I have been tweeting less this year, compared to say in December 2010 and November 2010. Anyway, here are my tweets in the first quarter of this eyar.
January 2011
@jimparedes To have sudden amnesia if you received P50M or not means he's just a bastard theft and he won't even apologize for it.
Arrived at Sing. Changi airport 3pm last Mon, back in Changi 8;45am Wed, probably the quickest among my foreign trips :-)
Heavy rains and flooding last night produced super-heavy traffic. Another day of dark and cloudy sky. Thanks it's a weekend.
Curiosity is the lust of the mind - Thomas Hobbes. He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe - Marcus Aurelius
@WAPolicyGreen Rabid environmentalism means expensive energy cost, which discourages business and job creation, and hurts the poor.
@maltiq Key is pay your bills on time. Let the card firms charge 5% a mo. or more and collect nothing as people pay on time.
@Karen_DaviLa PCGG is old, shd have self-destructed. Since it did not, it shd be abolished. Let existing anti-corruption agencies do d work
The first people totalitarians destroy or silence are men of ideas and free minds -- Isaiah Berlin (h/t Larry Reed)
RT, philo_quotes
Not what we have But what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance. ~ Epicurus http://bit.ly/philq
Two new papers on climate, "UAH-RSS temp trend line 2002-10"http://bit.ly/gLli2D, and "Climate dementia and flooding",http://bit.ly/dNjXgO
Two new papers, "Supply curve of a monopolist part 3",http://bit.ly/hpuW6V and on "anti-smoke belching",http://bit.ly/gmeMR8
Some eco-lunatics want to stop genetic modification in food. Rice, chicken, pork, corn, tilapia, bangus, they eat & enjoy are already GM.
N.East monsoon prevailing over N. & C. Luzon. Diffused tail-end of a cold front affecting Southern Luzon and Visayas - daily PAGASA advisory
Went to fairview this morning to watch team time trial race in neopolitan cycling club. Rains aborted my visit to d club. Maybe no race too?
After several not-so-cloudy days, rainshowers were back in M.Manila today. Cold front is back in Luzon after hitting Visayas & Mindanao.
CO2 is useful gas, we exhale it, animals exhale it. Our crops & trees need it. Thats real science. CO2 is pollutant. Thats voodoo science
neo-liberal, neo-conservative, neo-socialist, neo-capitalist, neo-marxist, neo-classical, neo-communist, neo-n lyts.. neo labels are idiotic
Sunspot number still at 1/4 of projected level. Solar ap index back at only 3. http://bit.ly/fXNFEo Prepare for long global cooling.
The Phils has no external security threat. China will get richer if it will send thousands of containers of cheap goods than sending tanks.
Unlike last month, cloudy sky this week is only half-day or up to abt 2pm, then sunny. Last month, cloudy whole day almost everyday.
February 2011
2 quotes fr Seneca: One crime has to be concealed by another.... The mind that is anxious about the future is miserable. H/t philoquotes
No man is free who is not master of himself - Epictetus. The approach of liberty makes even an old man brave - Seneca. H/t philoquotes
Lady gaga is on fire, she can cause fire. She's hot, she wants it hot, and "poker face" can cause global warming, http://bit.ly/eGRROa :-)
Post-valentine quote fr a friend: Ayoko nang magmahal. Mahal ang pagkain, gasolina, kuryente, pasahe, etc. Iibig na lang ako :-)
My papers on "drug price control" in top 10 in google, bing & yahoohttp://bit.ly/fVzXQt, papers on "IPR & health" too,http://bit.ly/eUGpGM
Everything government touches turns to crap - Ringo Starr. Human progress is furthered, not by conformity, but by aberration - H.L. Mencken.
Egyptian Pres. to change his name, from Hosni Mubarak to Mubarak Mubama :-)
@TgGuingona Suicide cannot really be considered as "untimely death" as it is a premeditated and planned action.
@ryan_chua We respect the dead, but the rule of law must prevail even after their death, http://bit.ly/gUgicE
My 2 papers today on mil corruption & the general's suicide: part 1http://bit.ly/emXA3x and part 2 http://bit.ly/gUgicE
Laws = prohibitions. More prohibitions, for ord. mortals but officials of the state & their friends are exempted. Corruptionn is born.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws - Tacitus. When laws multiply, morality declines - Confucious.
2 new papers on mil. corruption "Privatization of peace & order"http://bit.ly/eCFrII and "Corruption in d mil. part 2" http://bit.ly/eqVbzz
2 new papers on health, "Fat and capital accumulation"http://bit.ly/gyUGUQ and "Population and development"http://bit.ly/gM9h3r
2 cartoons on Al Gore and "warming causes cooling",http://bit.ly/dUSDxF and http://bit.ly/hVYUIX
@gpph For warming fanatics, more raiins, more flood, is also due to man-made warming. So more envl regulations, more taxation, more rackets
2 of our wedding godmothers died of cancer. Ninang Telly buried this afternn. Life can be short, diseases can be merciless. We just move on.
Of the 31 days last month, only abt 5-7 were sunny. The rest cloudy, with occasional rains in afternn or evening, M.Manila & nearby provnces
If kids will help their ageing parents someday, it's proof that the latter were successful in raising responsible kids, not spoiled brats
Parents shd not expect too much that their kids will help them when they grow old. Raising kids is pursuing personal happiness by itself.
@comm_larrazabal They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.—B.Franklin
March 2011
RT, philo_quotes
Life's like a play: it's not the length, but the excellence of the acting that matters. ~ Seneca
RT, philo_quotes
There are more things to alarm us than to harm us, and we suffer more often in apprehension than reality. ~ Seneca http://bit.ly/philq
@Karen_DaviLa Intention is prelude to action. Coercion is prelude to violence.
@Karen_DaviLa Don't impose too many restrictions n prohibitions, nor give too many subsidies and bail-out measures if they do stupid things
The Philippines, other countries came from under the sea because of earthquakes and volcanoes. Thank you EQs and volcanoes.
