Dear Editor,
The reply by the PRO of NIS to my complaint and that of Dr. Gladstone Mitchell is a classic example of a half truth being worse than a total deception.
The NIS officer states that the 7th actuarial report determined that the scheme must not pay benefits to those over 60 years of age. The original framers of the Scheme intended the opposite. Sugar, industrial, government, bauxite and other workers pay NIS for 30 or 40 odd years then when they are most likely to face health related issues you say to them ‘no way’.
But we ought not to be surprised that the review determined not to pay benefits after 60 years of age. What contributors to this scheme need to demand is an accurate account of the scheme’s loans, investments …how much, if any, has the NIS benefited by what we believe to be the rather capricious use of NIS monies, this to my mind is the real issue.
The regulations I know state that if the health condition existed before age 60 then they are entitled to those benefits any time after. I produced that evidence from respected professionals, the NIS never questioned this but now come up with this no benefits after 60 years story.
It will be wrong for me to identify officials who are concerned about the political control of the NIS Board, indeed this is the same with NICIL, the Broadcasting Authority, GuySuCo, procurement, et al. But then this is Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Hamilton Green
