Journalist kidnappings, an issue which has been associated with terrorism, has grown on a global scale. With a total of 720 kidnapped reporters being murdered in the past decade, examiners are trying to fully understand these incidents, while educating the public of its many complications.
In 1994, a debate emerged when an Associated Press writer, Tina Susman, had gone missing after she was snatched off reporting grounds by Somalian thugs. The journalist would later be held for ransom for a near-20 day count while being stored in a cramped room.
Controversially, in the wake of her disappearance, Susman’s story never broke the air until she was rescued, initiating concern from the public over “double standard[s]” and “injustice.”
Fellow peers from her reporting unit at the Associated Press addressed the public, saying that they, alongside other news reporting teams, did not want to report on the story as a means to prevent “periling” Susman’s life. However, political officials noted that sources like the Associated Press were being “peculiar” and “overcautious” and loosely implied that such reporting would not have fazed the Somalian terrorists due to the lack of media presence in the developing region.
Congressional officials further argued that if government officials were to keep the story quiet themselves, journalists like those from The Associated Press would be all over them.
Susman herself proclaimed that in the end, it was good that the media kept her story confidential, partly because media acknowledgment of the Somalian robbers would have made things more problematic for Susman’s survival, adding to the thugs’ arrogance.
Although Tina Susman’s case met a moderately relieving outcome, hundreds of other kidnapping cases have not seen a safe close, considering their involvement with terrorist-induced conflicts.
2002 would mark the year when journalist kidnappings became a global concern, as reporters became potential victims in treacherous power-fueled schemes used by terrorist groups to seek money and attention from the masses. Following the murder of reporter Daniel Pearl, several terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda have used homicide as the key component in seeking ransom negotiations and for “propaganda purposes” at a highly effective level; both elements were once controversially debated in the 1994 kidnapping case of Tina Susman.
In 2003, The New Yorker presented several points on the harrowing scenarios, highlighting that if bargains are offered to terrorist groups at a low rate, only amputations of the kidnapped are likely to be sent; with intricate negotiations set at an expensive price, many remain unsure the kidnapped will be returned safely in one piece.
Today, the stakes of ransom negotiations remain uncertain and have ignited a firestorm of controversy from the public, especially those bearing kidnapped loved ones who served in a range of posts from military personnel to communication officials.
The disappearance of Austin Tice, who has been missing since mid-August 2012, has raised many questions concerning congressional powers’ consideration in establishing a new U.S. policy that assures the return of hostages and enhances the informational exchange of loved one’s whereabouts between government agencies and families.
The case has since not seen positive news coverage. Recently, a report that confirmed that Tice was not being held captive by once-presumed Syrian powers, leaving his whereabouts unknown.
The episodes of journalist kidnapping have caused extreme pandemonium this past year. Notably, the global coverage of the terrorist group ISIS, murdering hostages in the most brutal fashion and capturing the footage on video-camera, only to be uploaded on the Internet for the public to see, has garnered much attention. This is the same strategy those in the discussion of the 1994 case of Tina Susman feared would propel terrorist pacts to conjure controversy in order to attain media attention.
Last year, it was reported by the advocacy group known as Reporters Without Borders that a total of 119 journalists were captured in 2014, with 66 murdered—a 35% increase compared to the previous year.
– Jeff Varner
Sources: American Journalism Review, The New Yorker, CBS News, Poynter, McClatchy DC
Photo: The Atlantic
Groups Speak Out Against Helms Amendment
Many organizations and individuals are becoming more vocal against the Helms Amendment. Passed by a conservative Congress in 1973 as a reactionary measure against the landmark court case, Roe v. Wade, the Helms Amendment denies women in countries receiving American aid the ability to get abortions with government money.
This amendment has received flack from both liberals and conservatives due to the denial of safe abortion options for women who are victims of rape during war. The opposition has grown a lot of steam world wide.
Before President Obama touched down in Kenya last week, the Kenyan government tore down a billboard that seemed to be politically motivated. According to reports, the billboard implored President Obama to utilize his executive action to help women who are victims of rape in developing countries.
After the Kenyan government took the billboard down, many were upset. Perhaps the government wanted Obama’s trip to his father’s country to be pleasurable and void of political dissonance.