My 1st book, about public health policy - Health Choices and Responsibilities, http://bit.ly/g0EKOb
RT, philo_quotes
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income. ~ Plato http://bit.ly/philq
The superior man is modest in his speech but exceeds in his action - Aristotle. He who i's not a good servant won't be a good master - Plato
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
Governance and Public Debt in Asia
There are many indicators and definitions of what constitutes good or bad governance in a particular country; for example, the global corruption perception index and rankings alluding to the ease of doing business with and within that country. For this NAR project and contribution, this brief paper will provide another definition without necessarily saying that all other indicators like those mentioned above are not useful or important. This par1ticular definition offered by this paper is:
Good Governance = Less Public Debt
Conversely, it can be defined that Bad Governance = More Public Debt. So, why did this paper choose this particular, narrower (but not necessarily shallower) definition of governance? For the simple reason that being in perennial debt means that a person, a corporation, or a government is continually living beyond its means, i.e. they spend more than their income, and do so on a regular basis. For governments, that means doling out increased amounts of welfare, subsidies and entitlements even if domestic revenues are not enough.
The annual difference of this “living beyond its means” phenomenon for governments is called a budget deficit, meaning revenues are lower than expenditures. The deficit is financed by borrowings, foreign and domestic. The accumulation of such government borrowings constitute public debt.
Incurring debt is understandable in cases of emergencies. Say a family member is terribly sick and requires expensive treatment, or in cases of important investments, private or public, which are supposed to enable the debtor to become more productive over the long term and not only be able to pay back the debt but have surplus resources later.
Let us review first the data for Europe and North America. Then compare the numbers with those in Asia-Pacific.
Having sustained high public debt that persists and increases over the decades, is nothing but fiscal irresponsibility of the governments of those countries spanning various administrations and leadership.
Take note also that the trend from 2009 to 2011 espouses a rising public debt, except in Switzerland and Sweden. This culture of indebtedness, along with policies leading to excessive spending and borrowing, has acquired its own momentum. This constitutes bad governance as current resources are being siphoned off to pay for the excesses and wastes of the past.
The implication of succumbing to high public debt relative to GDP size is that interest expense rises as a result. Money that could be used for various social services is diverted to paying off the debt. However, this may not be a big problem for Singapore and Japan since interest rates there are very low; besides, many banks and lenders are government-owned and controlled banks and other financial institutions. This ensures that the bulk of government interest expense also goes back to the government one way or another.
We now turn to Asia-Pacific countries; East Asia and South Asia in particular. Singapore and Hong Kong, which both have small populations but are considered the tiger economies of the continent, are highlighted. It is interesting to make a comparison between these two economies because while both compete almost neck to neck in various international studies and surveys on economic freedom or economic competitiveness index every year, their level of public debt is extremely disparate.
Take note of Singapore’s public debt last year – 97.2 percent of GDP versus Hong Kong’s minuscule 4.8 percent of GDP. And while the trend in Singapore is towards a declining rate in the coming years, still the ratio is high, projected at 88 percent of GDP by 2013.
Singapore seems to be following the Japanese “model” of high public debt and more welfare, although most of its debt was borrowed locally (ie, domestic debt). Hong Kong and China adhere to similar models of low public debt and fast economic growth.
Paying off high public debt with more current and future taxation is bad governance. It is squeezing more money and resources from the pockets and savings of the more industrious and more efficient individuals and private enterprises in the economy, in order to sustain the profligate ways of the government bureaucracies and the political class, as well as the bottomless demand for welfare by some government-dependent sectors of the economy.
Governments most definitely have plenty of assets and properties; for example, several dozens, if not hundreds (or thousands), of government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) including banks.
They also tend to own vast tracts of land including huge military camps, in both urban and rural areas. Privatization of such GOCCs, GFIs, public lands and portions of military camps can significantly reduce and ultimately retire the burdensome public debt. It can also spare taxpayers of more forcible transfer of money from their pockets to the government coffers.
Unfortunately, privatisation seems to be a far-out solution in the minds of most public administrators in many countries. That constitutes another round of bad governance and fiscal irresponsibility.
It is important that advocates of individual liberty and free market should stand their ground and fight endless efforts by the political class to continue expanding governments, the latter of which results in ever-rising public debt and in turn will then require more taxes and forcible contributions today and tomorrow.
—
This article is part of the New Asia Republic Editorial Series “Global Perspectives on Good Governance” under Special Projects. The series features the views of people who hold political office, those working in NGOs, military brass, academics and the man on the street from all over the world to shed light on what constitutes good governance and interpretations of the idea based on the unique socio-political and historical culture of any given country/state.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Drug price control 9: More comments on single pricing per drug
After posting Part 6, Exploring just one price for each drug last week, I received several feedback and comments from some friends. Here they are.
I thanked the first 3 commenters above. I did not reply back to them anymore. Here are my rejoinders to #4 and #5 last week, below:
On #4, Food are also necessities. For me, plenty of (especially nutritious) food are the best "medicines" because they are preventive, not just curative. People accept different pricing of the same food (rice, vegetable salad, spaghetti, adobo, etc.) from different food outlets, they do not demand "same price for each food." Since there are different input costs in the selling and dispensation of drugs by different outlets (from hospitals to modern drugstores to ordinary, non-air con village drugstores), then there will be different output pricing for each drug outlet.
If prices are to be kept at a single, uniform price -- a de factor drug price control for each drug preparation (brand at a particular dosage) and not just for each drug molecule (ie, the generic name) -- then some drugstores will stop providing better services for the consumers. Like remove the air con or keep it at low cool even at noontime, reduce lighting, hire low-paid and less-trained pharmacists who work long hours with no overtime pay, etc. just to keep the costs as low as possible. Cutting the air con will later adversely affect the quality of certain drugs that require a certain low temperature range.
On #5, Floro identified possible causes of high medicine prices -- unnecessary spending on marketing and the so many layers of sales and marketing people and advertising models and copywriters.
I think that all products and services, especially for technical products like a new car (new engine power, new safety measures, etc.), a new airplane and chopper, a new laptop, a new camera, a new cellphone, a new drug, etc., would somehow need some marketing and advertising. How would ordinary mortals like you and me be first, made aware of their existence, and second, be aware of their properties, functions, user-friendliness, price, etc., compared to competing products?
Companies and entrepreneurs should be left alone on what mixture of production cost, marketing and advertising cost, they will employ. Let some companies over-spend on advertising and lose money later due to the high price of their products compared to products by other competitors. Governments have no role in regulating how much price those companies can charge, or in regulating the kind of advertising and advertising cost they can employ. The role of government is to promulgate the rule of law. Someone got bad allergies or died after taking a particular food, drink or medicine. Government comes in to investigate and try the case/s quick, then punish hard the perpetrators of such crime once proven guilty. The quickness of the justice system and the certainty of punishment if proven guilty -- no exemption from the law, no one can grant exemption from punishment -- is the best regulation that government can do.
