Recently, Ding Xiangyang, deputy mayor of Beijing, said that from the beginning of this year, anyone over 95 years of age will be reimbursed for 100% of the elderly. (October 6 "Beijing Morning Post")
Some beneficiary families will applaud for such new benefits. But at the same time, some families may not like it. Many of us do not understand why they are 95 years old instead of 93 or 90 years old. Or even 85 years old?
Is there medically relevant research data supporting this decision? Or is it because the government’s financial resources are limited and can only pay for this group of people? Here, the local government did not give a sufficient authority to explain and explain. The natural result is that people may feel that such public policies are arbitrarily arbitrarily lacking in fairness and reasonableness. I am more inclined to the latter kind of answer, that is, the local government believes that at the current financial level, it is only appropriate to bear such a proportion of the elderly population for medical expenses. So, what exactly is the proportion of the elderly population that fit this ratio? How much does the government finance prepare for real gold? People obviously need this answer to judge how much the government’s capabilities and responsibilities have been fulfilled.
A good public welfare policy is to make most taxpayers feel comfortable. Before the introduction, public opinion should be consulted to form a social consensus. If this step is taken and the direct generation policy is introduced, even if the goodwill is good, the public assessment may be greatly reduced. For example, although “paying for government visits by the elderly over the age of 95†is a good government policy, why do older people between the ages of 90 and 95 cannot enjoy the same benefits and how long will it take to be satisfied? The government should also pay attention to such questions and respond accordingly.
We have already stepped into an old age society. As of the end of 2009, elderly people in China have accounted for 12.5% ​​of the total population, and elderly people over 80 have reached 19 million. Aging is bound to bring about social problems with aggravated medical burden. According to statistics, by the end of 2009, there were 10.36 million disabled seniors and 21.23 million disabled seniors. The elderly are even the main force in the group of patients with chronic diseases. The medical expenses generated by them are a heavy financial burden for families. Under this background, governments at all levels must promptly issue a system of care and welfare that cares for the elderly. This responsibility not only reduces the financial burden on the family, but also reflects the government's concern for the elderly in a civilized society. But at the same time, it also brought about a fair question.
Whether medical welfare is a kind of public resource allocation or whether it should be provided to citizens on the principle of objectivity and reasonableness of fairness, it is not appropriate to allocate arbitrarily because of the attitude of a certain department or official. After all, this is not a kind of "gift," and it comes from the broad masses of taxpayers in terms of economic expenditure, rather than from officials paying out of their own pockets. Therefore, it is still necessary to pass through the public opinion procedures to ensure the scientific decision-making and reduce the arbitrariness. Source: Perspectives China
Some beneficiary families will applaud for such new benefits. But at the same time, some families may not like it. Many of us do not understand why they are 95 years old instead of 93 or 90 years old. Or even 85 years old?
Is there medically relevant research data supporting this decision? Or is it because the government’s financial resources are limited and can only pay for this group of people? Here, the local government did not give a sufficient authority to explain and explain. The natural result is that people may feel that such public policies are arbitrarily arbitrarily lacking in fairness and reasonableness. I am more inclined to the latter kind of answer, that is, the local government believes that at the current financial level, it is only appropriate to bear such a proportion of the elderly population for medical expenses. So, what exactly is the proportion of the elderly population that fit this ratio? How much does the government finance prepare for real gold? People obviously need this answer to judge how much the government’s capabilities and responsibilities have been fulfilled.
A good public welfare policy is to make most taxpayers feel comfortable. Before the introduction, public opinion should be consulted to form a social consensus. If this step is taken and the direct generation policy is introduced, even if the goodwill is good, the public assessment may be greatly reduced. For example, although “paying for government visits by the elderly over the age of 95†is a good government policy, why do older people between the ages of 90 and 95 cannot enjoy the same benefits and how long will it take to be satisfied? The government should also pay attention to such questions and respond accordingly.
We have already stepped into an old age society. As of the end of 2009, elderly people in China have accounted for 12.5% ​​of the total population, and elderly people over 80 have reached 19 million. Aging is bound to bring about social problems with aggravated medical burden. According to statistics, by the end of 2009, there were 10.36 million disabled seniors and 21.23 million disabled seniors. The elderly are even the main force in the group of patients with chronic diseases. The medical expenses generated by them are a heavy financial burden for families. Under this background, governments at all levels must promptly issue a system of care and welfare that cares for the elderly. This responsibility not only reduces the financial burden on the family, but also reflects the government's concern for the elderly in a civilized society. But at the same time, it also brought about a fair question.
Whether medical welfare is a kind of public resource allocation or whether it should be provided to citizens on the principle of objectivity and reasonableness of fairness, it is not appropriate to allocate arbitrarily because of the attitude of a certain department or official. After all, this is not a kind of "gift," and it comes from the broad masses of taxpayers in terms of economic expenditure, rather than from officials paying out of their own pockets. Therefore, it is still necessary to pass through the public opinion procedures to ensure the scientific decision-making and reduce the arbitrariness. Source: Perspectives China
Freeze Dried Vegetable,Freeze Fresh Runner Beans,Freeze Peach Crisp,Freeze Dried Carrot Flakes
Ningbo Nutrition Food Technology Co.,ltd. , https://www.collagenworkshop.com