Obama is not just receiving pressure to revoke the amendment abroad, but also at home.
Before his trip to Kenya, 70 U.S. non-government organizations called for Obama to visit health clinics in Kenya that attend to women’s’ health so that he can see for himself what the amendment is causing.
At the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” in June, religious leaders requested that Obama use swift action to revoke the amendment. The support to revoke the amendment is not just from leaders, but from the majority of the American public.
BuzzFeed reported that 81 percent of people support a woman’s right to have access to an abortion in the case of rape or for the safety of the mother. Although this poll shows people’s views domestically, they can translate to the global stage.
Women living in countries rampant with a gang and terrorist violence are subject to rape. Because of the lack of protection the perpetrators have, the victims are oftentimes subject to sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.
Due to rape being a tool of war, many from both sides express their disdain for the harsh bill. Perhaps the president will one day voice his opposition.
– Erin Logan
Sources: The Daily Beast, Buzzfeed 1, Gender Health, Buzzfeed 2
Photo: Woman Under Seige Project
The #MakeTechHuman Campaign: Technology to Serve All
Technology has the power to save millions, yet it also poses serious risks. In order to discuss and mitigate that risk, mobile tech giant Nokia and technology magazine WIRED have teamed up to launch the #MakeTechHuman campaign: a proposed debate on the future of technology and its potential for aiding the human race. “The #MakeTechHuman debate that Nokia has enabled is all about ensuring that technology serves humanity, in the right way,” says Nokia’s Chief Marketing Officer, Barry French. At the core of the debate is the issue of artificial intelligence (AI).
An open letter signed by innovators such as Bill Gates, Tesla Motors’ CEO Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking is part of the joint endeavor, and it lays out specific ways in which AI can be used in the fight against disease and global poverty. The letter states that AI “has the potential to bring unprecedented benefits to humanity.” Experts agree that AI can, quite possibly in the near future, do great things for society. One example that the letter cites is the eradication of global hunger through optimized farming practices. AI also has the potential to revolutionize the medical field by providing diagnoses and treatment far quicker than a human can.
It is ideal for technology to serve all, however, technology comes at a price. The purpose of #makeithuman is to ensure that the technology designed to save the suffering does not turn on them. To encourage a discussion on possible solutions and ways to mitigate risk, Stephen Hawking has joined #makeithuman with his first Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session. The renowned physicist is encouraging all to join the conversation about AI and the countless and revolutionary methods of aid it can provide.
– Joe Kitaj
Sources: Nokia, Wired, Reddit, Future of Life, PR Newswire
Photo: Flickr
10 of the Cruelest Dictators Who Ignored the Impoverished
10. Vladimir Putin
Putin is the current president of Russia and has been in power since 1999. He spent four years as Prime Minister from 2008 to 2012, though most experts believe he was still calling the shots. Putin is a strong man and one of the cruelest dictators, ruling Russia with a fierce grip. His presidency has been lamented by human rights groups and Western governments. Putin maintains a terrible domestic civil rights policy and viciously puts down political dissent and free speech. Not to mention, under his command Russia has engaged in military action in Georgia, Chechnya, and most notably the invasion and annexation of Crimea, thus violating Ukrainian sovereignty.
9. Robert Mugabe
Now in his seventh term of office as president of Zimbabwe is Robert Mugabe. Many political scientists and experts have cited massive electoral fraud and rigging in Mugabe’s favor during the 2013 election. According to both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Mugabe’s government systematically violates the right to shelter, food, freedom of movement and political expression. In addition, Mugabe made all acts of homosexuality illegal in Zimbabwe.
8. Muammar Gaddafi
Self-proclaimed “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution” of Libya for more than 50 years, Gaddafi was, at first, a widely supported leader after he led the September Revolution in 1969. However, as he consolidated power his regime became more authoritarian. His calls for Pan-Africanism were greatly overshadowed by his pitiful human rights record. During the Arab Spring, Gaddafi ordered his forces to fire on unarmed protesters calling for his resignation. The UN Human Rights Council called for an investigation into war crimes. Gaddafi was deposed and killed at the end of the Libyan Civil War.