On the "how much, how long" is the profit for new inventions. How long is fixed, 20 years patent life for a newly-discovered drug molecule, 50 years copyright after the death (I think) of the song composers and inventors. In the case of drugs, the various clinical trials and compliance with government food and drug administrations (FDAs) regulations take up about 10 to 13 years of the patent life, according to industry figures that I've read. So the "profit period" is only 7 to 10 years out of the total 20 years patent life.
As to "how much" profit, again, let us leave that to the companies themselves. If we care "how much profit" those companies can make, do we also care "how much losses" they can make too? Capitalism and entrepreneurship is about profit and losses, expansion and bankruptcy. Some if not many of the "biggest" companies in the country and the world just 20-30 years ago are perhaps just medium size companies by now. A few may have been gone already. Like Lehman Brothers in the US, like Pantranco, BLTB and Grand Air in the Philippines.
-------
See also Part 7, Pricing by drug inventors
1. I agree with you. There is a fundamental problem with some NGOs, they do not do critical analysis, or is it the government who also does not do this. -- Dr. G.
2. Thanks for sharing your paper. It's a bit disconcerting that despite the wealth of knowledge out there about medicines and data that supports the folly of price control, there are still random ideas that linger and sadly will never address the issues of access. -- Ms. V.
3. Thank you so much for sharing your latest paper on single pricing for drugs. Having hospital pharmacy as my background I am very much aware why medicines are priced higher as pointed out by Dr. A. Bengzon. I also fully agree with the points you and Dr. Jimenez raised.
Big chain drugstores enjoy bigger dicsounts and get more incentives because they buy in bulk. Likewise government hospitals get their drugs and supplies at very low costs that private hospitals are not entitled to. Operating costs for private hospitals are higher. And to stay in competition upgrading of equipments and offering of better services and programs are needed to stay alive. Having said these how then can I support single drug pricing. I hope a more comprehensive study be done on this issue. -- Ms. L.
4. It is not fair, not correct, to compare pricing of Coke and drugs. Coke or other commodities can have different prices because they are not necessities, thus consumers can easily choose the cheaper shop or outlet. Drugs are different, they involve public health, they should be treated differently and their pricing should have the narrowest range as much as possible. -- Randy
5. I partly agree with all this need for profit for those who really do the hard stuff of researching and inventing and producing drugs. But what makes it expensive is the unnecessary spending on marketing and the so many layers of sales and marketing people and advertising models and copyrights that make the whole system too expensive and has veered away from the original objective of the inventor - to help cure diseases and to profit from it as well. In the end the shareholders' interest become supreme and that is where all these evils go in. In return the Pharma Execs and the investment companies Execs earn far too much than the poor inventor who may have some altruistic motives in addition to his quest to earn a living. More often than not he does not even get to own the patent or share from the royalties of his discoveries. It is the avaricious Investment and Pharma Companies Execs who gets to holds the hen that lays the golden eggs!
Inventors do have a right to profit from their operating costs and research costs and production cost. Investors do have a right to profit from their investments - but for how much and for how long? -- Floro.
I thanked the first 3 commenters above. I did not reply back to them anymore. Here are my rejoinders to #4 and #5 last week, below:
On #4, Food are also necessities. For me, plenty of (especially nutritious) food are the best "medicines" because they are preventive, not just curative. People accept different pricing of the same food (rice, vegetable salad, spaghetti, adobo, etc.) from different food outlets, they do not demand "same price for each food." Since there are different input costs in the selling and dispensation of drugs by different outlets (from hospitals to modern drugstores to ordinary, non-air con village drugstores), then there will be different output pricing for each drug outlet.
If prices are to be kept at a single, uniform price -- a de factor drug price control for each drug preparation (brand at a particular dosage) and not just for each drug molecule (ie, the generic name) -- then some drugstores will stop providing better services for the consumers. Like remove the air con or keep it at low cool even at noontime, reduce lighting, hire low-paid and less-trained pharmacists who work long hours with no overtime pay, etc. just to keep the costs as low as possible. Cutting the air con will later adversely affect the quality of certain drugs that require a certain low temperature range.
On #5, Floro identified possible causes of high medicine prices -- unnecessary spending on marketing and the so many layers of sales and marketing people and advertising models and copywriters.
I think that all products and services, especially for technical products like a new car (new engine power, new safety measures, etc.), a new airplane and chopper, a new laptop, a new camera, a new cellphone, a new drug, etc., would somehow need some marketing and advertising. How would ordinary mortals like you and me be first, made aware of their existence, and second, be aware of their properties, functions, user-friendliness, price, etc., compared to competing products?
Companies and entrepreneurs should be left alone on what mixture of production cost, marketing and advertising cost, they will employ. Let some companies over-spend on advertising and lose money later due to the high price of their products compared to products by other competitors. Governments have no role in regulating how much price those companies can charge, or in regulating the kind of advertising and advertising cost they can employ. The role of government is to promulgate the rule of law. Someone got bad allergies or died after taking a particular food, drink or medicine. Government comes in to investigate and try the case/s quick, then punish hard the perpetrators of such crime once proven guilty. The quickness of the justice system and the certainty of punishment if proven guilty -- no exemption from the law, no one can grant exemption from punishment -- is the best regulation that government can do.
On the "how much, how long" is the profit for new inventions. How long is fixed, 20 years patent life for a newly-discovered drug molecule, 50 years copyright after the death (I think) of the song composers and inventors. In the case of drugs, the various clinical trials and compliance with government food and drug administrations (FDAs) regulations take up about 10 to 13 years of the patent life, according to industry figures that I've read. So the "profit period" is only 7 to 10 years out of the total 20 years patent life.
As to "how much" profit, again, let us leave that to the companies themselves. If we care "how much profit" those companies can make, do we also care "how much losses" they can make too? Capitalism and entrepreneurship is about profit and losses, expansion and bankruptcy. Some if not many of the "biggest" companies in the country and the world just 20-30 years ago are perhaps just medium size companies by now. A few may have been gone already. Like Lehman Brothers in the US, like Pantranco, BLTB and Grand Air in the Philippines.
