A Quote by Prashant Bhushan

Since environmental and health damage is not factored into reducing GDP - and in fact the resulting health costs and the costs of cleaning up the environment would also inflate GDP, a GDP obsessed government would try and dismantle environmental and health regulations.
If you are moving the informal economy into the formal economy, and if the transactions which for years were never reported as part of GDP are now transacted through banking channels, it will only add to the GDP, not reduce the GDP.
Health care costs are on the rise because the consumers are not involved in the decision-making process. Most health care costs are covered by third parties. And therefore, the actual user of health care is not the purchaser of health care. And there's no market forces involved with health care.
The first thing we should acknowledge is that poverty is hugely expensive. It varies from country to country, but most of the time it's around 3, 4 or 5% of GDP. If you look at what it would cost just to top up the income of all the poor people in a country, it would cost about 1% of GDP.
As a small-business owner who kept costs low and health care premiums flat for 10 years in my company, I know firsthand that transparency is the trick to reducing the skyrocketing health care costs that are burdening patients, employers, and our state, local, and federal governments.
Imposing excessive new regulations, or closing coal-fired power plants, would produce few health or environmental benefits. But it would exact huge costs on society - and bring factories, offices and economies to a screeching halt in states that are 80-98% dependent on coal: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Reducing health care costs for families requires increased competition in health insurance.
Reducing health costs and increasing access to health care are worthy goals that every Member of Congress should support.
President Obama famously promised that the Affordable Care Act would not only slow the growth in health care costs, but would also reverse these trends, making the average health insurance plan cheaper. That isn't happening.
It is this obsession with GDP and FDI growth and a facile belief that this growth in the GDP would trickle down to the poor as well, that has led to the neglect of the genuine concerns of the poor in the country.
What I was saying back then was that we have a lot of public health costs that taxpayers end up paying for through Medicaid, Medicare, through uncompensated care, because that was in the context of the push for health care reform and that we needed some way to try to defray those costs.
GDP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play
We know that Congress must find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs, as well as to lower the actual costs of health care.
Mention health in most companies, and the cost of health insurance is what comes to mind, not how the company can invest to prevent further escalation in societal health care costs.
As an environmental engineer who spent the early part of my career cleaning up groundwater contamination, I know firsthand the challenges of cleaning up contaminants and the risks posed to human health if we fail.
What the Affordable Care Act started was a change in the American health care system from paying for procedures to paying for outcomes, paying for health. Other nations have already made that move. We pay for procedures and we get the best procedures in the world and we get the most procedures in the world, and then we spend a huge chunk of our GDP on health care, but we don't have the best outcomes.
It is not rational, never mind 'appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!