Monday, December 8, 2008

Are Oatmeal Squares Good For You

GENOCIDE IN GAZA RALLY IN RIVAS 12/14/1908

IN DEFENSE OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN EAST RALLY
RIVAS VACIAMADRID THE 14-D CENTER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH THIRD
The PP has proposed to private hands the profitable parts of public health to do so, since coming to the regional government is carrying out a planned process of deterioration of health in Madrid objective of creating the false impression that the public does not work and the inevitability of privatization.
For Rivas, decline is increased due, in part to a series of demographic reasons (significant increase in population and children in pediatric age, high birth rates ...), and partly to non-compliance Lamela promises of Directors and Guemes (3 rd health center should be open 2007; increase template-physiotherapy in primary care, pediatrics, medical-personnel, development of medical specialties-ophthalmology, orthopedics, gynecology and obstetrics, ENT, and radiology, "possibility of having as a referral hospital Gregorio Marañón UVI ...). Thus the situation is as follows:
Specialized Care:
· Assignment forced the entire population of the peoples of the South to the hospital in Arganda, who at 9 months of its opening, has proved insufficient in size and specialties have a great shortage of human resources as well be owned and private ownership (the owners are FCC and Caja Madrid).
· Absence in practice in the hospital for a department of gynecology and obstetrics, because after the "flight" from 8 gynecologists, every day there is only one gynecologist "flyer" sent each day from a different hospital, to give the appearance that the service exists. Furthermore, the SERMAS press has been devoted to various gynecologist @ s of area 1 to "accept" Arganda transferred to hospital to try to bridge the gap of professionals. Calendar
· Blocking access to hospital specialists Arganda (this prevents the increase the waiting list), or when possible, first records for more than 6 months (compared with 40 days that promises Esperanza Aguirre).
· Limitations and all sorts of difficulties to choose specialists in the public hospital Gregorio Marañón (need to allocate population to Arganda).
Primary:
· Templates frozen since 2007, bringing the decline in attendance is palpable: citations for medicine and pediatrics are giving general rule for 3-5 days, while those already in Physiotherapy more than 400 days!
· Announcement of the Ministry that the new health centers to be built and the Community will be privately run and apply existing from 2009 business-like criteria.
In this situation, only the continued mobilization of citizens across the Community of Madrid, to defend what all can stop the aggression of the PP. We are risking our health and our children.

· For the third health center and public property ownership and direct management. Not the end of youth health center.
· For the fulfillment of other promises (specialties, templates ...).
· For the right to be treated at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón.
· For the adequate provision of specialty and hospital workers in the private management of the South East (Arganda).
· By the repeal of Act 15 / 97, adopted with the votes of the PP and PSOE, and presented as "the instrument to modernize health care." But today we can see that has served to private companies for profit, and no relation to health (FCC, Caja Madrid, Sacyr Vallehermoso, Acciona, Dragados ...), have been owned for 30 years of new hospitals. We require the PSOE amendment / repeal, and which has enjoyed two terms with a majority to repeal it and not done so already, therefore it is collaborating with privatization. Health privatization would not have been possible without that law: the protection of public health is demonstrated by facts.
• In defense of quality public health.
· For the adequate provision of templates and specialties in the hospital of the Southeast.
· By the third clinic, public and direct management.
Do not the end of youth health center.
° against the privatization of health Madrid: repeal of the Act 15/97.
HEALTH IS NOT A BUSINESS! DEMONSTRATION IN RIVAS VACIAMADRID
: Sunday December 14, 1912 hours, from Abogados de Atocha Street (metro Rivas Developments) to City Hall.
CALL: Citizens Movement in Defense of Public Health Rivas, ACER, Social Assembly of Rivas, Andrea Gonzalez Women's Association, Association of Women Clara Campoamor, Rivas Vaciamadrid Laymen's Association, Madrid Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, CAS Madrid, Centers Senior Rivas (three), Rivas CGT, CNT, Co.Bas, Current Red Entrepueblos Rivas, Guanaminos without borders, Anti-Capitalist Left (Espacio Alternativo), Young Communist League (UJCE), PCE, Stork Radio, Rivas Sahel, assembly-Union of Health, Solidarity XXI.