-------
See also Part 7, Pricing by drug inventors
Climate stupidity 11: AGW vs. Law of Thermodynamics
Below is a short guest post from a Filipino friend, Al Protacio. Al is geologist, also graduated from UP. He is now working in an energy company in UK.
-----
AGW vs the Law of Thermodynamics
Al Protacio
AGW politics news:
GOP presidential hopefuls shift on global warming
As I said before, the solution to the AGW scam is no longer in science. The solution is now political. Don't vote for the politicians who support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) stupidity.
However, convincing people that believing in AGW is utter stupidity is another thing. The attached figure should convince people who at the very least understand the most basic principles of thermodynamics (e.g. engineers, scientists, etc.):
This figure is from Earth's Global Energy Budget (Trenberth et al., 2009).
Trenberth is one of the chief proponents of AGW (in the religion of AGW, he is one of the gods). As the figure shows, the Earth is radiating more energy (B) than it's receiving from the Sun (A) [the only source of energy].
This clearly violates the First Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." They try to explain Earth's higher energy from the back radiation coming from the greenhouse gases. This bogus explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Heat can spontaneously be conducted or radiated from a higher-temperature region to a lower-temperature region, but not the other way around." This bogus explanation is also how the AGW proponents prove the Sun's negligible role in global warming.
Links to more detailed discussions on this:
http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com/
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf
I kept this post specific to Thermodynamics because this attacks the very foundation of the AGW fantasy. This alone destroys all imaginary scientific support to the delusional fantasy called AGW.
I've researched more on the purported science behind AGW. Many of the high level discussions tend to blind the common person with highfaluting physics and math. This "shock and awe" strategy usually works because the uninitiated would tend to believe based on faith things that go way above their heads. This strategy also imbues a false sense of credibility even though the very basic principles in physics are violated. There are lots of websites which explain in simple terms how AGW violates physics. They peel away on the AGW science mystique that the fanatical proponents so vigorously invoke.
It is very difficult to educate people who refuse to understand. In local parlance (sa Tagalog), "Mahirap gisingin ang gising." These are the AGW proponents.
-----
See also Climate stupidity 10: The Sun and GCRs don't affect climate?
-----
AGW vs the Law of Thermodynamics
Al Protacio
AGW politics news:
GOP presidential hopefuls shift on global warming
As I said before, the solution to the AGW scam is no longer in science. The solution is now political. Don't vote for the politicians who support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) stupidity.
However, convincing people that believing in AGW is utter stupidity is another thing. The attached figure should convince people who at the very least understand the most basic principles of thermodynamics (e.g. engineers, scientists, etc.):
This figure is from Earth's Global Energy Budget (Trenberth et al., 2009).
This clearly violates the First Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." They try to explain Earth's higher energy from the back radiation coming from the greenhouse gases. This bogus explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Heat can spontaneously be conducted or radiated from a higher-temperature region to a lower-temperature region, but not the other way around." This bogus explanation is also how the AGW proponents prove the Sun's negligible role in global warming.
Links to more detailed discussions on this:
http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com/
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf
I kept this post specific to Thermodynamics because this attacks the very foundation of the AGW fantasy. This alone destroys all imaginary scientific support to the delusional fantasy called AGW.
I've researched more on the purported science behind AGW. Many of the high level discussions tend to blind the common person with highfaluting physics and math. This "shock and awe" strategy usually works because the uninitiated would tend to believe based on faith things that go way above their heads. This strategy also imbues a false sense of credibility even though the very basic principles in physics are violated. There are lots of websites which explain in simple terms how AGW violates physics. They peel away on the AGW science mystique that the fanatical proponents so vigorously invoke.
It is very difficult to educate people who refuse to understand. In local parlance (sa Tagalog), "Mahirap gisingin ang gising." These are the AGW proponents.
-----
See also Climate stupidity 10: The Sun and GCRs don't affect climate?
Energy rationing 5: Boo Chanco on the RE racket
I seldom read newspapers, much less their columnists. I read more a few blogs that I follow everyday, especially science blogs pertaining to climate science, then the facebook updates of my friends, including the news articles that they recommend. Then I read some of those articles or opinions.
The renewable energy (RE) racket "to save the planet" is still on-going. Mind you, they plan to steal from us around P9 billion (roughly US$ 207 million at current P43.3/$ exchange rate) every year for the next 20 years. It's not a new tax that will go to the government. Rather, it's an add-on cost that we energy consumers in the Philippines will have to pay extra to the already high electricity prices, to subsidize those expensive solar and wind farms.
Luckily, there are a few local newspaper columnists who have written about the RE racket. Like FEF Fellows Romy Bernardo of BusinessWorld, and Boo Chanco of the Philippine Star.
Last May 27, 2011, Boo Chanco wrote in the Philippine Star:
Today, Boo wrote again on the RE racket.
-----
See also, Energy rationing 2: The Renewable Energy (RE) law
The renewable energy (RE) racket "to save the planet" is still on-going. Mind you, they plan to steal from us around P9 billion (roughly US$ 207 million at current P43.3/$ exchange rate) every year for the next 20 years. It's not a new tax that will go to the government. Rather, it's an add-on cost that we energy consumers in the Philippines will have to pay extra to the already high electricity prices, to subsidize those expensive solar and wind farms.
Luckily, there are a few local newspaper columnists who have written about the RE racket. Like FEF Fellows Romy Bernardo of BusinessWorld, and Boo Chanco of the Philippine Star.
Last May 27, 2011, Boo Chanco wrote in the Philippine Star:
Renewable energy
Here is something to think about for us electricity consumers, already burdened by one of the highest electricity rates in the world. We are being asked to subsidize the cost of electricity produced by solar, wind and other so-called renewables through the mechanism of the so-called feed in tariff or FIT.
Unless we speak up, we will be forced to shell out some P9 billion every year for FIT for 20 long years… even after technology has made those renewables economically competitive. Of that amount, 50 percent goes to solar and wind, even if they will only account for 20 percent of the RE generated power under the FIT program.
There are those who say we have such a small carbon footprint and because we use significant amounts of geothermal and hydro, our electricity generation mix is already at least 32 percent renewable compared to the US which is under 10 percent. That means the Philippines is already contributing three times as much RE as the US on a country basis.
So why subsidize these fashionable RE technologies now? Why can’t we just wait for the more technologically advanced and financially capable developed countries to shepherd these technologies along until no subsidy will be required? Ironically, these developed countries are cutting back on their RE subsidies lately, notably in Europe.
