by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
(Credit: The Economic Times)
By Frank Islam,
India’s public healthcare system is sick. In late September, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration launched Ayushman Bharat, meaning Long Life India, to address this illness.
This initiative, which has been described as the “world’s biggest healthcare programme” will insure more than 500 million Indian citizens who currently have no coverage. Will “Modicare”, as the programme has been labeled, cure what ails India’s public health care system?
The answer is maybe. That answer must be equivocal because of the enormity of India’s healthcare needs, concerns regarding the adequacy of funding to address those needs, and uncertainty regarding Modicare’s implementation.
Healthcare in India today is tale of two groups. The first group is the wealthy and upper middle-class who receive their healthcare primarily from private sector providers. Overall, that healthcare is of good quality and easily accessible but can be expensive.
The second group is the lower middle-class and the poor who receive their healthcare primarily from public sector providers. Overall, that healthcare is of poor quality, difficult to access and the money spent on it is insubstantial.
In 2015, India’s public expenditure on public healthcare was approximately one per cent of its GDP. This compares quite unfavorably to other countries who provide some form of universal healthcare coverage. For example, Singapore expended 2.2 per cent of its GDP, South Korea expended 4.2 per cent and the United States expended 8.5 per cent.
India’s small expenditures are reflected in its healthcare performance. Some of the deficiencies of the current system are:
* The per capita insurance expenditure on healthcare is one of the lowest in the world. Over 75 per cent of Indians have no health insurance.
* Because the states carry the primary burden for healthcare coverage, there is a significant difference in the scope and nature of that coverage across the country.
* There is a huge rural-urban disparity in terms of the quantity and quality of coverage.
* Compared to the rest of the world, India has an average number of doctors but they attend to only one third of the Indian population.
* The lack of adequate insurance coverage and availability of public sector health care causes Indians to have to cover more than 60 per cent of their expenses personally.
Ayushman Bharat is structured to address these conditions. It provides poor families insurance of up to $6,950 (nearly Rs 500,000) for hospitalisation, calls for the establishment of 150,000 health and wellness centres to provide primary care throughout India and emphasises holistic healthcare ideas such as yoga as part of this intervention.
The programme will expand the public health network far beyond the existing governmental hospitals. It will pay public and private sector facilities a fixed rate for covered services. To date, 15,000 hospitals have applied to be certified providers.
This appears to be a solid framework for launching this new initiative. The government has appropriated $1.5 billion for Modicare health insurance for 2018-19 and 2019-20. Of this, $300 million is allocated for the first year of the programme.
This seems like a lot of money. But, $1.5 billion divided by 500 million covered lives means this is only $3,000 per individual — a very modest amount.
The total allocation also seems insufficient when unknowns are considered: What percentage of the-newly insured will take advantage of their coverage in year one? Who provides payment when an insured individual or family exceeds it coverage? To what extent will private sector providers deliver their services at fixed rates to public sector patients, if they can get full payment from more affluent clients?
Another problem is the issue of implementation and roll-out. The new scheme looks good on paper. But establishing 150,000 health and wellness centres is much easier said than done. This is especially true given that doing this will require extensive collaboration and coordination with India’s 29 states and seven Union Territories which have varying levels of capacity and competence.
In sum, this is not a negative or pessimistic perspective on India’s new healthcare programme, but a realistic one. Modicare represents a beginning and an initial step that must be taken to bring India’s healthcare system into the 21st century.
Some have criticised the introduction of this new programme as a political stunt designed to influence the results of the national elections to be held in 2019. Regardless of why it was done, this action was essential given the sad and sorry state of India’s current public healthcare system.
The challenge and opportunity is to continue to move the healthcare ball up the field. The goal for whomever becomes the next Prime Minister should be to make India’s healthcare programme not only the “world’s biggest” but also among its finest. Accomplishing this will help to move India from a developing to a developed nation and bring it closer to becoming a full-fledged world leader.
(Frank Islam is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, civic leader, and thought leader.)
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Entrepreneurship, News
Frank Islam
By Aziz Haniffa,
Washington, D.C. : Philanthropy by itself is nothing without purpose and so combining the two — into purposeful philanthropy — is the path that best ensures success both in India and the U.S., according to former IT entrepreneur Frank Islam.