7. Idi Amin
Amin’s paranoid administration was marred by rampant violence to his political enemies. UN observers estimate that 100,000 to 500,000 were persecuted and killed in Uganda under his reign. Amin’s victims were originally his direct political opponents and those who supported the regime that he fought to overtake. However, extrajudicial killings began to include academics, lawyers, foreign nationals and minority ethnic groups within the country.
6. Kim Jong Il
Kim Jong Il continued his father’s fearsome policy of official party indoctrination. North Korea currently ranks as one of the poorest nations on the planet, with millions facing starvation, disease and lack of basic human needs. Under Kim’s reign, North Korean military spending quadrupled, yet he refused foreign aid and did not invest in his country’s farms, thereby indirectly killing millions. Kim’s policy of mass internment through the use of labor camps and virtually no political debate makes him on of history’s worst despots.
5. Pol Pot
Pot was the dictator of Cambodia for 20 years from 1961 to 1983 as the leader of the Khmer Rouge government. His regime is characterized by the Cambodian genocide and the infamous “killing fields.” Pol Pot began a program of severe nationalization whereby he forced millions from urban areas into the countryside to farm and work on forced labor projects. Due to the forced labor, poor food and medical conditions, and the addition of massive amounts of state-sponsored killings, nearly 25 percent of Cambodia’s population died under Pol Pot’s rule.
4. Bashar al-Assad
As the current president of Syria, Assad’s authoritarian regime was called into question during the Arab Spring and cited for numerous civil rights violations including suppression of free speech, corruption and political freedom. Assad ordered massive crackdowns and thus triggered the ongoing Syrian Civil War. Government forces only grew more violent toward protesting Syrian citizens, and there have been allegations of chemical warfare. Assad has been accused of numerous human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
3. Joseph Stalin
Stalin was the second leader of the Soviet Union. Though part of the original seven Bolshevik leaders, Stalin quickly consolidated sole power and became a tyrant. In the 1930s he pursued a policy of political upheaval known as “the Great Purge.” From 1930 to 1934, millions of Soviet citizens were imprisoned, exiled or killed. Stalin also pursued a policy of massive economic reforms that led to the deaths of millions due to famine and forced labor in Gulag camps.
2. Mao Zedong
Zedong was the first chairman of the Communist Party of China, and in terms of numbers of deaths during his reign, he tops the list. Nearly 70 million Chinese died during his rule. Zedong systematically broke down Ancient Chinese culture and nearly ended political dissent and freedom in China. His revolutionary economic policies during “the Great Leap Forward” resulted in one of the worst famines in modern history. In addition, Mao also implemented forced labor and public executions.
1. Adolf Hitler
Hitler was the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. Hitler tops the list of cruelest dictators because of his disturbingly systematic genocidal policies. A total of 5.5 million Jews and other “unwanteds” were deliberately targeted and executed in sanctioned ghettos, work camps and extermination camps. Hilter’s foreign policy and unrelenting desire to give the German people “room to live” was the major cause of World War II. Hitler also put down political dissenters and enemies as well as banning non-government sanctioned art, film, literature and teaching methods.
– Joe Kitaj
Sources: Forbes, List 25, The Atlantic
Photo: Flickr
How Theranos Has Simplified Blood Testing
Getting a blood test is never pleasant. But what if I told you there is a new way of getting blood tests that does not involve big needles, just a prick on your finger? Well, that is exactly what Theranos has done.
Theranos is a private health-technology and medical-laboratory services company in Palo Alto California, founded in 2003 by Elizabeth Holmes. Earlier this year, Elizabeth Holmes was inducted into the newest class of Presidential Ambassadors for Global Entrepreneurship. She is the youngest female self-made billionaire.
Holmes and her team have reduced blood tests from many vials of blood to just a few drops. Theranos focused on reducing the blood sample size, making it inexpensive, and transparent about its prices.
Why is so much blood drawn? Holmes explains, “The entire system was designed around that, when clinical lab infrastructure began to develop similar to mainframe computing, where you have large highly centralized systems that require that much blood.”
The company’s goal is to have patients test their blood more often so doctors will be able to see any indicators for a condition, disease or something much earlier than when the physical symptoms appear. According to Holmes, “40-60 percent of Americans do not go get their lab test when their doctor has told them to.”