I understand that even the National Grid will have to shell out substantial capex. It has to cope with all these small power sources going on and off the grid all the time without destabilizing the system. Guess who pays for the National Grid investments?
Hopefully our policy makers will put our interests, the already heavily burdened Filipino electricity consumers, ahead of the salesmen trying to make a fast buck by selling these technologies to us at this time. The ERC should carefully crunch the numbers and carefully explain everything before forcing us to pay up for something we don’t really need now....
Today, Boo wrote again on the RE racket.
Solar + Wind = Hot Air
... Indeed, solar is still a technology undergoing development. Eventually, it should be commercially viable or competitive with conventional energy. Right now, the only way to make it viable is to subsidize it. It is the same thing with wind. They call that subsidy feed-in-tariff (FiT), a fancy term for the amount they want to add to our electricity bills supposedly to encourage more use of this type of renewable energy.
Some local economists have raised an alarm about going overboard on this FiT in our mindless haste to be seen as fashionably earth loving. The manufacturers of solar and wind energy equipment have successfully lobbied Congress into passing a law that mandates the granting of this subsidy. It also mandates the inclusion of RE into our electricity mix. Because our legislators were only after PR mileage to be seen as being ecologically correct, the law gave no regard to cost implications for our consumers and our industries.
Romy Bernardo, a Ramos era undersecretary of finance, is critical of the P9 billion annual cost of FiT (times 20 years or P180 billion). Of this, 50 per- cent goes to solar and wind, even if they will only account for 20 percent of the RE generated power under the FiT program. “Let’s decide what the public can afford,” Bernardo urges. “It certainly cannot be the P7 to P9 billion PER YEAR over a contract period of 20 years, given the already high cost of power.”
Bernardo is correct. Even the RE developers acknowledge that today’s RE prices are expected to come down. One executive working on the solar initiatives of a local conglomerate told their stockholders meeting just this week that it will take three to five years to reach grid parity based on global studies.
The solar industry is growing so fast, he said, and economies of scale are kicking in. “In the Philippines, projection is by 2015 to 2017, we should reach grid parity.” So why not wait? And why give them subsidy for 20 years when the technology is at grid parity in five? The initial price setting should only be made applicable for the next three or five years. After that, we should review again.
Even if we end up with less RE because we have been too cautious, it would be worse to err on the side of paying too much, locking in the mistake for 20 long years. We already have, in any case, at 34 percent, more RE capacity installed as a percentage of total electricity generated than the US and most European countries. We can afford to wait for the technologies to mature and come down in price.
The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), a public advocacy group espousing market-oriented reform for good governance, has taken the position that “Renewable Energy subsidies must be transparent, limited and technology neutral.” The FEF believes the Feed-in-Tariffs to be issued by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) must provide for an absolute peso cap on the total amount of subsidies that the public will be made to bear, capped both on an annual basis and for the life of the project.
The FEF also wants to make sure that the amount of public subsidy for RE projects should be explicitly disclosed and shown to be commensurate to the social benefit that the public is expected to derive from this program. The outlay should be transparently evaluated based on “value for money” to the public.
The FEF also urged the ERC to consider the ability of the public to shoulder additional levies on a per kWh cost of power. As FEF president Toti Chikiamco puts it, “it’s not only household consumers who will suffer but industry too. It will reduce the competitiveness of Philippine industry, already burdened with one of the highest power rates in the region and a strong peso.”
The FEF economists also think we should buy the cheapest RE available before we buy the more expensive technology. They point out that based on the numbers of the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB), it appears that we can subsidize 11 kwh of hydro for the same amount needed to subsidize 1 kwh of solar. The subsidy equivalent for biomass is 6 kwh for 1 kwh of solar.
Actually, even abroad, the economics of solar and wind are being questioned. In an article on MarketWatch, where I borrowed the headline for this column today, market trader Jim Chanos famed for shorting Enron, argues that wind and solar are “not capable” of real cost-effective ways of meeting energy demands. “Wind and solar are not efficient.”
This is not to say that technologies such as Solar Photo Voltaic have no place in our energy mix at this time. The FEF paper admits solar may be the best, or the only substitute, in some areas, for expensive diesel-fired plants serving off-grid customers.
When solar or wind are used to augment off-grid diesel installations, the avoided costs (or the cost of diesel fuel that would have been used) and the avoided emissions are higher, so the required incremental subsidy is less. And no additional reserves or transmission facilities that add to our power costs are needed. In fact, solar technology is already used in a significant number of rural electrification projects all over the country....
-----
See also, Energy rationing 2: The Renewable Energy (RE) law
Micro entrepreneurs and government 1: Mango vendor, Makati
The government, national or local, always say that they are there to "help and encourage" entrepreneurship among the people, the small and micro ones, especially. There are conflicting signals for this. One is that there is presence of many ambulant vendors, "talipapa" and public market vendors all over the country. The other signal though is that there is also a determined effort by many local government units (LGUs) to collect various business permit and regulatory fees and taxes from these small and micro entrepreneurs.
For a start, here is the country table for the Philippines in the Doing Business 2011 Report, an annual study conducted by the WB and IFC. Numbers apply to medium size corporations in the country.
To start a business, a medium size corporation in the Philippines will have to comply with 15 different procedures, spend at least 38 working days. In paying taxes, 47 different payments (taxes, fees and mandatory contributions) per year, requiring 195 hours, around 25 working days, to comply, and siphoning off 45 percent of a company's gross profit. These numbers assume zero corruption yet.
Yeah, government really wants to help its entrepreneurs and self-reliant citizens.
I took these two pictures below last May 25, 2011, around 12:30 noontime, in Guadalope, Makati City. A female mango vendor was apprehended by barangay (village) patrol, for "blocking" a corner with his mango products. I did not see the situation prior to the arrival of the barangay patrol, I only saw the little drama when the barangay personnel was hauling the woman and her indian mango fruits to their tricycle.
The woman, in green shirt, sitting on a sidewalk and crying, was complaining why the barangay patrol singled her out of many other sidewalk vendors. This was the dialogue that I heard:
Woman: Bakit ako lang nakikita nyo, ang iba naman hinahayaan nyo lang.
Brgy. patrol: Kanina pa kayo namo-monitor ng tv (cctv?) na nakaharang sa kantong ito.
