What happened to the "Peace Dividend", was World Health System

Dear Gert

I appreciate your suggestions of a World Health System. Of course we can
talk about many sectoral systems; such as a world monetary system, a world
education system, a world social welfare system, a world water resources
system on so on.  It may be that adapting one of these, and making it work
could be the driver for other ones to get started. To be sustainable, an
international system of taxation, I assume, would need to be created. This
is a challenging issue that perhaps a UN agency or a new world-system
institution could deal with.

Your question though actually provoked a another question in my mind:

  To all of those world-systems analyst out there:  What happened to the
"peace dividend"?

It was suppose to be that, after the cold war, all the millions of dollars
annually devoted to the arms race and defence would be used to make the
world a better place (the cost of one tank is the same as the cost of
building a 100 schools in Africa etc. ).  I don't think this happened?

I am suspecting that all the money simply went to technology R&D thereby
increasing the technology divide and in-fact starting a new kind of race
between nations.  The race for nano/bio technologies.

Has anyone out there tried to track the "peace dividend"?


Rick


----- Original Message -----
From: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: 17 June 2000 05:50
Subject: World System of Health Care


> Here are some ideas for a world system of health care.
>
> It may seem frivolous to use the term "world system" (or "world-system")
as
> a non-theoretical category, namely, in the sense of a
> practical-system-to-be-organized which, from a theoretical point of view,
> would more properly be called a "sub-system" of the world(-)system. By
those
> who wish to accelerate the coming of a general world revolution, the
> creation of a world system of health care will likely be perceived as
petty
> "social democratism". By those who believe in the supreme rights of
"market
> forces" (market absolutism) the creation of a world system of health care
> will likely be perceived as a heresy against market principles. However,
in
> my opinion, promoting the health of living people is more important than
> promoting general immizeration for the purpose of promoting a collapse of
> the world system and more important than promoting the freedom of global
> capitalism.
>
> A world system of health care would, in my opinion, be feasible in
> technical, financial, and political terms.
>
> (a) technical feasibility -- in Canada every citizen has a health card
with
> a health-system number as part of a computerized health administration
> system. Depending on the province one lives in, all or major parts of the
> health expenses of an individual are covered by the system. A similar
system
> could be installed world-wide, giving every citizen of the planet a health
> card and access to the health system. (In USA that would mean that an
> additional 35 million people would be covered by the health care system.
> World-wide, I don't have the figures, but let's say, an additional 3
billion
> people would be covered by the global health care system.) This would
> consitute no unsurmountable problems for modern computer technology. The
> health card would carry with it a certain entitlement for health care
> services. This has some similarity with a coupon system, as discussed by
> market socialists like Roemer, Boswell and Chase-Dunn.
>
> (b) financial feasibility -- here one can apply post-Keynesian ideas, as
> developed for the purpose of job-creation by economists like Bill
> Mitchell/Australia and Warren Mosler/USA. Based on their monetary
theories,
> it is possible to finance job creation by public finance (their "employer
of
> last resort" schemes). Since these schemes operate without abolishing
> markets, they can be considered as a kind of market socialism. If these
> public financing methods can be used for job creation, they can,
> conceivably, also be used for providing health services throughout the
> world. A major difference between the Mitchell and Mosler schemes and a
> world health care scheme would be in terms of scope. Their financing
methods
> are conceived for the national level. They would have to be adapted to a
> global level of public finance.
>
> (c) political feasibility -- (1) public support can be expected; (2)
> politicians of periphery and semi-periphery countries could be very
> interested in this, in my opinion. There are even politicians of
first-world
> countries who promote world-wide health in however modest a form (e.g., US
> president Clinton). (3) How about the interests of the capitalist and
> professional classes? The pharmaceutical and health care industries might
be
> interested; professional organizations of physicians in many countries
could
> be interested in this.
>
> (d) "reparations" -- periphey and semi-periphery countries lose unequal
> exchange value at the rate of about 1-2 trillion dollars per year. They
> could claim substantial amounts of global money (e.g., applied to health
> care) as compensation or "reparations" from the world(-)system.
>
> If it can be imagined, it could be feasible -- see, the film "Star Wars"
and
> the American Star Wars program. There was only a difference of a few
years.
>
> To whoever might be interested in this.
>
> Best regards,
> Gert Kohler
> Oakville, Canada
>
>



Southern Africa Development, Research, and Training Institute

Suite 3, Supreme Chambers,
7 Bird St. Central
Port Elizabeth
PO Box 19352
Linton Grange 6015
South Africa

Int. Tel. 27-41-582-4155
Int. Fax 27-41-582-4155
Cell 082-701-2098
sadrat@intekom.co.za
Http://home.intekom.com/sadrat

The Southern  Africa Development, Research, and Training Institute is a
non-profit, non-governmental organisation - Registration No. 99 20687/08
incorporated in South Africa under Section 21, of the Companies Act 1973