Holmes also adds that “doctors do not usually order lab tests unless patients report systems for a given condition because, in order for them to have the insurance pay for it, they have to justify it on the lab form with a code that describes a patient’s symptoms. By the time a test is ordered, you are probably at risk.” Holmes seeks to make the process better, to engage people, so that data can be used as a preventative measure as opposed to a reactive measure.
Holmes argues that these small samples are more accurate than the larger ones. Theranos has worked in eliminating the error in variability that is associated with the human processing of samples, which according to Holmes is the cause of 93 percent of the errors in today’s lab industry. Theranos has used advances in technology to automate many of the processes and decentralize and distribute the infrastructure to reduce the errors of human processing.
Theranos has also made the tests cheaper through advancements in technology, by redeveloping the chemistry, hardware and software that is used in the traditional infrastructure. The prices compared to medical reimbursement rates start at 50 percent off Medicare reimbursement rates and go to 90 percent off Medicare reimbursement rates.
Some are skeptical about Theranos’ technology and wonder how it is able to offer tests for less with a faster turnaround time than lab giants such as Laboratory Corp. of America and Quest Diagnostics.
Theranos’ partners include Walgreens, Capital Blue Cross Pennsylvania, the Carlos Slim Foundation and AmeriHealth Caritas.
Capital Blue Cross Pennsylvania has been very thorough in vetting the Theranos technology. The Senior Vice-President of the company, Aji Abraham, had his blood tested with Theranos and then compared the results to a recent traditional blood test, and no significant differences were discovered.
The Carlos Slim Foundation is using Theranos technology in clinics across Mexico, in an attempt to provide blood tests for cholesterol, kidney proteins and other lab results to 1 million people to fight health problems caused by obesity.
To date, Theranos has raised $92 million in VC funding from investors such as Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Larry Ellison. Its locations include Theranos wellness centers in Walgreens and other locations in Arizona and California with new locations coming soon.
– Paula Acevedo
Sources: Business Insider, CNN Videos, Forbes.com
Photo: USA Today
UNICEF’s U-Report Makes Strides in Media
This has allowed many young people in developing countries, who would otherwise not have a voice, to share opinions on everything from skills they think would be the most beneficial in the working world to the best way to deal with country policy.
This information is recorded as documentation of the real-time insights of people living with the current problems of the world. Local governments of these developing countries can view U-Report statistics and information to ascertain the perspective of future generations.
Once a person joins U-Report, they can receive weekly SMS messages and polls to and from a growing community of U-Reporters, regular radio programs that will broadcast relevant stories, and newspaper articles that will publish news from the local community.
“U-Report is an entirely new model for engaging young people, empowering communities, and holding governments more accountable,” said Jean Gough, UNICEF Representative in Nigeria, where the platform is helping UNICEF workers share critical information about Ebola, polio, and newborn care with families living in remote areas that health workers cannot easily reach.
U-Report has become so popular and influential within Africa that Airtel Nigeria, a telecommunications company, has partnered with UNICEF to make U-Report more accessible. Through this improved connectivity, more Nigerians will have free access to the mobile applications and services developed by UNICEF. The partnership increases the information and provides more opportunities for participation by allowing UNICEF to tap into Airtel’s mobile services to make health, education, child protection and community-focused content readily available to all Airtel Nigeria customers.
These strides by UNICEF to make global awareness readily accessible to young people have improved the chances in the future for a better, more connected global society.
– Alysha Biemolt
Sources: UNICEF, Ureport, Telecom Paper, Airtel
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Solar Power Kits Shine Light On Entrepreneurial Opportunity
When a bike accident left Pascal Kassongo injured, out of a courier job, and nearly destitute, his prospects looked grim. But thanks to the Amandala Project, Kassongo has found a new source of income with the Ecoboxx.
Lightweight and portable, each Ecoboxx can supply up to 50 hours of power and comes with a fan, hair clippers and charging ports for cell phones and other devices. Since launching in January of 2015, the Amandala Project, whose name means “power” in Zulu, has distributed 300 solar power kits to South Africans in need, with plans to distribute almost 600 more kits in the near future.