Woman: Nagsusumikap nga ako, 7 ang anak ko, bakit yong mga magnanakaw hindi nyo hinuhuli, kami na nagtitinda ng matino, hinuhuli nyo.
Brgy. patrol (over radio, reporting to his superiors): Eto nga, nagdadahilan bakit daw sya hinuhuli.
Translation:
Woman: Why do you single me out, while you allow the other vendors.
Brgy patrol: The tv monitor has been recording you as blocking that corner.
Woman: I'm working hard, I have 7 children to feed, why don't you go after the thieves and robbers, why do you arrest those who work legitimately.
Brg patrol: This woman is rationalizing why we're hauling her.
After the woman's mango fruits were hauled inside this yellow tricycle, she was ordered by the other barangay patrolman, to go inside and explain her side at the barangay hall somewhere. She has stopped crying here and accepted her fate that she will have to pay certain fines and penalties to the barangay, from her already meager income as a small mango sidewalk vendor.
I will not say that the woman was not guilty of blocking a busy corner because I did not see the circumstances prior to this scene. But even assuming that she was indeed guilty of such minor "crime", hauling her and her goods to the barangay hall would mean penalties which may be "small" for the barangay officials but could be "big" amount for this poor woman. I have heard several stories from other ambulant vendors how barangay and city employees will just swoop down on them and haul their "kariton" or "palanggana", and they will have to redeem those by paying up to P1,000.
Micro entrepreneurship is not a criminal activity. Government should impose the minimum, if not zero, regulatory fees. Regulations and restrictions should be kept to the minimum too.
More stories and pictures on this subject in the future here.
For a start, here is the country table for the Philippines in the Doing Business 2011 Report, an annual study conducted by the WB and IFC. Numbers apply to medium size corporations in the country.
To start a business, a medium size corporation in the Philippines will have to comply with 15 different procedures, spend at least 38 working days. In paying taxes, 47 different payments (taxes, fees and mandatory contributions) per year, requiring 195 hours, around 25 working days, to comply, and siphoning off 45 percent of a company's gross profit. These numbers assume zero corruption yet.
Yeah, government really wants to help its entrepreneurs and self-reliant citizens.
I took these two pictures below last May 25, 2011, around 12:30 noontime, in Guadalope, Makati City. A female mango vendor was apprehended by barangay (village) patrol, for "blocking" a corner with his mango products. I did not see the situation prior to the arrival of the barangay patrol, I only saw the little drama when the barangay personnel was hauling the woman and her indian mango fruits to their tricycle.
Woman: Bakit ako lang nakikita nyo, ang iba naman hinahayaan nyo lang.
Brgy. patrol: Kanina pa kayo namo-monitor ng tv (cctv?) na nakaharang sa kantong ito.
Woman: Nagsusumikap nga ako, 7 ang anak ko, bakit yong mga magnanakaw hindi nyo hinuhuli, kami na nagtitinda ng matino, hinuhuli nyo.
Brgy. patrol (over radio, reporting to his superiors): Eto nga, nagdadahilan bakit daw sya hinuhuli.
Translation:
Woman: Why do you single me out, while you allow the other vendors.
Brgy patrol: The tv monitor has been recording you as blocking that corner.
Woman: I'm working hard, I have 7 children to feed, why don't you go after the thieves and robbers, why do you arrest those who work legitimately.
Brg patrol: This woman is rationalizing why we're hauling her.
I will not say that the woman was not guilty of blocking a busy corner because I did not see the circumstances prior to this scene. But even assuming that she was indeed guilty of such minor "crime", hauling her and her goods to the barangay hall would mean penalties which may be "small" for the barangay officials but could be "big" amount for this poor woman. I have heard several stories from other ambulant vendors how barangay and city employees will just swoop down on them and haul their "kariton" or "palanggana", and they will have to redeem those by paying up to P1,000.
Micro entrepreneurship is not a criminal activity. Government should impose the minimum, if not zero, regulatory fees. Regulations and restrictions should be kept to the minimum too.
More stories and pictures on this subject in the future here.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Is Asian democracy in crisis?
This afternoon, I attended the forum, Saving Asian Democracy: Can the Philippines Lead the Way?, at DLSU Manila main campus. The event was sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty (FNF) and the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD).
Just pondering on the title of the symposium, I asked myself, "Why, is Asian democracy in crisis that it needs to be saved?" Since I do not have a clear answer to my own question, and the three speakers are really experts on the subject -- Dr. Rainer Adam, the Regional Director of FNF for SE Asia and East Asia; Dr. Neric Acosta, a former Congressman and political science academic; and Maria Ressa, a noted journalist, I decided to attend the symposium.
Rainer talked about the result of Freedom Barometer Asia 2010 Report. Why measure the freedom barometer in East Asia, What are the variables considered, Where are the data sources coming from, What are the country results, etc.
The Freedom Barometer is a simple yet useful measurement of freedom in the countries covered. It considers 3 important factors: rule of law, political freedom, and economic freedom. In most Economic Freedom Index or Economic Competitiveness Index and related annual surveys, Hong Kong and Singapore are among the runaway topnotchers every year, both in Asia and worldwide. But are the rich Singaporeans really that free? Can they open any website or blog which has some political content without threat of being closed down by their government? Can they openly criticize abuses and/or wastes by their government? The quick answer is NO. Thus, such political realities are factored in by this freedom barometer.
So, how did Singapore, and the Philippines, rank in this study? Singapore was 4th after the top 3, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. 5th to 10th place, in order, were Mongolia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam.
The low-ranking countries, ranked 11th to 16th, in order, were China, Cambodia, Brunei, Myanmar, Laos and North Korea.
Neric talked about democracy, freedom and individual dignity. He noted how the practice (or non-practice) of democracy in Asia has a very wide range. Myanmar and North Korea at one extreme, Singapore, Vietnam and China near this side, and the Philippines on the other extreme.
Neric narrated how in one forum they have in a university in Singapore, government spies later surrounded them. And followed them wherever they go -- to restaurants, malls and shops, their hotel. They were literally harassed by the Singapore government spies, even if their forum was in an academic environment. Emails can be monitored by the government if they target you.
Maria Ressa gave a fantastic presentation too, entitled Media for Social Change. It did not directly answer the forum question, but it did point to one important aspect of democracy: individual responsibility to protect freedom.
