Congress leader Sonia Gandhi hopsitalised in Delhi with stomach-related problem
It has been learned that the 78-year-old former Congress president is currently under observation in the Gastroenterology department of the hospital.
It needs to be mentioned that Sonia Gandhi has been hospitalised for the second time this month.
Earlier, on June 7, she underwent an MRI at Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) Hospital in Shimla after she complained of restlessness.
The Rajya Sabha MP had complained of restlessness and was rushed to hospital immediately.
According to a doctor at IGMC, Gandhi's blood pressure was detected to be marginally higher than normal but she was normal and stable.
She was taken to hospital for routine check-up due to some minor health issues, said Naresh Chauhan, principal advisor (media) to Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, had said.
After being informed about Gandhi's medical condition, CM Sukhu cut short his visit to Una and also headed to Shimla, said a party leader.
Also, a few months ago, Sonia Gandhi was hospitalised in Delhi for a stomach-related problem. During the February visit to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, she was admitted for one day under the care of a gastroenterology specialist.
In September 2022, she visited the US for a medical check-up that was deferred due to the pandemic.
During that visit, she was accompanied by her son and party leader Rahul Gandhi. Due to that visit to the US, Sonia Gandhi was forced to miss a substantial part of the Monsoon Session of Parliament in 2022.
Just before leaving for the US, Sonia Gandhi had ordered a major organisational structuring in the party.
The news about her visit to the US was broken by Congress leader Randeep Surjewala who also tweeted to thank "everyone for their concern and good wishes.'
Indo-Asian News Service
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
14 hours ago
- The National
Marco Rubio says US halted visas for Gazans after Congress concerns over Hamas ties
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the decision to suspend visitor visas for Gazans, even those seeking medical treatment after being injured in Israel's war on the enclave, was made after inquiries from members of Congress. Mr Rubio told CBS on Sunday that the State Department was warned by lawmakers that some of the non-government organisations assisting Gazans with the visas had connections to Hamas. "We won't be in partnership with groups that have links or sympathy to Hamas," he said when asked about the abrupt decision to halt the visas. Mr Rubio was also asked about many of the children in Gaza who received visas to undergo urgent medical treatment. "A small number are issued with children, but they come with adults," he said, suggesting he had concerns about Palestinians who accompanied the injured children. He repeated his belief that evidence presented to the State Department prompted the decision to halt the visas on Saturday morning. "All visitor visas for individuals from Gaza are being stopped while we conduct a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days," the State Department posted on X. Washington faced swift backlash after announcing the decision. Among the groups to criticise the American authorities was HEAL Palestine, a US registered non-profit group that aims to provide "urgent relief and long-term support to Palestinian children and families". It said it was "distressed by the State Department's decision". Another prominent organisation, the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, said the move "will have a devastating and irreversible impact on our ability to bring injured and critically ill children from Gaza to the United States for life-saving medical treatment". The group urged the US to reverse its decision. Shortly after Mr Rubio's interview with CBS, Jason Crow, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives, said claims that some NGOs had links to Hamas "concerning". " Hamas is a brutal terrorist organisation, they should not be travelling anywhere and if that's happening it should be stopped immediately," he added. Some speculated that the State Department's decision was motivated by criticism from Laura Loomer, a far-right activist with close ties to President Donald Trump. Ms Loomer decried the visa system and called on Washington to "shut this abomination down". She said Gazans who arrived in the US were "pro-Hamas ... affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood", without providing any evidence. She criticised HEAL Palestine specifically. "This is a medical treatment programme, not a refugee resettlement programme," HEAL Palestine's said in response. "Our mission gives children a renewed chance at life, whether through life-saving surgery or the ability to walk again ... US taxpayers do not fund this treatment." Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza – which followed the 2023 attacks by Hamas-led fighters that resulted in the deaths of about 1,200 people and the capture of 240 hostages – has killed more than 61,900 people and injured about 155,800.
Gulf Today
10-08-2025
- Gulf Today
Williams exposed all that's wrong with health insurance
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service Venus Williams returned to the professional tennis circuit in July with a win in the first round of the DC Open. (She lost in a late round.) In an interview on the court following the match, the 45-year-old made a somewhat surprising admission on why she decided to return to competitive tennis. 'I had to come back for the insurance because they informed me earlier this year I'm on COBRA," she said, referring to the federal law that allows individuals to temporarily continue their employer-sponsored health insurance after leaving a job by paying the premiums. Williams has made more than $40 million in prize money during her tennis career and has a net worth estimated to be almost $100 million. There's little worry she'd become uninsured due to lack of funds. Still, her comments get at the problem buried so deep into our system of health insurance that no policymaker has the nerve to touch it, which is that health and work shouldn't be linked. Although America's system of health insurance is built on employer-sponsored coverage, there's scant labour market or health justification for this arrangement. The strongest part of the system is the depth of entrenched interests, rather than, say, producing good health outcomes, controlling costs or providing coverage to as many people as possible. Yet, policymakers have made clear that rather than rock this boat, they'd prefer to wait for it to tip over on its own. Congress's lack of stewardship over health insurance dates back to its origins. The first such plan in the US was offered by Baylor University Hospital to Dallas public school teachers in 1929. The architect was a former teacher working in the hospital's administration who came up with a monthly subscription plan in exchange for future hospital stays. After adding more professions and hospitals, it became Blue Cross. The American Medical Association, seeing the success of the American Hospital Association's new experiment, began to offer non-hospital physicians plans, which became Blue Shield. Dropped into this swirling mix of loosely linked occupations, hospitals, doctors, and monthly payments for negotiated care was the multi-year wage freezes of World War II. Employer-paid plans were exempt from these freezes, the costs of plans were deemed to be a business expense, and the benefits were not counted as income. After the war, the Internal Revenue Service solidified the twice-over tax preference as part of the Internal Revenue Code. At no point did policymakers articulate a design to provide health insurance for Americans through their employers. Each successive Congress has instead inherited a system whose circumstantial origins were cemented into something permanent but not planned. The lack of planning is evident when considering the myriad miseries the system creates. Where to begin. First, health insurance is not only expensive for employers to provide, but employers are not equally financially capable of bearing the costs. As a result, larger firms get to provide better coverage than smaller firms, which are at a disadvantage to negotiate things such as insulin costs. On top of which, employees of small firms on average a pay higher share of the total premium as well as face a higher deductible than employees of large firms. Disparity in health-insurance offerings mars the labour market. Productivity is maximised when workers and firms are matched based on their human capital. But throw insurance into the mix, and employers can be boxed out when competing for workers based on their health offerings and workers can warp their job search and tenure based on which employers provide the best health plan. The latter is called job lock, and it's a good description of Williams' experience: Staying at a job mostly for the health insurance. It's a bad situation for workers and employers. Health insurance also mars compensation. There's evidence that workers who can be identified as adding to health costs, such as women of child-bearing age who may become pregnant or obese individuals, are paid less as a result. This is on top of the broader suppression of wage growth and labor demand experienced by all workers as a result of employer health costs. What's truly bad about this whole system is that tying health insurance to work creates coverage gaps that the government must fill. Indeed, the evolution of public health insurance has been about Congress trying to fill holes employers leave behind. And in these holes fall some of the most expensive people or situations to insure. Medicaid covers 35% of all disabled individuals in the US, 61% of all long-term care recipients, and 41% of all births while Medicare covers 80% of all deaths. As a macabre aside, the most expensive year of life is the last one, and end-of-life care is half of Medicare spending. In essence, employers are 'skimming the top,' insuring younger and higher income Americans and avoiding the oldest, poorest, chronically disabled, or dying. And the government sinks a fortune into supporting this system. The tax-preferred status of health insurance benefits that opts employers and employees out of income or payroll tax duties on those benefits totaled $384 billion in 2024. Although the Affordable Care Act added some regulations and mandates to employer benefits, most of the bill's thrust was to cover those left out of the employer market by subsidising the individual market and expanding Medicaid. It was a compromise policy. What's incredible about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is that it dismantles much of the ACA's wraparound coverage, already weakened by the Supreme Court decision that made Medicaid expansion optional. It's a rejection of the compromise that propped up the employer-sponsored system, a system so rife with problems that even a wealthy professional tennis legend will admit her career is a function of needing access to consistent health insurance. Either employer-sponsored health insurance is worth all the costs, inefficiencies, and problems, and Congress works around it, or it's an 80-year experiment with enough evidence of failure that it's time to move on to the next system. Sitting on the shore and waiting for the boat to sink isn't enough.