The goal of the project is to supply the unemployed, and particularly the migrant, residents of South Africa with the means to start their own small businesses, free of any charge past the initial investment. An individual can make up to 1,600 rand (about $128) cutting hair each week, and another thousand charging phones and other devices. The average income in South Africa for unskilled workers is around $500 per month.
While some choose to stick with running a barbershop with their Ecoboxx, others have come up with creative alternative uses. Janet Bete, who came to South Africa from Zimbabwe, rents out her kit for lights to local businesses and churches operating when it is dark. The enterprising woman also takes time to give back to her community. “Whenever there is a funeral in my community and there is no power, I donate my lights—it’s my way of paying [people] back for living well together,” said Bete.
Kassongo has also opted to put his solar kit to an alternative use. Rather than run a barbershop himself, Kassongo, a father of four, rents his kit out to neighbors who do own barbershops, sharing the proceeds with them. “It helps put something on the table,” said Kassongo.
The Ecoboxx, which retails at around 4000 rand, is being distributed by the Amandla Project, a subsidiary of the South African organization Community Chest, for a nominal fee of 200 rand. Community Chest CEO Lorenzo Davids said he hopes the kits will “electrify” rural South Africa, and when combined with creative entrepreneurialism, help generate income in the regions that so desperately need it.
– Gina Lehner
Sources: All About Africa, EcoBoxx
Photo: EcoBoxx
Sustainable Development and Poverty in Hispaniola
Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the island of Hispaniola. Despite the proximity, the two countries are worlds apart.
Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere. Eighty percent of the population lives in some degree of poverty. According to the U.N. Human Development Index, Haiti ranks 149th out of 182 countries.
About a third of the Dominican Republic’s citizens live in poverty. Not an ideal rate by any means, but markedly better than Haiti’s. If you live in the Dominican Republic, you can expect to live 74 years and there is a 90% chance you are literate. In Haiti, those numbers drop to 61 years and 50%, respectively. Child mortality rates are three times higher in Haiti.
Dominican Republic citizens also enjoy infrastructure such as roads and reliable electricity. In Haiti, that is a dream.
How did two countries that share an island become so different? The answer is rooted in their histories and geography, and how both of those shaped their use of the rainforest that once covered most of Hispaniola.
Haiti has a larger coastline than its neighbor, making it more susceptible to hurricanes. Since its biggest cities are on the coast, they are adversely impacted by flooding.
During colonial times, Haiti was a colony of France. The economic driver was forestry and sugar-related agriculture, which caused considerable environmental degradation. The French owners also imported a lot of slaves for labor. Due to the mixing of so many cultures, there has been much political instability since Haiti’s independence in 1804.
The Dominican Republic was ruled by Spain until 1844. Although Spain did exploit the island’s resources for monetary gain, it imported far fewer slaves, leading to a more homogenous culture when they ceded control. Its primary economic driver was livestock farming.
Although the Dominican Republic has endured its fair share of political strife, the country has been politically and economically stable since the institution of a democratic system. The stability has played a role in the preservation of their rainforest. This has had many economic benefits, as tourism is the biggest cog in the country’s economy. There are also many residual effects. The rainforest inhibits mudslides from occurring during rainstorms, preventing millions of dollars of damage to infrastructure. The rainforest also keeps the soil intact for substance farming, which provides a source of livelihood for many people.
In Haiti, 98% of the rainforest has been removed. This process started under French rule and continues to this day. Haiti’s lack of reliable electricity makes wood burning the island’s primary source of power. It is estimated that 15 thousand acres of topsoil are washed away annually. This lowers the monetary and crop productivity of the land, which causes more poverty, which leads to more deforestation.
To break this vicious poverty cycle, the Haitian government has pledged to prevent the complete deforestation of Haiti. President Michel Martelly launched a campaign in 2013 to plant 50 million trees a year. Reforestation is considered essential to raise living standards. The goal is to have forest cover 29% of the country by 2060.
The campaign has slowed deforestation through educational outreach to farmers, and by promoting non-wood burning stoves. Apparel company Timberland and its partner, Smallholder Farmers Alliance, have assisted with the process by planting over five million trees.