She showed how social media and modern technology in ICT is affecting the way people think and interact with each other. These days, people, especially the young, do not rely on listening to candidates in political rallies. read, watch, listen to the mainstream media (newspapers, tv and radio). Social networking media and blogs are among the effective and credible sources of information because they rely on citizen journalism, on plurality and diversity of opinions, perspectives and private information.
So, after hearing the 3 speakers, my answer to my own question, "Is Asian democracy in crisis?" was NO. Democracy and political freedom in Asia is undergoing gradual changes but they are not exactly in a "crisis" situation of moving towards authoritarianism. There is a wide range of level of democratization in many Asian countries, from the currently authoritarian states like North Korea, Myanmar and China, to the rather rambunctious democratic states like the Philippines.
Somehow, a "tipping point" towards a more mature type of democracy will be reached in the future, but it will not be a simultaneous event. It will be a piecemeal development. Thanks to endless development and innovation in social networking and the web. They do help catalyze this gradual evolution of democratization in Asia and other parts of the world.
----
See related paper, Facebook and the subversiveness of capitalism
Just pondering on the title of the symposium, I asked myself, "Why, is Asian democracy in crisis that it needs to be saved?" Since I do not have a clear answer to my own question, and the three speakers are really experts on the subject -- Dr. Rainer Adam, the Regional Director of FNF for SE Asia and East Asia; Dr. Neric Acosta, a former Congressman and political science academic; and Maria Ressa, a noted journalist, I decided to attend the symposium.
The Freedom Barometer is a simple yet useful measurement of freedom in the countries covered. It considers 3 important factors: rule of law, political freedom, and economic freedom. In most Economic Freedom Index or Economic Competitiveness Index and related annual surveys, Hong Kong and Singapore are among the runaway topnotchers every year, both in Asia and worldwide. But are the rich Singaporeans really that free? Can they open any website or blog which has some political content without threat of being closed down by their government? Can they openly criticize abuses and/or wastes by their government? The quick answer is NO. Thus, such political realities are factored in by this freedom barometer.
So, how did Singapore, and the Philippines, rank in this study? Singapore was 4th after the top 3, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. 5th to 10th place, in order, were Mongolia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam.
The low-ranking countries, ranked 11th to 16th, in order, were China, Cambodia, Brunei, Myanmar, Laos and North Korea.
Neric narrated how in one forum they have in a university in Singapore, government spies later surrounded them. And followed them wherever they go -- to restaurants, malls and shops, their hotel. They were literally harassed by the Singapore government spies, even if their forum was in an academic environment. Emails can be monitored by the government if they target you.
She showed how social media and modern technology in ICT is affecting the way people think and interact with each other. These days, people, especially the young, do not rely on listening to candidates in political rallies. read, watch, listen to the mainstream media (newspapers, tv and radio). Social networking media and blogs are among the effective and credible sources of information because they rely on citizen journalism, on plurality and diversity of opinions, perspectives and private information.
Somehow, a "tipping point" towards a more mature type of democracy will be reached in the future, but it will not be a simultaneous event. It will be a piecemeal development. Thanks to endless development and innovation in social networking and the web. They do help catalyze this gradual evolution of democratization in Asia and other parts of the world.
----
See related paper, Facebook and the subversiveness of capitalism
Drug price control 8: Advertising and Govt pharma corporation
(This is my article for thelobbyist.biz today with original title, Merits and Demerits of High Drug Prices, Part 2)
This is the continuation of our discussion last week here. The two other proposals that are expected to bring down drug prices are:
a. There should be no advertising allowed for medicines in order to help reduce drug prices. Instead, all pharma companies will be featured in a public forum attended by physicians, pharmacists, other health professionals and the public.
b. Government should put up its own pharmaceutical company to produce essential medicines. Thailand has one, the Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO).
On (a), if there is only one producer of a particular product, ie, a monopoly, like government, that firm will not need any advertising or marketing. Consumers know only one producer and seller, they do not know of anybody else, so there is no need to advertise. Take the cases of the police (PNP), the armed forces (AFP), social security (SSS , GSIS), healthcare (PhilHealth), housing (Pag-IBIG), etcc. They are the single providers of their particular services, they do not need advertising to attract clients. Should they advertise, it is mainly to counter negative public perception of them as wasteful or corrupt or stealing public money. So they advertise to say that they are caring, that they are willing to “serve” the public, and so on.
Private companies in various sectors or sub-sectors like the pharma industry, they are many – local pharma, multinational pharma here, and foreign pharma exporting their drugs here. Most business sectors in the economy like pharma have an industry structure called “monopolistic competition”. This industry structure has 3 characteristics: (1) many firms and players, (b) there is little barrier to entry (the usual bureaucracies to set up or continue a business), and (c) product differentiation.
No firm is so big to influence pricing, so the firms differentiate their product through branding. Examples of company branding lare “Unilab yan”, or “Alagang Pfizer”, “Mercury, gamut ay lagging bago”, or “The Generics Pharmacy, mabisa na, matipid pa”. Then there are product branding like biogesic, tempra, calpol, panadol, paramol, dolan, and many other brands, all referring to only one generic molecule “paracetamol”, some are compounds of paracetamol + other molecules.
Advertising and marketing help us ordinary mortals be aware that certain products and drugs exist and are available in the shops and drugstores. Then we are made aware of their chemical properties, what are their health capabilities and limitations or possible side effects, who manufactured them, what are their prices, etc. This way, we or our physicians or pharmacists would be able to compare and choose the appropriate drugs and products for us or our patients.
In short, advertising can be considered as a “necessary evil”. There are costs to advertising and marketing, and such costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices of their products. The important point is that we have options and choices. Those products that are heavily advertised tend to have prices that are higher than the average industry price. So while there is wider public awareness of their existence, there is also wider public skepticism that the price is higher than normal. And this will put some “brakes” on some pharma companies to limit their advertising.
On (b), there is big irony on public attitude towards more government intervention in the economy in general, and healthcare in particular. There are thousands of government-sponsored pharmacies (Botika ng Bayan, Botika ng Barangay), there are thousands of rural health units (RHUs) and barangay health centers (BHCs), dozens of government-owned hospitals (DOH, state universities like UP PGH, and local governments), there is a government health insurance monopoly (PhilHealth), there are government-imposed drug price controls (MRP and mandatory 20% discounts to senior citizens and persons with disabilities). And public complaint of “high drug prices”, “limited and inaccessible healthcare” is endless. And there is another proposal to create another government corporation, a government pharmaceutical company.
