikeluarkan justru merugikan masyarakat hanya untuk menguntungkan segelintir pihak.

Originally published here

Day: October 7, 2024

Majority of new Canadians feel they are being unfairly blamed for housing crisis: OMNI poll

Johnson & Johnson’s ‘Texas Two Step’ Needs a Conclusion

EU-China Trade War on EVs Shortsighted

Pendidikan Terjangkau dan Bekualitas serta Kebebasan Untuk Konsumen

Attenzione a come il Neo-Proibizionismo influenza le politiche mondiali sull’alcol

Myths about vaping do more harm than good

Die besten Bahnhöfe Europas stehen in der Schweiz

Zürich und Bern haben laut dem European Railway Station Index 2024 die besten Bahnhöfe Europas. Sie überzeugen mit geringen Verspätungen, guter ÖV-Anbindung und Barrierefreiheit. Nur das Gastroangebot hat noch Luft nach oben.

Zwei Schweizer Bahnhöfe lassen den Rest von Europa alt aussehen

Der European Railway Station Index kürt jährlich die besten Bahnhöfe Europas – und sorgt hierzulande für Stolz. Die zwei vordersten Plätze gehen an Zürich und Bern.

Pünktlich wie ein Schweizer Uhrwerk

These two Swiss train stations are better than any other in Europe

There are almost no delays and good connections to other public transport networks.

Starmer is intent in creating more problems for himself

Reduce wait times by allowing patients to seek care of out of country

The European Union has set an example for how to reduce health-care waitlists. Canada should follow suit

Tingginya Harga Beras di Indonesia

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA