Understanding the UWP’s EC$75,000 NHI Plan: What Voters Should Know

The United Workers Party’s 2025 manifesto, “Reclaiming Our Future”, puts health care front and centre. One of the biggest headline promises is a National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme offering up to EC$75,000 in annual coverage for every Saint Lucian. The plan is listed both in the party’s seven-point SOS programme and in the healthcare chapter of the manifesto as “National Health Insurance with up to $75,000 in annual coverage.”

It sounds big and bold – especially in a country where one serious illness can wipe out a family’s savings. But what does this promise really mean in practice? This article breaks down the proposal in simple terms so that voters can weigh the benefits against the unanswered questions.

1. What exactly is being promised?

According to the manifesto and supporting public statements, the UWP is committing to:

• National Health Insurance for all – every Saint Lucian would be covered under a new NHI system.
• Up to EC$75,000 in annual coverage per person – this is the headline figure that has grabbed public attention.
• Stronger health infrastructure – completion of a “state-of-the-art” St. Jude Hospital, district hospitals in Soufrière and Dennery, upgrades to wellness centres, and a modern health information system with electronic health records.

In simple language, the party is saying: “No matter your income, you will have an insurance umbrella of up to $75,000 a year to help pay for your health care.”

2. What services would the $75,000 cover?

The manifesto confirms the size of the coverage but does not spell out in detail the full “basket of services.” Usually, National Health Insurance plans have a clear list of benefits, for example:

• Doctor and specialist visits
• Hospitalisation and surgery
• Diagnostic tests (X-rays, scans, blood tests)
• Maternity care
• Chronic disease management (diabetes, hypertension, cancer follow-up)
• Medication on an approved list

For voters, one key question is: Will the NHI cover all of these, or only some? Another big question is whether overseas treatment, airlifts or specialised care will be covered at all, especially for conditions that cannot be treated locally.

3. How will the NHI be funded?

Any serious NHI system must answer the money question. Around the world, these schemes are usually funded through:

• Payroll contributions from employees and employers;
• Government revenue (taxes, levies, or a dedicated health fund);
• Premiums or co-payments from individuals;
• or a combination of all three.

The manifesto states the intention to provide up to $75,000 in annual coverage but does not yet give a detailed financing formula. Without that information, it is hard to judge:

• Whether workers will face new payroll deductions;
• Whether businesses will have to pay an additional employer contribution;
• Whether government will rely on higher taxes, new levies, or more borrowing to fund the scheme;
• And most importantly, whether the plan is financially sustainable year after year.

A national promise of $75,000 per person sounds generous, but if the funding model is not clearly explained, voters are effectively being asked to sign a blank cheque.

4. Can the health system actually deliver $75,000 worth of care?

Insurance on paper is one thing. Access to real, quality care is another.

Saint Lucia’s public health system is still under pressure. St. Jude Hospital is not yet fully commissioned. OKEU has struggled with bed space, staff shortages, and equipment challenges. Many wellness centres do not have regular doctors or a full range of services. Private care exists, but it is often costly.

For NHI to work in a meaningful way, three things must happen at the same time:

1. Facilities must be upgraded – functioning hospitals, well-equipped clinics, reliable ambulances and diagnostic services.
2. Human resources must be strengthened – more doctors, nurses, lab technicians, pharmacists and support staff, properly paid and retained.
3. Systems must be modernised – electronic health records, clear referral pathways, and strict standards for quality of care.

If these pieces lag behind, then even with a $75,000 insurance limit, patients could still face long waiting times, limited services and the need to travel overseas at their own expense.

5. What are the potential benefits if the plan is done properly?

If designed and funded well, National Health Insurance could bring important advantages:

• Protection from catastrophic health bills – fewer families pushed into poverty by one illness.
• More equal access to care – not only the well-off or well-connected get timely treatment.
• Better public health outcomes – earlier diagnosis, better management of chronic diseases, and a healthier workforce.
• More predictable health financing – the State and households can plan better when costs are pooled.

In that sense, the UWP’s focus on National Health Insurance is responding to a real need in the country. The question is not whether health reform is necessary – it is. The real issue is whether this particular design is realistic and backed by a clear implementation roadmap.

6. The big questions voters should ask

As campaigns heat up and slogans get louder, voters should cut through the noise and ask a few calm, serious questions:

• Is the $75,000 figure based on actuarial analysis, or is it mainly a political headline?
• Will I, as a worker or business owner, be required to pay a contribution, and how much?
• What exact services are covered under the NHI basket? What is excluded?
• How will this new NHI interact with existing public services and private insurance plans?
• What is the timeline for rolling out the scheme, and what are the milestones?
• Most importantly: will the promised hospital and clinic upgrades happen before or after the NHI goes live?

7. Conclusion: Hopeful idea, but details matter

The EC$75,000 National Health Insurance proposal is one of the most eye-catching promises in the UWP manifesto. For households struggling with medical expenses, it speaks directly to their fears and dreams – the hope that no one will have to choose between treatment and putting food on the table.

However, real health reform lives and dies on the details: how it is funded, how it is phased in, how strong the supporting health infrastructure is, and how transparent the government is with the public about costs and trade-offs.

As Saint Lucians head toward the polls, it is worth celebrating ambitious ideas – but it is even more important to demand clear answers, honest numbers and a realistic plan behind every promise. Only then can voters truly decide whether the $75,000 NHI plan is a genuine game changer or just another campaign headline.

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE – A RESPONSE TO PAUL WARD’S CALLOUS COMMENT

Choiseul on the Move stands firmly and unapologetically against the disgraceful comment posted by Paul Ward describing a candidate as a “womier.”

Let’s make this absolutely clear: this is the kind of gutter-level campaigning that Choiseul/Saltibus has REJECTED for generations.

For months now, both candidates—Bradley Felix and Keithson “Kiffo” Charles—have carried themselves with commendable composure. Whatever their political differences, they have respected the people, respected the process, and respected the dignity of the constituency.

It is therefore shameful—deeply shameful—that while the candidates themselves maintain standards, others like Paul Ward are dragging the campaign into the mud with childish insults and derogatory labels.

Calling Bradly “ringcomb” was wrong. We said so.
Calling Keithson a “womier” is equally disgusting—and we say so again.

This is not Choiseul culture.
This is not Choiseul politics.
This is not Choiseul pride.

For someone who claims to support political maturity, Paul Ward’s remark is nothing but a cheap attempt to divide, belittle and demean. And it shows no respect to voters, no respect to the candidates, and certainly no respect to the integrity of the Choiseul/Saltibus campaign.

We will not normalize this.
We will not pretend it is harmless.
We will not sit quietly while people try to pollute the atmosphere our constituency has worked hard to maintain.

Politics is not a fish market.
People’s reputations are not toys.
And Choiseul/Saltibus is not a playground for personal insecurities dressed up as “campaign talk.”

At a time when our community is trying to rise above the toxicity that usually surrounds politics, it is sad and disappointing that Paul would choose to drag us backward.

We call on ALL supporters—SLP, UWP, undecided, young, old, whoever—to reject this kind of nastiness outright. Hold your corner, support your candidate, defend your issues, but leave the personal insults out of it.

Choiseul/Saltibus is better than this.
The candidates are better than this.
And we expect BETTER from anyone who claims to speak on behalf of the people.

Choiseul on the Move remains committed to clean, respectful, issue-based political commentary.
We hope Paul Ward reflects, retracts, and rises above this shameful display—because our constituency deserves far more than callous, reckless talk masquerading as political commentary.

---

The Early Election and the Unfinished Hospital: What Really Drove Philip J. Pierre’s Timing?

When Philip J. Pierre took office in July 2021, he looked the nation in the eye and made a defining promise: St. Jude Hospital will be delivered. Not patched up. Not half-done. Not talked about. Delivered.

Fast-forward 4 years and 5 months later, instead of presenting a fully functional hospital ready to accept patients, the Prime Minister called a snap election — almost a full year early — and handed over what is essentially a completed building, with the critical step of commissioning pushed into the future.

It’s a political move that has left many Saint Lucians scratching their heads. The question practically asks itself:

Why rush to elections if you are so close to finishing the job?
Why not stay the full term, commission St. Jude properly, and run on a completed promise?

Something about this timing… doesn’t sit right.

Let’s dig deeper.

1. The Building vs. The Hospital: A Subtle but Powerful Distinction

Politically, handing over a building is far more convenient than handing over a hospital. A building is a photo op. A ribbon-cutting moment. A shiny visual for campaign posters.

But a commissioned hospital?
That requires:

• staffing
• equipment installation
• safety certification
• operational readiness
• completion of minor but essential systems
• and accountability for any delays

All of these can be scrutinized. All of these can become weaknesses.

So instead, the country got the easier version — the building without the burden of operational responsibility.

2. The Early Election: Political Strategy or Strategic Avoidance?

Let’s be honest:
Calling an early election is never a coincidence. It is always a calculation.

Here are three likely motivations:

A. Strike While the Optics Look Good

A gleaming building at St. Jude, completed by Rayneau Gajadhar and CIE, offers strong visuals for the campaign trail. It allows the government to say:

“We delivered what the last administration couldn’t.”

Even if the use of the building is still months away.

B. Avoid the Risk of Commissioning Delays

Commissioning a hospital is complex. If something dragged beyond 2025 or ran into technical hurdles, it would hand the Opposition a perfect election weapon.

By calling early elections, the PM avoids that risk altogether.

C. Control the Narrative Before Economic Pressures Deepen

Cost of living, fuel prices, electricity frustration, and social tension have been building. Heading into 2026 with these issues unresolved could hurt the government far more than going now — with a symbolic victory in their hands.

3. Was an Early Election Necessary?

Constitutionally, no.

The current term legally runs until September 2026. That means:

• 10 more months to finalize St. Jude
• 10 more months to commission it
• 10 more months to walk into elections with a ribbon cut, staff hired, and the South finally seeing services restored

Instead, the country is being asked to elect a government before the job is done.

If the goal was truly to complete St. Jude fully, time was on their side.

So why give the people a building instead of a functioning hospital?

4. The Rat That Many Saint Lucians Smell

Saint Lucians are not naïve. Across communities, WhatsApp chats, radio talk shows, and social media timelines, the sentiment is building:

“Something not adding up.”

A few of the red flags the public is raising:

• If the hospital was so close to commissioning, why not finish it?
• Why call an early election when you are months away from your biggest political victory?
• Is the government avoiding something behind the scenes — technical reports, readiness issues, approval delays, internal conflicts?
• Was the handover timed for votes, not health care?

People are voicing what many are thinking:
The timing feels more political than patriotic.

5. The Bigger Question: What Do Saint Lucians Deserve?

Saint Lucians have waited 15 long years for a proper hospital in the South.
Fifteen years of pain, distrust, and political ping-pong.

They deserve not only a building.
Not only a handover ceremony.
Not only a campaign talking point.

They deserve a fully functioning hospital, complete, commissioned, staffed, and serving the people.

Not promises of “later.”
Not “after elections.”
Not “coming soon.”

Final Word: A Political Masterstroke or a Strategic Escape?

Calling early elections while handing over an incomplete hospital opens up a deep national conversation about accountability, priorities, and political timing.

Whether this decision was:

• a bold calculated move,
• a defensive maneuver,
• or a way to avoid the pressure of full commissioning…

…one thing is clear:

Saint Lucians will judge whether they received a hospital or just a headline.

And in this election, optics may not be enough.

Are Voters Really Being Dumped in Choiseul? A Calm Look at the Allegation — and the Bigger Picture**

In recent days, whispers have grown louder about voters from the Laborie constituency being “dumped” into Choiseul/Saltibus. It’s the kind of allegation that spreads fast, especially in the heat of an election season. And while emotions can flare, it’s important for our community to sift through the noise and understand what’s actually happening — or what might appear to be happening — before drawing conclusions.

YRight now, there is no verified public evidence confirming large-scale transfers of voters from Laborie into Choiseul/Saltibus. That does not mean concerns should be dismissed; it simply means the allegation remains unproven. What we can do, however, is place the issue in a wider national context — because Choiseul is not the only district where people are raising eyebrows over voter activity.

1. Election Seasons Always Bring High Suspicion Levels

Across Saint Lucia, every election cycle brings its share of claims: bussing, boundary games, fake addresses, and mysterious spikes in polling-division numbers. These concerns are not unique to Choiseul/Saltibus. They have surfaced in Castries Central, Dennery, Vieux Fort, Gros Islet — almost everywhere. Historically, many of these accusations turn out exaggerated or misunderstandings of normal population movement.

The point? Allegations alone aren’t proof — but they should prompt responsible inquiry.

2. Voter Transfers Happen Regularly — and Legally

People move. People change addresses. Housing projects open. Families shift. Young adults relocate to live with relatives or partners. These real-life mobility patterns often cause sudden changes in constituency voter lists. And unless the Electoral Department sees evidence of intentional wrongdoing, these transfers are treated as routine updates.

So before we jump to the political explanation — that voters are being “dumped” — it’s important to consider the personal-mobility explanation too.

3. Other Constituencies Are Seeing Movement Too

The Choiseul/Saltibus conversation did not appear in isolation. Reports from other parts of the island suggest:

• Registrations rising sharply in some districts
• Transfers increasing as election day approaches
• Parties on both sides accusing the other of strategic registration

This pattern is common worldwide — parties mobilise supporters to register early, update their address, and ensure they appear on the correct list. When this is done transparently and in accordance with the law, it is completely normal.

When done deceptively, it becomes voter manipulation.

That is why facts — not rumours — matter.

4. