the Swedish association of local authorities and regions INTERNATIONAL), in its conservative projections showed that of 200,000 more people need to be employed in the public sector up to the year 2026, the retirement needs of the 500,000 are being recruited into the welfare system in the next couple of years. This is on the grounds that the proportion of young people, and particularly older people in the population is greatly on the increase. The government expects that we will need 560 more homes for the elderly, and the 75 is more of the health centers up to the year 2026 in order to maintain the current, often inadequate, välfärdsstandard.
It will cost money to build homes for the elderly, and health clinics. It costs money to train and hire new välfärdsarbetare, it will cost money to improve the salaries, terms and conditions and the working environment is such that people in general want to work in the welfare system. If not, these resources are increasing in line with demographic factors as the needs increases, schools, health care, and the care of the elderly in Sweden is to stand in the face of a collapse in the next few years. Svenonius, and Dousas the answer to this is to throw out the bourgeois slogans of that a high tax ratio is not going to solve any of the problems.
this is Only in 2019, the involved Research six of the earned income tax credit, that we are in direct budget weakening lost savings of about € 130 billion annually in tax revenue. Money that could have gone to health care, elder care, education, social services, the police and the prison and probation service.
the Healthcare industry is expected to go along with seven billion of the deficit in 2019. A manageable amount if we had not reduced the tax rate by almost 7% from 1999-2014. If the revenue from the tax is used for things that had paid off their taxes is getting the negative effects of higher taxation is much less. This can be seen clearly that the nordic countries managed to combine high growth with high tax ratio.
– In Stockholm, sweden, has been taken from health care needs, to health care, according to the market demand. A parcel of land, which is a huge cost.
It is interesting that Svenonius highlights the increased need for resources, but the quality that is an argument for saying that more money would not help. Of course, it’s all about what you use the money for. We understand that, Svenonius doesn’t want to go more deeply into the reasons for the increase in cost is in the Region of Stockholm, but the party is now ruled for nearly 14 years. Taxpayers ‘ money has been leaking into the incredibly expensive sjukhusbyggen to konsultfakturor that the lack of evidence, to expensive, privatised, ”freedom of choice” and the private nätläkare, whose mission is to address the healthy patients with simple conditions. In Stockholm, they have, from health care needs, to health care, according to the market demand. A parcel of land, which is a huge cost.
the Research policy seems to be to channel as much of our tax money as possible to private sector construction companies, private consulting companies, and the profits of private health companies, analog-to-digital millennium copyright act. This is the day of the war for resources between the public and the private. Our one-time, integrated, and equitable health care system will now be apart of the destructive nature of a tension between private profit and the public sector its mission is to provide health care on an equal basis, as needed.
< Svenonius argues that, ”the profession must govern, not the politicians”. What we need is for elected politicians who are actually listening to members of the profession. Why don't listen Svenonius of the 153 in fact, the pediatrician who, for a description of how you, the children will pay the price too expensive, ”freedom of choice” and to the last the notice. She was supposed to listen to the receiving unit gp Sue Sandstrom, who calls the cuts, and the empty talk about investment in primary health care. Why not start Svenonius to listen to the reumatologerna themselves, who are strongly opposed to the introduction of an expensive, private ”Choice of Rheumatology”, in Stockholm, sweden.
instead of listening to the profession and to slow the progression of costly privatization, and the naïve market experiments is now proposing, Svenonius, along with Dousa to go even further and privatize the funding of the Swedish health care system. Now, a private insurance company, to be admitted into a full-scale, in order to make a profit on the basic human need of medical care.
the health Care issue is not that we choose to fund, jointly and severally, and collectively, through their taxes. Yet, it is precisely because of these two grundfundament in the Swedish healthcare system, as Svenonius, and Dousa to be discontinued as they are not proposing that all of the funding to finance their care privately, through private insurance.
Svenonius, and Dousa suggests seriously that we should leave the spring in the nordic general model and is moving towards a more privatized american model. Despite the fact that it is usually more expensive, more red tape for the patient, and certainly with more reason, that the financing of health care through private insurance. The two are highlighting the Netherlands as an example, but the välfärdsforskaren, John, Lapidus has been shown that their model is characterized by the ”ojämlikhetsskapande and marknadsfundamentalistiska mechanisms”. In addition, it should be noted that, in the Netherlands, private health care providers and the insurance companies ‘ profit opportunities are limited, which makes these proposals in an american context, the multi-speed.
The most extraordinary thing about the proposal to break our collective funding of the health care system is that it does not in any way address the growing finanseringsbehov such as health care, which we discussed in our report, the Three ways of financing the welfare system. It is not Sweden’s public funding model, which is expensive, but it is, rather, the Conservatives privatized the policy, which proved to cost too much.
<