PUBLIC INFORMATION




8/12/2008 I wish the English, in particular the people of Madrid, opened his eyes. For the English it is too late. The Labour government of Gordon Brown no longer supports alternative management models. Dr Sally Ruane, of De Montfort University (Leicester, England), studied since 1996 the impact of the management model PFI (Private Finance Initiative, for its acronym in English) in the British economy and society.
Its findings on this model the same as the government of Esperanza Aguirre (PP) has pushed into the Community of Madrid in the health sector are anything but encouraging.
"In England, in 2014, we have a deficit of 114,000 million '
explains the PFI model (where a private company builds the building and hires non-medical personnel) are leaving the public purse millions British debts. Dr. Ruane visited Madrid a few days ago, invited by the Federation of Associations for the Defence of Public Health (FADSP), to report adverse effects of privatization of health care in Madrid. With a Castilian with English accent, Ruane was highly critical of the privatization model that his country established a decade ago. However, he was confident that Madrid society is able to voice their rejection, to force the government to back down Aguirre in his endeavor.
What brought you to London?
am to inform people of what happened in England. We PFI privatization model for ten or 15 years and have accumulated a very high public debt. In England we have now 80 PFI projects in the health sector and there are 40 more in preparation. That means that by 2014 we will have a debt of 114,000 million euros, which will have to pay for the next 30 or 40 years.
"A satellite built by PFI hospital costs three times what they made as a public model"
Why is it so bad the funding model Private?
is a very expensive model, because there are more costs than revenues. A usual costs associated with the operation of a hospital must be added the high costs of bureaucracy and infrastructure. Moreover, being managed in part by a private company must generate sufficient profits and dividends for shareholders. The worst thing is that these costs have to be subtracted from operating income, which is a direct impact on health care, the services given to citizens.
As a private model, is better suited to market needs?
"In the long term prove the negative effect on the health of the citizens'
the contrary. In the public sector, specifically in health care is very important to maintain flexibility. In the health sector, the situation changes, for example, the prevalence of disease. But PFI contracts are long term and fairly static. This may distort the real priorities of health system planning.
What is the difference between English and the PFI model in Madrid?
More or less the same. There is a fee for cleaning services and also a charge for the use of the property, thus resulting in the debt. With another funding model, had not sought the benefit and all the money had been allocated to health care. What problems
PFI specific leads derived from the English health?
According to a study by a commission appointed by the British government in 2006 there was a significant correlation between the deficit in a hospital and the fact that it was PFI project. In 2006, 30% of all English hospitals had losses. The percentage increased to 50% by taking into account those who were managed by companies. These hospitals had to cut staff and beds removed.
When this situation started in England?
The first PFI hospital opened a decade ago. The model was introduced earlier, but the negotiation of a PFI takes years because it is a contract muy complejo. Negociar también es caro, ya que hay que contratar a asesores financieros... En la ciudad donde vivo, las negociaciones han costado 23 millones de libras [unos 28 millones de euros]. Los gastos para negociar los primeros hospitales PFI representaron el 4% del valor total del edificio.
¿Hubo oposición allí? ¿Cómo fue el proceso?
Los sindicatos se opusieron a la introducción de este modelo de gestión, pionero en el mundo. Y fueron capaces de prever lo que iba a pasar. Los hospitales salen muy caros, las condiciones de trabajo han empeorado horriblemente, se han reducido los puestos de trabajo, hay menos servicios para la población... Con la privatización, baja la calidad care. Moreover, an investigation by the University of Manchester based on the first 12 PFI hospitals were built, has revealed that the interest paid to leave the building and management of privately owned hospital is 8%, where a model half had been traditional. It is estimated that each hospital building via PFI costs three times the cost of a public model. Furthermore, as the contract is 30 to 40 years, it is impossible to predict what will happen. With ten of the top 12 hospitals, contracts were not specific enough and there is more spending than expected. When the hospital needed to change something, the private consortium asked the government to be paid more, and much of this was not planned.
Do you know how the model, beyond the public debt is, has affected people's health?
others are being reconfigured health services to pay the additional costs of hospitals, which is not justified. For example, as beds are removed, we ordered to reduce the number of hospital admissions. There are currently no conclusions about the impact of this management on the health of citizens, but in the long term prove a negative.
Is not no turning back in England?
I think it is important to note that the PFI is a policy Gordon Brown. The Government gives no option to build hospitals in the traditional way, ie the hospital building and managing all services from the Administration. This model is implemented, especially in England. But in Scotland have paralyzed and try to promote an alternative fund for hospital development. Moreover, Wales and Northern Ireland are trying to manage their hospitals in a market system remote. I think it's possible to find an alternative to PFI. But in England it is difficult to change, because we already have too many of these projects underway.