Session 2 Introduction: Health Systems in the United Kingdom and the United States and Their Role in Increasing Equity

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 712-712
Author(s):  
Alan Craft ◽  
Fernando Guerra
PEDIATRICS ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 725-726
Author(s):  
David Gordon

The Issue. A major independent inquiry into inequalities in health—and policies that would reduce them—was published in December 1998.1 It identified >40 recommendations designed to reduce inequalities in health. Lifting children out of poverty is among the most important strategies to improve child health. If we want to change policies on health and poverty, then we have to consider the broad political context within which our health systems work. In the United Kingdom, we have a welfare state that sends checks and cash income to 85% of households every month. Many people pay into the welfare state, many people get money back, and everybody receives services.2 In the United States, the situation is different. There, many people pay into the state, but only the poor and corporations actually receive a check. I leave you to decide who gets the most out of these respective systems. We also have fundamental differences in our health systems. In the United Kingdom, 97% of expenditures on health are made by the state; there is virtually no private spending. In the United States, only 44% of health expenditures are made by the state. The limited amount of private health expenditures in the United Kingdom will be reduced further as the National Health Service provides more dentistry in the future. In terms of the amount of resources, the United States spends 14% of its gross domestic product on health, compared with 6% in the United Kingdom. The United States spent $3700 per person on health care in 1997. In the United Kingdom, we spent less than one third of that.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document