The link between poverty and excessive resource exploitation is clear in Haiti. Long-term planning about ecosystem viability is essential, not just for the environment, but also for the people who live there. That’s something every country should notice.
– Kevin Meyers
Sources: Time, Deutsche Welle, Food Tank, Heritage.org, Index Mundi, The Guardian
Photo: UNEP
Surge of Journalist Kidnappings
Journalist kidnappings, an issue which has been associated with terrorism, has grown on a global scale. With a total of 720 kidnapped reporters being murdered in the past decade, examiners are trying to fully understand these incidents, while educating the public of its many complications.
In 1994, a debate emerged when an Associated Press writer, Tina Susman, had gone missing after she was snatched off reporting grounds by Somalian thugs. The journalist would later be held for ransom for a near-20 day count while being stored in a cramped room.
Controversially, in the wake of her disappearance, Susman’s story never broke the air until she was rescued, initiating concern from the public over “double standard[s]” and “injustice.”
Fellow peers from her reporting unit at the Associated Press addressed the public, saying that they, alongside other news reporting teams, did not want to report on the story as a means to prevent “periling” Susman’s life. However, political officials noted that sources like the Associated Press were being “peculiar” and “overcautious” and loosely implied that such reporting would not have fazed the Somalian terrorists due to the lack of media presence in the developing region.
Congressional officials further argued that if government officials were to keep the story quiet themselves, journalists like those from The Associated Press would be all over them.
Susman herself proclaimed that in the end, it was good that the media kept her story confidential, partly because media acknowledgment of the Somalian robbers would have made things more problematic for Susman’s survival, adding to the thugs’ arrogance.
Although Tina Susman’s case met a moderately relieving outcome, hundreds of other kidnapping cases have not seen a safe close, considering their involvement with terrorist-induced conflicts.
2002 would mark the year when journalist kidnappings became a global concern, as reporters became potential victims in treacherous power-fueled schemes used by terrorist groups to seek money and attention from the masses. Following the murder of reporter Daniel Pearl, several terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda have used homicide as the key component in seeking ransom negotiations and for “propaganda purposes” at a highly effective level; both elements were once controversially debated in the 1994 kidnapping case of Tina Susman.
In 2003, The New Yorker presented several points on the harrowing scenarios, highlighting that if bargains are offered to terrorist groups at a low rate, only amputations of the kidnapped are likely to be sent; with intricate negotiations set at an expensive price, many remain unsure the kidnapped will be returned safely in one piece.
Today, the stakes of ransom negotiations remain uncertain and have ignited a firestorm of controversy from the public, especially those bearing kidnapped loved ones who served in a range of posts from military personnel to communication officials.
The disappearance of Austin Tice, who has been missing since mid-August 2012, has raised many questions concerning congressional powers’ consideration in establishing a new U.S. policy that assures the return of hostages and enhances the informational exchange of loved one’s whereabouts between government agencies and families.
The case has since not seen positive news coverage. Recently, a report that confirmed that Tice was not being held captive by once-presumed Syrian powers, leaving his whereabouts unknown.
The episodes of journalist kidnapping have caused extreme pandemonium this past year. Notably, the global coverage of the terrorist group ISIS, murdering hostages in the most brutal fashion and capturing the footage on video-camera, only to be uploaded on the Internet for the public to see, has garnered much attention. This is the same strategy those in the discussion of the 1994 case of Tina Susman feared would propel terrorist pacts to conjure controversy in order to attain media attention.
Last year, it was reported by the advocacy group known as Reporters Without Borders that a total of 119 journalists were captured in 2014, with 66 murdered—a 35% increase compared to the previous year.
– Jeff Varner
Sources: American Journalism Review, The New Yorker, CBS News, Poynter, McClatchy DC
Photo: The Atlantic
How to Pay for Healthcare When You Have No Money
If you are already poor and lacking cash, how do you pay for medical treatment? The answer is that there is a sizable chance that you cannot. In the United States, the biggest cause of bankruptcy is healthcare expenditures; in other words, people cannot pay their medical bills. What does this mean for countries who are not as well off as the United States?
