Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: What South Africa’s Water Trial Can Teach Us All About Health Care http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-what-south-africas-water-trial-can-teach-us-all-about-health-care/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Drewski http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-what-south-africas-water-trial-can-teach-us-all-about-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-72586 Drewski Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:40:59 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=9442#comment-72586 Emma, a little more info would've been helpful. From what I've found in about 15 minutes, the suit was brought against Johannesburg Water. This is a stock company with the city of Johannesburg as its only shareholder. This kind of structure is routine in Germany for a variety of public services (transit, water, district heating all come to mind), and it's not damning in itself. this case is about extremely disparate approaches to billing for the same service in the same city. (In Jo'burg, the city has already acknowledged that its pay-after-use meters on businesses and in white areas are far more prone to nonpayment than the ones which were in black areas. The company installed prepay water meters only in a part of Soweto, a former apartheid township, after Soweto rejoined Jo'burg.)That isn't the same as the water war in Cochabamba, Bolivia (which involved both domestic class and economic politics as well as contracts with multinationals) nor the many places around the world where companies like Veolia bring clean water at a price which may be too high for most to benefit from it. The case is not unlike the enviornmental-justice approach over the LA high school built on a former oilfield--a specific portion of the population being subjected to a drastically different and unfavorable standard, and that population being easily identified by class, language/culture, or visible minority status. The Johannesburg case would almost certainly win on these grounds, but when it comes to establishing a legal precedent for a right to government services, please recall that the standard established by the South African government is that everybody (connected to a water main) is entitled to 25 liters of water per person per day, based on a household of eight. That's enough to drink, cook, flush the toilet and wash with a washcloth--it doesn't come close to absolute privation. I wish this case were what you present it to be, but I find nothing to bear that out--and my sources were sympathetic to the cause. Emma, a little more info would’ve been helpful. From what I’ve found in about 15 minutes, the suit was brought against Johannesburg Water. This is a stock company with the city of Johannesburg as its only shareholder. This kind of structure is routine in Germany for a variety of public services (transit, water, district heating all come to mind), and it’s not damning in itself. this case is about extremely disparate approaches to billing for the same service in the same city. (In Jo’burg, the city has already acknowledged that its pay-after-use meters on businesses and in white areas are far more prone to nonpayment than the ones which were in black areas. The company installed prepay water meters only in a part of Soweto, a former apartheid township, after Soweto rejoined Jo’burg.)That isn’t the same as the water war in Cochabamba, Bolivia (which involved both domestic class and economic politics as well as contracts with multinationals) nor the many places around the world where companies like Veolia bring clean water at a price which may be too high for most to benefit from it. The case is not unlike the enviornmental-justice approach over the LA high school built on a former oilfield–a specific portion of the population being subjected to a drastically different and unfavorable standard, and that population being easily identified by class, language/culture, or visible minority status. The Johannesburg case would almost certainly win on these grounds, but when it comes to establishing a legal precedent for a right to government services, please recall that the standard established by the South African government is that everybody (connected to a water main) is entitled to 25 liters of water per person per day, based on a household of eight. That’s enough to drink, cook, flush the toilet and wash with a washcloth–it doesn’t come close to absolute privation. I wish this case were what you present it to be, but I find nothing to bear that out–and my sources were sympathetic to the cause.

]]> By: James Withers http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-what-south-africas-water-trial-can-teach-us-all-about-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-72584 James Withers Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:29:31 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=9442#comment-72584 Bruce, We heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself. We are working on it. Thanks for your patience. James Bruce,

We heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself. We are working on it. Thanks for your patience.

James

]]> By: Bruce http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-what-south-africas-water-trial-can-teach-us-all-about-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-72582 Bruce Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:10:30 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=9442#comment-72582 the Poll of the week has been on for a month or so? WTF! the Poll of the week has been on for a month or so? WTF!

]]>