summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

Have your say on the proposed NHI regulations

Government notice

Download [67.53 KB]

Proposed governance regulations

Download [9.10 MB]

NHI Act 2024

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [1.37 MB]

In the News

Radio 702 Stephen Grootes discusses the National Health Insurance Bill with Thoneshan Naidoo, CEO of the Health Funders Association, exploring its implications for private healthcare and the challenges of implementing universal healthcare.

SABC News President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law the National Health Insurance Act however a central issue is the future role of private healthcare and medical schemes once the NHI is implemented. Today we will explain and verify some of the facts about role of Medical Aid when NHI is implemented.

GNU: DA addresses Expropriation Act and NHI DA Federal Leader John Steenhuisen MP on the implications of the Expropriation Act and the ANC’s push for National Health Insurance (NHI), examining how these developments threaten the unity of the National Government Coalition (GNU).

SABC News NHI Bill | Panel discussion on how it will work and who will fund it

NHI: Doctors dump SA | Carte Blanche | M-Net There’s a growing crisis in our health system. Doctors and other medical professionals are leaving the country in their hundreds. The reasons are varied and all too familiar: better pay and working conditions abroad, safety, and political stability. But increasingly, doctors are being driven away by government’s plan to introduce the National Health Insurance (NHI), a scheme many say is simply unworkable. In this story, we visit Ireland, a favoured destination for our departing doctors, and a country – despite being relatively wealthy – grappling with its own public health issues.

Expresso Show The National Health Insurance NHI Bill explained

STATEMENTS AND MEDIA RELEASES

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display your organisation’s statement? 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”.