In a country such as the United States, which is a rich, industrialized nation, a large number of people cannot afford medical treatments in part because of the soaring medical care costs and in part due to the system in place. Part of the problem, both in America and abroad, is that without insurance the out-of-pocket costs for healthcare can be huge. Being confronted with a huge lump sum to be paid after a medical service or good is received is often incredibly stressful and hard for many people. It strains the financial resources of the immediate family and leaves them having to decide between basic necessities and medical care–a choice no one should ever need to make. This effect is inevitable for the impoverished. It is already hard enough to save any money at all, let alone have an emergency fund for medical expenditures.
Novartis attempted to launch a new model of distributing and financing business with poorer families in India to address many of the concerns with existing healthcare distribution and payment systems. For example, to decrease the burden of out-of-pocket healthcare costs, Novartis began to distribute over-the-counter drugs in daily or multi-day packs rather than in larger quantities. This may seem trivial, but it actually began to work and eventually even turned a profit for the company–proving it to be a sustainable model. It worked because it allowed the out-of-pocket costs to be spread over a longer period of time for those who needed the drugs over multiple days or weeks while allowing those who only had a temporary need to get a quantity that fit their need most directly (one or two pills versus a large pack that cost much more). This benefits the people not only financially, but also physically. By distributing in smaller amounts and for proportionately smaller costs, this increases the likelihood that a sick person would seek to obtain medical care, knowing that the costs would be lower for sicknesses requiring only one or two pills to treat.
The Novartis example still doesn’t quite answer the question of how the poor pay for the healthcare costs they incur. The answer is that in many cases the poor will pay costs out-of-pocket, and endure financial hardships to do so. Another, possibly even worse method is to sell assets or borrow money to pay for the costs of healthcare. A study that looked at low- and middle-income countries that accounted for over 3 billion people found that approximately 25% of households borrowed money or sold assets to cover healthcare costs. While paying out-of-pocket is bad, needing to sell household items or borrow money can lead to even greater financial hardships over a longer period, in many situations.
Many developing countries lack the proper health infrastructure to provide for their populations at a reasonable cost that the local populace can afford. Even some developed countries such as the United States have trouble with these issues. The industry of healthcare is a complicated problem that involves a twisted entanglement of economics and human well-being in its most literal form.
– Martin Yim
Sources: CNBC, Reuters, Health Affairs
Photo: Marketing and Women
Initiatives to Improve Lives in South Sudan
Organizations and governments initiated different forms of help for the situation in South Sudan. Some of the main strategies have been promoting peace, increasing access to food and sanitation, and encouraging foreign investment.
Oxfam America, a nonprofit organization aiming to “fix the injustice of poverty,” has initiatives to combat multiple issues caused by poverty and conflict: improve access to clean water, food and sanitation, and promote peace. Some of the response includes rebuilding wells and sanitation facilities for hospitals. In order to further people’s self-sustainability, Oxfam also gives materials to help communities get food, such as seeds and fishing equipment. For Oxfam, initiatives to fix issues caused by poverty is the focus, while for others, the encouragement of international investment is the way to help South Sudan.
South Sudan has mineral deposits and oil reserves. The South Sudanese government is encouraging foreign investors to invest in this sector of the economy. They formed the Investment Protection Act of South Sudan in 2011 to protect the land and intellectual property rights of national and foreign investors.
The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, or ACCORD, is a South African organization aiming to relieve conflict in Africa. ACCORD has a South Sudan Initiative, or SSI, which focuses on building and maintaining peace between Sudan and South Sudan, as well as among the South Sudanese citizens. Some of the conflict identification and resolution efforts include “coordinating the efforts to develop a standardized conflict management training toolkit,” and “providing conflict management, mediation, and negotiation trainings for South Sudanese, officials, diplomats” and “United Nations Mission in South Sudan civil affairs officers.”
Some see bolstering the economy as the solution that will better the lives of those in South Sudan, some view access to sanitation and food as the place to start, and some believe peacebuilding techniques will help end the conflict and give way to a healthier, more efficient society. While separately, these initiatives may not combat every issue that exists within the complicated and historical conflict in South Sudan, with all of these initiatives acting simultaneously, a better future for the South Sudanese seems possible.
– Rachelle Kredentser
Sources: Accord 1, Accord 2, About, Oxfam America, Oxfam America 2, Goss-Online
Photo: Flickr