Reply to the math of supplying water

Hereunder is the reply of DPWH National Building Code Development Office OIC-Executive Director Atty. John Alexander S. Belderol dated Aug. 8, 2024 as regards the concern: “This has reference to the letter received by this Office on July 08, 2024 relative to the electronic mail sent by Mr. Ramon Ike V. Seneres dated July 07, 2024 regarding his article entitled "The Mathematics of Supplying Water".

The document proposes a method addressing the challenges in meeting the rising demand for potable water in the Philippines and outlines various methods for water collection and filtration systems. Given the nature and scope of the topics discussed, the National Building Code Development Office (NBCDO), which specializes in building standards regulation, is not in a position to provide a detailed feedback on the issues presented, if any.

Moreover, the aforementioned letter did not specify the intended purpose or objectives clearly, which are essential in fully understanding the context and implications of the letter as well as in formulating an informed response. The sender has not stated an action to be taken. Due to lack of a request for specific action, it would appear that the submission is intended only to provide information and/or suggestion. For these reasons, we are unable to determine what action is immediately required and forward the matter to a specific office for disposition of the concern.

Relative thereto, we respectfully return the endorsement of the abovementioned letter without action other than to acknowledge receipt of the same, until such time that further details are submitted showing clearly that this office may take cognizance thereof.

 

Honest about poverty

Ibon Foundation, a local think tank is questioning the data presented by PBBM in his SONA last July 22, 2024. PBBM in that SONA reported that the poverty incidence in our country fell from 18.1 percent in 2021 before he assumed office, to 15. 5 percent in 2023, implying that it went down because of his executive actions. However, the foundation appears to be questioning the basis for the President's report, seemingly hinting that it was dishonest.

Eventually, the foundation somehow explained that they have no reason to doubt the poverty numbers that were submitted to PBBM by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), but they clarified what they really meant, by saying that what the PSA data really says is that "the number of Filipinos reported as poor has fallen". They then added that their statement is not the same as saying that "there are now fewer poor Filipinos". If you could not fathom the complexity of that explanation, imagine how the rest of the population could understand it.

When I was younger, I heard the story about Juan who got mad at his friend Pedro, because according to Juan, his friend said that he looked like a monkey. In order to appease Juan, his friend Pedro explained that he did not really mean to say that Juan looked like a monkey. Pedro explained that what he really meant to say is that the monkey looked like Juan. With that explanation, Juan was no longer mad at Pedro.

In his Inquirer article that touched on this subject, content research writer Kurt De La Pena wrote that "as the think tank said, the government's poverty threshold is too low, stressing that the monthly poverty threshold for a household with five members is lower than the national median self-rated threshold stated by respondents in the SWS poll on poverty.

I do not know how this debate will end, but what I want to know is what method was used by the PSA to measure the poverty incidence. Was it the traditional method of counting the number of households who could not afford to purchase what is in the "imaginary basket of goods"? Or was it the newer method of the "Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) that was developed by the United Nations to measure depravity of basic goods and services? Whatever that method was, it should have been mentioned in the SONA.

 

Defining universal health care

According to Microsoft Co-Pilot, "Universal Health Coverage (UHC) means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship". In case you have not noticed, the more popular term in the Philippines is "Universal Healthcare", and not "Universal Health Coverage".

What is the difference between the two? As for me, I like UHC better because it is more measurable and countable. What I mean is that it is easier to count who are covered, and who are not. In theory, everyone in the Philippines is covered by health insurance, because of a law requiring PhilHealth to provide that service. In reality however, not everyone is actually covered yet, because everyone has to enroll first before they could be covered, and apparently, not everyone has enrolled yet. PhilHealth is actually the equalizing factor in this equation, because it provides coverage to everyone else who could not afford private health insurance companies.

Generally speaking, all public clinics and hospitals in the Philippines should provide free medical products and services to everyone, including medicines and diagnostics. As it happens however, most patients of public clinics and hospitals here have to pay for medicines and iagnostics on their own, because of budget constraints on the part of the government.

In some cases, PhilHealth could pay for the medicines and diagnostics of patients if it is part of their hospital bills, but understandably, PhilHealth could also not pay for everything, because of their own budget constraints. As it stands now, UHC is more of a theory rather than a reality. It is more of a dream, rather than an actuality. As for me however, it is not an impossible dream, if only the government could put UHC on the top of its budget allocations, and if only the government could reduce or remove the massive corruption that is responsible for draining our tax monies. In the meantime, the government could look into some alternative solutions such as promoting the use of high-quality generic medicines that could pass national standards just like the branded medicines. The government could also look into the outsourcing of some services to private sector providers who are more efficient in providing pay-per-use or rent-to-own machines and equipment.