“Purposeful philanthropy is making investments directed at creating a difference in pivot point areas that matter to the future of society. The returns on those investments are changes to problematic conditions and/or the creation of individuals who will become change agents to address those conditions,” he said in his address to the Indiaspora philanthropy summit in Georgetown on July 17. He said the distinction between charity and purposeful philanthropy is “critical” because, in his opinion, the focus of charity “is to provide a handout. The focus in purposeful philanthropy is to provide a hand-up and to enable and empower people by giving them a helping hand.”
He said it was imperative that members of Indiaspora recognize “a dual obligation in the goals of this organization— goals that call upon us to collaborate to forge stronger bonds between India and the United States and to build stronger capabilities in both countries.” That includes aiding under privileged Indian-Americans and Indians by redefining the philanthropic model. That’s where “purposeful philanthropy” comes in. Islam said he was not disowning charity, acknowledging that “there certainly must be charitable support and assistance to address the needs of the socially and economically disadvantaged and natural disasters.” But charity by itself does not address root causes or change any underlying needs, he said.
“Purposeful philanthropy concentrates on improving circumstances and conditions. This hand-up approach can take a wide range of forms, ranging from eliminating contaminated water that poisons those who drink or bathe in it, to enhancing the safety of working conditions and to developing the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes and behaviors for a person to be successful in life,” he said. He said the pivot point areas — areas that can be leveraged and effectively addressed to effectuate change and achieve positive outcomes — for purposeful philanthropy “are virtually endless.”
His own priorities, he said, are in education, arts, world peace and civic engagement.
“I have chosen those areas because they are important to me and because I know that improvement in them can make a meaningful and substantial difference.” Philanthropic investments in education are a no-brainer, he said: Education is not only a bridge to the future but an “opportunity creator.” He has supported many scholarships at colleges in the U.S. and India, including the George Mason University in Virginia. Last year he and his wife, Debbie invested $2 million for the Frank and Debbie Islam Management Complex at Aligarh Muslim University, his alma mater.
Islam has also been a donor to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and serves on its board. He has also given support to two of Washington’s leading think tanks, the U.S. Institute for Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center. He has also supported media programs in the U.S., promoting an India connection with the Alfred Friendly Press Partners Scholarship to bring experienced journalists from India to work at a newspaper in the U.S., and study at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.
While pointing to the four pivot point areas that he has zeroed in for his purposeful philanthropy, Islam told the audience, “Each of us must choose the area or areas that matter for our philanthropy. The essential thing is to make that choice and to invest. The size of that investment isn’t what counts. The act of investment is not just financially, but also in non-financial aspects such as giving time, talent and ideas or being a volunteer.”
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Frank F. Islam
By Frank Islam
Since the beginning of this year, there have been a spate of books such as Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury; David Cay Johnston’s It’s Even Worse than You Think; and James Comey’s A Higher Loyalty that “spill the beans” on Donald Trump. While entertaining reads, they do not provide much insight into the future of this democracy.
Three new books released within the past few months do so — because they provide perspectives on the ongoing struggle for America’s head, heart and soul. They are: Michael Hayden’s The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies, Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy, and Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels.
These books and authors make us think about who we are as a country, where we are going, and what we must do to prevail in this struggle. Although their focus is different, the overriding theme of each of these works and writers is the same.
That is the answer to winning these three fights must come from the “us” in USA. The citizens must stand and deliver in order to give leaders the opportunity to follow them.
In a marvelous op-ed for the New York Times titled “The End of Intelligence,”Michael Hayden, former director the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, provides a gloomy picture of the nation’s current condition in the intelligence domain.
Hayden specifically addresses intelligence and national security under President Trump. But what he says transcends the security realm and applies to our national intellect in general.
Hayden comments that we are living in a “post-truth world.” After that, he quotes from historian Timothy Snyder’s pamphlet, “On Tyranny”: To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power because there is no basis upon which to do so. Post-truth is pre-fascism.
Jonah Goldberg provides an experiential contrast to Hayden. He is a journalist who holds a chair at the American Enterprise Institute, is a senior editor at the National Review, and writes a nationally syndicated column.