Gulf Today
01-08-2025
- Gulf Today
Work requirements are a common-sense reform
Medicaid is the government programme that is supposed to help the poor afford health care. Its cost to taxpayers has skyrocketed in the last few years, consuming more than 12 percent of federal tax revenue collected by 2025. Projected Medicaid spending from 2025-2034 (before the One Big Beautiful Bill) was expected to total $8.2 trillion, $2.7 trillion more than if Medicaid had grown proportionally to the population and inflation, according to the Tribune News Service. Before the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Medicaid was a state-by-state programme and often was available only to a subset of people below the poverty line, especially mothers and children, but generally not working-age, work-capable adults. The ACA allowed states to expand Medicaid to cover every person below the poverty line and some above it, regardless of circumstances. The federal government pays 90% of the costs for those who became eligible due to the ACA expansion. Then, during the Biden administration, Congress and the president made a concerted effort to make enrolment easier, disenrolment harder, and programme integrity maintenance weaker. For states and private plans that insured beneficiaries, there was little downside to signing up ineligible people or keeping them once enrolled. And as a result, taxpayer money was unduly shovelled into the coffers of states, healthcare providers and insurance plans. This was a significant factor in the ballooning of Medicaid. That buildup undermined the core Medicaid mission of helping people most in need and rendered the programme less affordable to taxpayers, threatening to crowd out other priorities. That's why Congress included reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill that would diminish abuse and put the programme back on a path to provide care for those who need it most. The new work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries help accomplish this goal. Requiring able-bodied people to work as a condition for receiving this taxpayer-provided benefit is a common-sense reform. The work requirements don't apply to beneficiaries who are pregnant, differently-abled, a child, a senior, a parent of a child younger than 14, or those who are caretakers for others. The requirements are carefully targeted only at adults who can work and are only required in states that recently expanded Medicaid. Presumably, the work requirements will help identify and remove abuses like the 2.8 million duplicate enrolments that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services identified. Many of these were Medicaid beneficiaries who remained enrolled in plans despite moving out of state and enrolling in their new home state. There is almost certainly more dubious enrolment to prune from the programme. Work requirements will make fraudulent enrolment, whether deliberate or incidental, even harder to sustain. Before the ACA, states eschewed coverage of capable adults because policymakers believed that people who could work should work, reserving the safety net for those who were unable. It was a work requirement by default. Now that Medicaid is available to everyone, though, a narrowly targeted work requirement is a reasonable reform. Critics fear work requirements will impose a paperwork burden on eligible beneficiaries that will lead to massive reductions in Medicaid enrollment and, ultimately, adverse health consequences. However, these criticisms are based on scant evidence from two states: one that didn't have enough time to set up and perfect its system before a court ended it, and the other was an add-on program. Neither state imposed the requirements as envisioned in the just-passed Big Beautiful Bill. In any case, paperwork burdens will likely not present a big problem, as private insurance companies are paid for each Medicaid enrollee and have strong incentives to ensure that everyone eligible remains signed up. The Medicaid programme desperately needs reforms to make sure benefits go to the people who need them most and at a cost that is manageable for taxpayers. Work requirements help achieve that goal without endangering access for those who need it.
