What is public television? What is public health? Featured

  • Written by  Dr. Janez Remškar
  • Comments:DISQUS_COMMENTS
Dr. Janez Remškar Dr. Janez Remškar

We are talking about publicly funded activities, television and healthcare. For compulsory health insurance we contribute in solidarity the same percentage of salary. We all contribute the same for RTV SLO when paying for the electricity connection, i.e. in non-solidarity. Citizens are on the basis of the law “forced” to spend part of our salaries and pensions for these two activities. An interesting fact is that those who are in favour of “public” television, in this case the lack of solidarity, and are very bothered by voluntary health insurance where everyone pays the same, are not bothered. Interesting! Hypocritical! So: each one of us, if I talk about a political belief, left or right, has the right to objective information on television within the public system, and each one of us has the right to all health services from the basket of rights. Do we get that? To everyone it is clear that we are far from it. In healthcare, they put us in line and we wait if we are not first class and have connections. However, if we follow the national TV station, it is also clear that so far it has acted biased (usually by mixing reports and comments) with great support for the left, unions, i.e. unprofessionally, in the style of a permanent pre-election campaign intended only leftist politician. This can easily be confirmed by any brief review of newscasts!

 

Regarding health care, it is interesting that each of us does not have any contract with the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia (HIIS), where it would be clear what rights we have. We only have information about a basket of our rights, the rules are set by HIIS and the patient can only wait. And when did the waiting periods appear? After we separated the health fund from the budget, after we introduced tolar and EURO and stopped the inflation, and after we were unable to carry out any reforms. I would like to point out the reforms that have been made in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden due to known conditions: aging population, increasingly expensive medicine, fragmented health systems, inadequate cooperation between health care levels, lack of family doctors, etc. The reason for extending waiting times in our country are not “lazy” employees or concessionaires, who are a part of the public system; even less so are the culprits private individuals, whose number is negligibly small; nor is the work of doctors at various contractors. In fact, the reason is a messy and also malnourished health system.

The fact is that no one is abolishing public health care, but it is essential to abolish state’s planned health care intertwined with corruption

In the last 10 years, when you “leftists” had been in power all the time, you have not been able to regulate the unacceptable situation in the field of family medicine, which despite being highly respected in the world is becoming completely unattractive to young doctors; you were not able to establish a network of family medicine clinics so that the entire population of Slovenia could have an equal access; you were not able to establish a network of hospitals and regulate unacceptable fragmentation of individual specialist areas (everyone does almost everything); you failed to improve communication among doctors, as a result, patients are not treated holistically; you have left both clinical centres drowning in routine work and progress depends on the enthusiasm of individuals and groups and not on politicians, advocating for public health; tenders are almost always written on the skin of a particular provider and are a farce; and finally you failed to establish long-term care and nursing, which, incidentally, the Germans did in 1996 and remained in EU with the aforementioned reforms. This is now a picture of the public, sorry, your state’s, still planned healthcare that you stand for! Public health is a disguise that continues to allow you to plunder in the context of corruption, and this is the reason for your views and not the concern for the patient.

Once again, I would like to emphasise that none of the connoisseurs of health system on the “right” is in favour of abolishing public health care. We are aware that a large part of difficult and demanding health services can be performed well and rationally only within the framework of public, not state, health care. However, a certain part of health services can be provided faster, better, and cheaper by the private sector. Therefore, in Europe, the average ratio between the public and private sectors of health care is 70:30 per cent, with more than 25 per cent (of this 30 %) of the private sector being publicly funded. The conditions for work on both sides must be precisely defined, the standards of procedures prescribed, the supervision must be regular and strict (even with the immediate possibility of closing the office or hospital ward). Finally, let me state that even in Canada, where until recently they had an exclusively public health care system, they decided to start introducing a private sector financed from public funds. Why? Without competition, water becomes puddle!

It is true, however, that if we tackle things as they did years ago and now shout that they “advocate for public health”, we will continue to destroy public health. They tackled it by shortening of hospital stays by allowing patients to be discharged from hospitals when they still needed care and doctor’s supervision. Doing that they did no increase the staff at the primary level.

I have a question for those responsible about the efforts for public television and the videos that appear on television

In recent weeks, we have seen and heard famous and lesser-known people telling us in commercials that they are for public television. So who the hell is abolishing public TV? It would be more interesting to find out from which funds these spots and commercials are financed? Who decided and from what funds the film crews and used material are financed? My money is also there, which I do not want to give for someone trying to “brainwash” me. The national broadcaster (RTV) has a lot of good in its programme (educational, children’s, popular science shows, reports, sports events and more, although sometimes something political sneaks up on them there as well, the last such example being rapper Zlatko). National television has a serious problem with the balance of the news programme, which I repeat, is very one-sided since its reports and comments are almost as a rule (with rare exceptions) in terms of a constant election campaign for the left political option.

I will not say more about this, because dr. Jambrek in collaboration with dr. Rupel worked out well what is first-class and second-class for the mainstream media (National TV house, Delo, Večer: Dnevnik and POP TV). So what is reported in these media and what is not. If I repeat a few statements about what is subject to harsh censorship in these media: The Republic of Slovenia as a nation state, the revolutionary origin of the Republic of Slovenia, post-war reprisals, massacres, confiscations, concentration camps, totalitarianism of communism, Catholic religion, private property and entrepreneurship, state monopolies in the economy and social activities services! Content on this topic continues to be presented one-sidedly. I think that the time has come when a person is afraid to say that he/she is a deceived Slovene, because the danger of being declared a nationalist. We hear and listen only about the National Liberation War and the partisan struggle against Nazism, there is no sign about the revolution; most of the private is problematized; the Church, if possible, presents itself negatively. If I finish here, I can conclude that in social activities and media for “leftists” the only thing good is what is public, and that the only thing that Slovenes want is for our public, independent RTV house to stay as it is.

It is also interesting to have fun with the views of street protesters. They do not know how to argue their protests, except that they want to come to power and share money and prizes, even for such “performances” as “dog on a woman’s breast”. They clearly told RTV SLO that this house is theirs.

What else do we need? Is it not clear to anyone?

It is even more nonsense to close our eyes and talk about “independent” radio and television and about “independent” journalists in a public house called RTV SLO

Firstly: a journalist is never independent because he cannot be. He can only operate in accordance with the editorial policy, which depends on the owner, or in the case of RTV SLO on the positions of the Council of the Institute and the Programme Council. That is why there is such a struggle of “leftists” for dominance in these bodies.

Secondly: if one wants to be a good journalist, reporter, commentator on a news programme, he must write unencumbered, with his heart, despite it being politically “left or right”. Every comment is and must be spiced with a personal touch and that is why we need “left” and “right” journalists on national television! Given the commitment of most current journalists on RTV SLO, it is difficult for me to imagine a completely impartial comment from their side at this moment!

Therefore, on national RTV SLO, stop being ignorant and balance daily informative broadcasts. Allow simultaneous commentary in internal political events to each of the stakeholders (government, opposition, left, right) and let the viewers form their own opinion. Stop brainwashing. You will gain viewers. Private TV and newspaper houses will work on the dictates of the owners anyway, and I believe they will lose viewers!

If we wish well to Slovenes and especially to our youth, we must realise as soon as possible that we need balanced information on public television. The same goes for healthcare. We need public and private, but strictly controlled. Let’s follow the examples of successful model in Europe!

back to top
Cookies

This website uses cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services.