In spite of their career differences, Hayden and Goldberg share similar concerns about what they see in America today. Where Hayden looks at the head in his book, Goldberg looks at the heart in his. What he sees is a heart of darkness, and that heart tends to separate us rather than bringing us together. As he puts it, “The pull of the tribe is inscribed on every human heart and it can take highly sophisticated and intellectual forms.” He asserts that that our tribal state was overcome by a Miracle created about three hundred years ago by the combination of liberalism and capitalism and the “United States is the fruit of the Miracle.” Then along come corruption, which is the “desire to our authentic selves,” and ingratitude, which is the majority of Americans being “ungrateful for what the Miracle has brought us.” And due to these twin forces, we see the tribalism that is pervading the U.S. today.
Goldberg’s broad prescription for defeating these forces is a re-commitment to capitalism and a civil society. He puts his economic faith in capitalism and his personal faith in “a healthy civil society, not the state, that civilizes people.” A civil society is the antidote for the tribalism that is our human nature. Goldberg wants us to vanquish our devils within. By contrast, Jon Meacham encourages us to remember our better angels.
Meacham is a historian and a Pulitzer Prize winning biographer of presidents. In his new book, The Soul of America, he manages to see the rays of sunshine reflected in our nation’s checkered past that should give us hope for the future.
Meacham examines the leadership roles that Presidents have played to help overcome periods of racial, political, partisan and civic tension. He cites numerous examples of actions and decisions by presidents from George Washington through Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman to Lyndon Baines Johnson to illustrate the country has faced crises and challenges throughout our history that have made a difference in moving the country toward a “more perfect union.”
It’s not just our leaders, however, that have made that difference. In fact, as Meacham noted in an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air on May 2:“Our best moments have come when voices far from power –reformers, protesters, those who have been on the margins —have forced the powerful to take notice…our finest hours have come when presidential power has intersected with voices of protest to take us to higher ground.”
Meacham reminds us that we are all in this — or should be in this together. As Benjamin Franklin advised us after signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, “We must indeed, all hang together, or indeed we shall all hang separately.”
In this divisive environment, where there is such a struggle for the head, heart and soul of America, it is time for each and every one of us to look in the mirror, and to ask what am I doing now, and what can I do as a citizen, to bring us together in a manner that promotes the truth, our civil society, and our better angels.
Asking that question does not give us answers nor ensure productive actions. Failing to ask it, however, means the struggle for the future of our American democracy is over and it will be time to write its obituary.
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Frank Islam,
The Washington D.C. March for Our Lives is over. Does the beat go on? Will this fledgling movement continue and have a lasting impact resulting in new gun laws nationally and in states across this country?
In our opinion, it will. That’s because the tragic shootings in Parkland Florida and the immediate reaction and initiatives launched by the high school students from there represent a pivot point. A pivot point is an area that can be leveraged and addressed effectively in order to effectuate change and achieve positive outcomes.
The activism of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school students has galvanized the nation and moved the gun debate toward a tipping point. A tipping point is the period in time in which change will be brought about.
There are a number of factors leading to that assessment. The primary ones are: the high school core group; the social media; the D.C. March; the other marches; the affiliation of gun activists and concerned citizens; the emerging informed discussion on second amendment rights; and, the emergence of guns as a “wedge” or hot button issue.
Let’s examine each of these in turn.
- High school core group. Every successful change effort has a defined leadership core group. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s included eventual civil rights luminaries such as Ralph Abernathy, Jesse Jackson and Congressman John Lewis. The Stoneman Douglas core group includes Cameron Kasky, Emma Gonzalez, and David Hogg. A potential problem for this group is that some of them will be going their separate ways to different colleges in just a few months and they will lose their direct personal connectivity. That is where the next factor comes in.
- Social media. In this 21st century, social media has become a transcendent tool for communicating, coordinating and causing action. Having grown up with this tool, the Stoneman Douglas students used it in a virtually unprecedented way to turn out a massive national protest less than six weeks after the Parkland shootings.
- D.C. March. It is estimated that 800,000+ participated in this march. The speeches and performances from the stage at the march were brilliantly organized and choreographed. The dominant voices were a rainbow coalition of teenage speakers from Parkland and other cities such as South Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., who had lost family due to gun violence. Their speeches were personal, powerful, and passionate. These speakers were joined by well-known performers such as Andra Day, Demi Lovato and Vic Mensa, whose songs reinforced the words of the speakers and provided more emotional glue to bring everyone at the march and those watching it together.
- Other Marches. In addition to the D.C. march, there were more than 800 other marches across the United States, and in other places around the globe. Hundreds of thousands of students and adults were mobilized to participate in those marches. They will be a resource and an army of the willing going forward.
- Gun Activists and Concerned Citizens. The Parkland slaughter and the subsequent national actions provided a rallying point for leaders from other gun tragedies such as Columbine and Sandy Hook, and groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. It also brought out many moderates and individuals who, in the past, might have been actively involved on other issues, but not on the issue of guns.
- Second Amendment Rights Discussion. For nearly a quarter of a century, the NRA’s leadership has controlled the dialogue on the Second Amendment, misinforming the public and its members that the amendment provides virtually unrestricted gun rights. The truth is that the amendment was established for one reason and one reason only, and that was to protect an individual’s right to have a gun to serve as part of a state’s militia. This new spotlight on the amendment is providing an opportunity to educate the American public in general and to change its opinion on the exact nature of this right.
- Guns as a “Wedge” or Hot Button Issue. As research has shown, one of the reasons that past shootings have not escalated the national debate on gun control and gun rights is that the issue really matters for many NRA members, but it has not mattered nearly as much for the average citizen. The extensive media coverage on the topic from a variety of perspectives is making it more top-of-mind for all. As importantly, the intense focus of the Stoneman Douglas students from the platform at the March for Lives rally on getting out the vote on a moral basis against those elected officials supported by the NRA is making it a wedge or hot button issue — at least for the elections this November.
One of the signs that we saw at the D.C. March said “This is not a moment it is a movement.” We both agree and disagree with what was on that sign.
The March for Our Lives and the hundreds of other marches nationwide was a moment. It was pivot point moment. It was also the starting line for the movement for new, stricter and more rational gun laws. The finish line will be the passage of those laws.
That will undoubtedly take time. But there is momentum now. By seizing that momentum, students, concerned citizens and NRA members who are so inclined can work together to make our schools and country a safer place for all.
(Frank Islam is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, civic leader, and thought leader.)
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Frank Islam,
On March 24, students and citizens from across this great nation will gather in Washington DC for the March for Our Lives. They are not saying it this way, but they will be exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly; protecting valid Second Amendment rights; and protesting what have become Second Amendment wrongs.
If one were to believe the rhetoric of the NRA and gun activists, the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants virtually unrestricted gun rights to individuals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Second Amendment as drafted was narrow in scope and purpose, and remains so in spite of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The Second Amendment in its totality reads as follows: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
To understand the intent of the amendment, it is essential to examine it historically and contextually with a focus on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; various militia acts; and the creation of the National Guard and State Defense Forces. To grasp where the Amendment stands today, it is necessary to review how it has been interpreted judicially over time.
After it was established in 1776, the United States of America was a group of thirteen states that were loosely tied together in 1781 with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. These Articles gave almost all control to the states as independent republics, and created only a firm league of friendship among them.
They created one branch of government, the Congress, but made it essentially irrelevant by giving it no power to do things such as regulate commerce, tax, or establish a single form of currency for the country. Congress was allowed to provide for an army but was compelled to rely upon each state to supply its quota of men to serve in that army voluntarily.
By 1786, Congress and many of the individual states were bankrupt. It had no money to pay foreign lenders who had supported the Revolutionary War and the states themselves were involved in an endless war of economic discrimination against each other. Recognizing the need for change, Congress called for a convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to add amendments to the Articles of Confederation.
It a short period of time, the delegates concluded that the deficiencies of the Articles were too great to be remedied and instead, between May and September, 1787, they created the United States Constitution. The Constitution corrected many of the errors of the Articles, formed a much stronger central government, and established three branches — the executive, legislative and judicial. It was adopted by nine of the states by 1788.