Are people not yet tired of complaints and disappointments with government services, they wish to create another government office that will further raise their expectation – and raise their public disappointment later?
Estimates of achieving a “universal healthcare” alone, of enrolling at least 85 percent of the soon 100 million Filipinos to become PhilHealth members, are in the territory of P85 billion a year already. Not included here yet, are the budget of the (1) DOH and its affiliated hospitals, (2) local government hospitals, RHUs and BHCs, (c) health centers and projects of some state universities, (d) various medicine entitlement programs, and so on.
And soon we may have another expensive law to control population in the existing RH bill, where government will use tax money to buy and distribute condoms, pills, injectibles, etc. and hire thousands of new midwives, doctors and nurses, and create new provincial/city hospitals or modernize existing ones.
And we are expected to create another tax-funded government corporation to manufacture medicines?
Some people think that our high public debt of nearly P5 trillion is just an illusion. They think that there is no limit to taxation, that the problem of high corruption and robbery among many government offices, personnel and politicians can be solved quickly. Thus, the need to create new government programs, new government offices, and hire more government personnel.
Lots of the factors that contribute to high drug prices can be traced to government policies themselves. These include (a) high and multiple taxes of medicines, (b) high and multiple taxes of healthcare companies (pharma, drugstores, hospitals, HMOs, etc.), and (c) padding and over-pricing of drugs by some government-owned hospitals (including the AFP hospital) and LGUs due to corruption and robbery.
We should be better off if we improve the current lousy healthcare services of certain government offices, and discontinue the habitually anomalous programs and expenditures. Every peso of wasted or stolen tax money is one peso away from the pockets of taxpayers, especially the fixed income earners. Money that they could have used to buy more nutritious food, cleaner house and community, and other healthcare preventive measures.
This is the continuation of our discussion last week here. The two other proposals that are expected to bring down drug prices are:
a. There should be no advertising allowed for medicines in order to help reduce drug prices. Instead, all pharma companies will be featured in a public forum attended by physicians, pharmacists, other health professionals and the public.
b. Government should put up its own pharmaceutical company to produce essential medicines. Thailand has one, the Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO).
On (a), if there is only one producer of a particular product, ie, a monopoly, like government, that firm will not need any advertising or marketing. Consumers know only one producer and seller, they do not know of anybody else, so there is no need to advertise. Take the cases of the police (PNP), the armed forces (AFP), social security (SSS , GSIS), healthcare (PhilHealth), housing (Pag-IBIG), etcc. They are the single providers of their particular services, they do not need advertising to attract clients. Should they advertise, it is mainly to counter negative public perception of them as wasteful or corrupt or stealing public money. So they advertise to say that they are caring, that they are willing to “serve” the public, and so on.
No firm is so big to influence pricing, so the firms differentiate their product through branding. Examples of company branding lare “Unilab yan”, or “Alagang Pfizer”, “Mercury, gamut ay lagging bago”, or “The Generics Pharmacy, mabisa na, matipid pa”. Then there are product branding like biogesic, tempra, calpol, panadol, paramol, dolan, and many other brands, all referring to only one generic molecule “paracetamol”, some are compounds of paracetamol + other molecules.
Advertising and marketing help us ordinary mortals be aware that certain products and drugs exist and are available in the shops and drugstores. Then we are made aware of their chemical properties, what are their health capabilities and limitations or possible side effects, who manufactured them, what are their prices, etc. This way, we or our physicians or pharmacists would be able to compare and choose the appropriate drugs and products for us or our patients.
In short, advertising can be considered as a “necessary evil”. There are costs to advertising and marketing, and such costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices of their products. The important point is that we have options and choices. Those products that are heavily advertised tend to have prices that are higher than the average industry price. So while there is wider public awareness of their existence, there is also wider public skepticism that the price is higher than normal. And this will put some “brakes” on some pharma companies to limit their advertising.
On (b), there is big irony on public attitude towards more government intervention in the economy in general, and healthcare in particular. There are thousands of government-sponsored pharmacies (Botika ng Bayan, Botika ng Barangay), there are thousands of rural health units (RHUs) and barangay health centers (BHCs), dozens of government-owned hospitals (DOH, state universities like UP PGH, and local governments), there is a government health insurance monopoly (PhilHealth), there are government-imposed drug price controls (MRP and mandatory 20% discounts to senior citizens and persons with disabilities). And public complaint of “high drug prices”, “limited and inaccessible healthcare” is endless. And there is another proposal to create another government corporation, a government pharmaceutical company.
Are people not yet tired of complaints and disappointments with government services, they wish to create another government office that will further raise their expectation – and raise their public disappointment later?
Estimates of achieving a “universal healthcare” alone, of enrolling at least 85 percent of the soon 100 million Filipinos to become PhilHealth members, are in the territory of P85 billion a year already. Not included here yet, are the budget of the (1) DOH and its affiliated hospitals, (2) local government hospitals, RHUs and BHCs, (c) health centers and projects of some state universities, (d) various medicine entitlement programs, and so on.
And soon we may have another expensive law to control population in the existing RH bill, where government will use tax money to buy and distribute condoms, pills, injectibles, etc. and hire thousands of new midwives, doctors and nurses, and create new provincial/city hospitals or modernize existing ones.
And we are expected to create another tax-funded government corporation to manufacture medicines?
Some people think that our high public debt of nearly P5 trillion is just an illusion. They think that there is no limit to taxation, that the problem of high corruption and robbery among many government offices, personnel and politicians can be solved quickly. Thus, the need to create new government programs, new government offices, and hire more government personnel.
Lots of the factors that contribute to high drug prices can be traced to government policies themselves. These include (a) high and multiple taxes of medicines, (b) high and multiple taxes of healthcare companies (pharma, drugstores, hospitals, HMOs, etc.), and (c) padding and over-pricing of drugs by some government-owned hospitals (including the AFP hospital) and LGUs due to corruption and robbery.
We should be better off if we improve the current lousy healthcare services of certain government offices, and discontinue the habitually anomalous programs and expenditures. Every peso of wasted or stolen tax money is one peso away from the pockets of taxpayers, especially the fixed income earners. Money that they could have used to buy more nutritious food, cleaner house and community, and other healthcare preventive measures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)