summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Have your say on the NHI Bill

Public hearings

Gauteng

    1. 14 Sept, 10h00-13h00
Venue: Tshepo-Themba Multipurpose Resource Centre, Joburg.
    2. 21 Sept, 10h00-13h00
Venue: Brixton Multipurpose Centre (Round Table Session)

Western cape

    1. 18 Sept, Beaufort West
    2. 19 Sept, George
    3. 20 Sept, Caledon
    4. 22 Sept, Wale str Cape Town
    5. 26 Sept, Saldanha Bay
    6. 27 Sept, Vredendal
    7. 29 Sept, Paarl

Free State

    1. 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 October.

Further details on the times and venues will be communicated in due course.

Limpopo

    1. 27 Sept, time tbc
Venue: Vhembe, Thulamela, George Phadagi Hall (Former Town Hall)
    2. 27 Sept, time tbc
Venue: Mopani, Tzaneen, Nkowankowa Community Hall
    3. 28 Sept, time tbc
Venue: Capricorn, Polokwane, Botokwa, Machaka Tribal hall
    4. 28 Sept, time tbc
Venue: Waterberg, Modimolle, O R Tambo Municipal Hall
    5. 29 Sept, time tbc
Venue: Sekhukhune, Ephraim Mogale, Municipal Town Hall(Marblehall)

Mpumalanga

    1. 10, 12, and 17 October. Further details will follow.

North West

    1. 20 Oct, time and further details to follow

Northern Cape

    1. 29 Sept, time tbc

Report on the written public comments

Download [3.27 MB]

Public comments as delivered to parliment

Download [8.88 MB]

With the National Health Insurance Bill having recently been approved by the National Assembly [now open for comment by the NCOP], Webber Wentzel experts, Martin Versfeld, Prelisha Singh, Glenn Penfold and Robert Appelbaum unpack what it means, as well as some of the concerns relating to the practical implementation of the scheme.

Download [239.04 KB]

In the Media

Discovery Health rejects contentious NHI bill – Discovery had broadly supported the proposed reforms. But in submissions to Parliament last year, it rejected the single-funder model as unworkable. For more on this we’re joined by Ryan Noach of Discovery Health.

The country’s public health system is limping due to a shortage of staff, equipment, and a brain drain, which has seen many healthcare practitioners leaving the country. It’s made it difficult for the system to cope with demand, particularly during peaks, such as the flu season or during the COVID-19 outbreak. Is National Health Insurance the solution? We discuss this further with Director of Mancosa’s School of Healthcare, Paresh Soni.

The South African Medical Association remains concerned by the changes which will be brought about by the introduction of the National Health Insurance Bill if it is approved. Russell Rensburg from the Rural Health Advocacy group unpacks the implications.

As government rolls ahead with the NHI, are they ignoring its many red flags? Discovery Health Chief Executive Officer Ryan Noach.

The National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill is passed and now moves on to the National Council of Provinces, before reaching the desk of the President for consideration. This takes the country a step closer towards universal healthcare coverage which is intended to provide quality healthcare to all citizens regardless of the size of their pockets, employed and unemployed. Tonight we look at what it means for you and joining Full View is Deputy Health Minister Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo.

The National Health Insurance Bill was approved by the National Assembly. It’s a health financing system created to provide access to quality health care for South Africans regardless of their socioeconomic status. eNCA speaks to Dr Katlego Mothudi, managing director of the board of Healthcare Funders.

Health Minister Dr Joe Phaahla has defended the National Health Insurance Bill, saying it’s what the country needs to ensure that all have access to quality healthcare. The National Assembly recently passed the Bill, which is now referred to the NCOP for concurrence. Many in the health sector and other stakeholders have fiercely criticised the Bill. But Dr Phaahla says critics are motivated by vested and narrow interests.

The passing of the National Health Insurance Bill has elicited mixed reactions. The NHI will cover all South Africans, employed or unemployed regardless of income. Some have described it as the most revolutionary bill ever passed by the Parliament while others say it lacks clarity. We talk more about this with a Health and Social Security Specialist, Professor Alex van der Heever.

Summary – Memorandum of Objects

Download [63.30 KB]

The NHI Bill

Download [155.21 KB]

Encourage participation with this – download and distribute

Download [181.65 KB]

STATEMENTS FROM CIVIL AND INTERESTED ORGANISATIONS

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display a statement from your organisation? Click here. 

en English
af Afrikaansen Englishst Sesothoxh Xhosazu Zulufr Frenchpt Portuguese
Close

Freedom of Religion SA (FOR SA)

TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY FOR SA

I strongly oppose the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill [B9B – 2018], which I believe to be unconstitutional and unnecessary, for the following reasons:

  1. The Bill violates our constitutional rights as religious persons to express our religious beliefs without fear of punishment or persecution (section 15, read with section 16). Increasingly, around the world but also in South Africa, various holy scriptures (particularly on contentious issues) are regarded as “politically incorrect” or “offensive”, allegedly causing emotional and/or social harm.
  2. I specifically oppose the Bill’s:
    1. wide definition of “harm” (in Clause 1);
    2. the failure to define “hatred” (in Clause 1); and
    3. definition of, and creation of, the crime of “hate speech” (in Clause 4).
  3. The creation of the crime of “hate speech” for saying / distributing something which could possibly be construed as “harmful”, will have certain unintended consequences, namely the criminalisation of good / well-meaning people who will be prosecuted for saying what they sincerely believe (according to their holy texts) and sent to jail.
  4. There are already sufficient existing laws dealing with “hate speech”.
  5. For all of the reasons given, I ask:
    1. For the scrapping of the “hate speech” sections from the Bill altogether;
    2. Alternatively, should the “hate speech” provisions remain part of the Bill, we ask:
      1. That “harm” be defined as: “gross emotional and psychological detriment that objectively and severely undermines the human dignity of the targeted group”; and
      2. That “hatred” be defined as: “strong and deeply-felt emotions of enmity, ill-will, detestation, malevolence and vilification against members of an identifiable group, that implies that members of that group are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and subjected to ill-treatment based on their group affiliation”.
    3. That Clause 4(2)(d) (the “religious exemption clause”) be strengthened as follows to protect:
      “expression of any religious conviction, tenet, belief, teaching, doctrine or writings, by a religious organisation or an individual, in public or in private, to the extent that such expression does not actively support, instigate, exhort, or call for extreme detestation, vilification, enmity, ill-will and malevolence that constitutes incitement to cause gross emotional and psychological harm that severely undermines the dignity of the targeted group, based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation”.