Top Beverage Companies To Watch In Right Now

Top Beverage Companies To Watch In Right Now: Anadolu Efes Biracilik ve Malt Sanayii AS (AEFES)

Anadolu Efes Biracilik ve Malt Sanayii AS is the holding company of Efes Beverage Group, based in Turkey. Its activities consist of production, bottling, selling and distribution of beer under a number of trademarks and also production, bottling, selling and distribution of sparkling and still beverages with the Coca-Cola company trademark. The Company owns and operates a number of breweries in Turkey and abroad, malt production facilities in Turkey and Russia, and also a number of facilities in Turkey and in other countries for sparkling and still beverages production. It has joint control over Coca-Cola Icecek AS (CCI), which undertakes production, bottling and distribution facilities of Coca-Cola products in Turkey, Pakistan, Central Asia and the Middle East. Also the Company has joint control over Anadolu Etap Tarm ve Gda Urunleri San. ve Tic. AS, which undertakes production and sales of fruit juice concentrates and purees in Turkey. Advisors' Opinion:

• [By Andras Gergely]

  The Borsa Istanbul Stock Exchange National 100 Index slid a second day after reaching a record on May 22. Anadolu Efes (AEFES) sank the most since September 2011. Otokar Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi AS, a Turkish producer of civilian and military vehicles, rose to an all-time high after Hurriyet Daily News reported the company could sell tanks to Saudi Arabia.

source from Top Stocks Blog:http://www.topstocksblog.com/top-beverage-companies-to-watch-in-right-now.html

Forget Obamacare

Vermont wants to bring single payer to America

Saskatchewan is a vast prairie province in the middle of Canada. It�s home to hockey great Gordie Howe and the world�s first curling museum. But Canadians know it for another reason: it�s the birthplace of the country�s single-payer health-care system.

In 1947, Saskatchewan began doing something very different from the rest of the country: it decided to pay the hospital bills for all residents. The system was popular and effective � and other provinces quickly took notice. Neighboring Alberta started a hospital insurance plan in 1950, and by 1961 all ten Canadian provinces provided hospital care. In 1966, Canada passed a national law that grew hospital insurance to a more comprehensive insurance plan like the one that exists today.

Saskatchewan showed that a single-payer health-care system can start small and scale big. And across the border, six decades later, Vermont wants to pull off something similar. The state is three years deep in the process of building a government-owned and -operated health insurance plan that, if it gets off the ground, will cover Vermont�s 620,000 residents � and maybe, eventually, all 300 million Americans.

“If Vermont gets single-payer health care right, which I believe we will, other states will follow,” Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin predicted in a recent interview. “If we screw it up, it will set back this effort for a long time. So I know we have a tremendous amount of responsibility, not only to Vermonters.”

When Shumlin ran on a single-payer platform in 2010, it was unprecedented. No statewide candidate � not in Vermont, not anywhere � had campaigned on the issue, and with good political reason. Government-run health insurance is divisive. When the country began debating health reform in 2009, polls showed single-payer to be the least popular option.

Shumlin just barely sold Vermont voters on the plan (he beat his Republican opponent by less than one percentage point). Then, he got the Vermont legislature on board, too. On May 26, 2011, Shumlin signed Act 48, a law passed by the Vermont House and Senate that committed the state to building the country�s first single-payer system.

Now comes the big challenge: paying for it. Act 48 required Vermont to create a single-payer system by 2017. But the state hasn�t drafted a bill that spells out how to raise the approximately $2 billion a year Vermont needs to run the system. The state collects only $2.7 billion in tax revenue each year, so an additional $2 billion is a vexingly large sum to scrape together.

Continue reading…

The Neoliberal Turn in American Health Care

The failings of the Affordable Care Act are rooted in a long shift away from the idea of a truly universal health care.

Last year�s three-ring Congressional shutdown circus � for many little more than a desperate rearguard action by an isolated rightwing fringe to undo the fait accompli of Barack Obama�s health care reform � reinforced with each passing day the gaudy dysfunction of the American political system. But we miss something crucial if we construe the perseverance of Barack Obama�s 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) as nothing more than the overdue victory of commonsense health care reform over an irrelevant and intransigent right, or, even more, as the glorious culmination of a progressive dream for American universal health care long deferred.

For many commentators, though, this is precisely what the ACA represents. With the law�s passage in March 2010 and its survival in the face of a constitutional review by the Supreme Court, they have concluded that the battle �over universal health coverage,� as one writer for the Washington Post put it, �is basically over.� Unfortunately, the evidence does not permit such a sanguine conclusion.

Most plainly, when we consider the provisions and limitations of the law, it becomes clear that though it may help many, the ACA fails fundamentally to create what so many had hoped for: a system of universal health care. Leaving millions still uninsured and many more �underinsured� � a well-described and researched phenomenon in which the possession of health insurance still leaves individuals and families with dangerous financial liability when illness strikes � the ACA falls well short of the standard of universal health care as it is understood elsewhere in the social democratic world.

But more broadly, when we consider the ACA through the lens of political economy, an even more concerning narrative emerges, one that says even less about the triumph of social democracy and more about the sharp shift of the political center and the disintegration of the New Deal left. For the law fundamentally leaves intact a system of health care predicated, as we shall see, on key neoliberal health care beliefs, for instance the �moral hazard� of free care, the primacy of health consumerism, and the essentiality of the private health insurance industry.

Continue reading…

The Neoliberal Turn in American Health Care

The failings of the Affordable Care Act are rooted in a long shift away from the idea of a truly universal health care.

Last year�s three-ring Congressional shutdown circus � for many little more than a desperate rearguard action by an isolated rightwing fringe to undo the fait accompli of Barack Obama�s health care reform � reinforced with each passing day the gaudy dysfunction of the American political system. But we miss something crucial if we construe the perseverance of Barack Obama�s 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) as nothing more than the overdue victory of commonsense health care reform over an irrelevant and intransigent right, or, even more, as the glorious culmination of a progressive dream for American universal health care long deferred.

For many commentators, though, this is precisely what the ACA represents. With the law�s passage in March 2010 and its survival in the face of a constitutional review by the Supreme Court, they have concluded that the battle �over universal health coverage,� as one writer for the Washington Post put it, �is basically over.� Unfortunately, the evidence does not permit such a sanguine conclusion.

Most plainly, when we consider the provisions and limitations of the law, it becomes clear that though it may help many, the ACA fails fundamentally to create what so many had hoped for: a system of universal health care. Leaving millions still uninsured and many more �underinsured� � a well-described and researched phenomenon in which the possession of health insurance still leaves individuals and families with dangerous financial liability when illness strikes � the ACA falls well short of the standard of universal health care as it is understood elsewhere in the social democratic world.

But more broadly, when we consider the ACA through the lens of political economy, an even more concerning narrative emerges, one that says even less about the triumph of social democracy and more about the sharp shift of the political center and the disintegration of the New Deal left. For the law fundamentally leaves intact a system of health care predicated, as we shall see, on key neoliberal health care beliefs, for instance the �moral hazard� of free care, the primacy of health consumerism, and the essentiality of the private health insurance industry.

Continue reading…