During the debates on adoption of the Constitution at state conventions, many citizens and states’ rights advocates spoke out against the Constitution, fearing that it gave far too much power to the central government and would deprive them of their civil liberties, as they had experienced under British rule. This led to the development of amendments to the Constitution to protect civil liberties, as well as natural and state’s rights. The ten amendments that were adopted in 1791 became known as the Bill of Rights.
The first amendment in this Bill of Rights gives almost unlimited protection to several basic individual liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. The second amendment is not nearly as expansive; it begins with the qualifying statement, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State….” This opening clause using the word “militia” and the phrase “free State” establish the parameters for gun ownership envisioned by the framers.
Although the American Constitution granted Congress the power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia” in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16, there was no provision for a standing national army. Instead the Constitution authorized Congress to use state militias for three specific missions: “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
After the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, the Militia Acts of 1792, providing for the organization of state militias, were passed. These Acts provided for “the President of the United States to take command of state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.”
These Acts conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members referred to as “every citizen, so enrolled and notified” were required, within six months of notification, to “provide himself with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a cartridge with twenty-four bullets.” In 1862, the militia legislation was expanded to all males.
The militia legislation evolved over time. The Militia Act of 1903 established the United States National Guard. That Act redefined the state militias as organized militia and provided much more federal control. Individuals in the organized militias are members of the United States National Guard, and the President is their Commander-in-Chief when they are called into service.
The successor to state militias became “unorganized militias” frequently referred to a “state defense forces” which operate under the sole authority of the state governments in which they exist. In 1956, Congress passed legislation permanently authorizing states to create defense organizations that were under each state’s exclusive control. Twenty-two states have such forces today.
In summary, the historical perspective shows clearly and convincingly that the Second Amendment was established for one reason and one reason only, and this was to protect an individual’s right to a weapon in order to serve as part of the state’s militia. There was and is absolutely no guarantee of a right to a gun outside of this context.
That was the very narrow lens through which all court cases related to the Second Amendment were decided for more than two centuries. Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court widened that lens just a tiny bit in its split 5–4 decision in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, by ruling that the individual had the right to have a handgun at home for personal safety. The minority judges strongly disagreed with this finding, adhering to the position that the right of the individual only related to service in a militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller. His opinion stressed, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited… [The right is]… is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatsoever purpose.”
Scalia’s opinion also declared that “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
In spite of the admonitions in the Heller opinion and the history of the Second Amendment, why and how is it that the NRA constantly asserts that this Amendment provides almost unfettered access to guns, and to express outrage and vilify those who say otherwise?
The ‘why’ is that they are engaging in what we have labeled “Second Amendment wrongs.” They are not trying to protect those rights established by that amendment at all. Rather, they are using it as a camouflage in order to promote their own agenda, which includes advancing the interests of gun manufacturers, NRA leaders, and members who see almost any gun control measure or governmental constraint as an infringement on their rights as individual citizens.
The ‘how’ is that the NRA has deep pockets and deep ties. Its lobbying efforts are virtually unrivaled. Many rate it as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington D.C. It has substantial influence on gun laws with many state legislatures as well — as shown by a recent expose of how the NRA’s lobbying efforts in Florida over the past forty years helped to make it possibly the most gun-friendly state in the nation.
Another reason is that the issue of guns has not mattered nearly as much to the American public in general as it does to NRA members. Research has shown that many gun rights people are activists continually involved in financing and supporting issues and individuals that advance their cause. By contrast, there are far fewer gun control advocates, and they come to the fore only after tragic incidents such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings.
On March 9, the Florida state legislature passed a bill to address school safety and the Second Amendment wrongs that existed in their state. On March 14, tens of thousands of students from thousands of schools across this country walked out of their classrooms to be part of a children’s brigade against these wrongs. On March 24, the participants in the March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C. and in similar marches in other cities, will be taking it to the streets and raising their voices against these wrongs.
There is a momentum. This is a moment in time that must be seized and used to make our schools and country safer. It is an opportunity for concerned citizens to learn a lesson from the students and to stand up, speak out, and get involved to protect their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Time will tell whether we as a nation have learned from this teachable moment and used it to protect our Second Amendment rights and correct our Second Amendment wrongs. Let us hope that time is on our side.
(Frank Islam is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, civic leader, and thought leader.)
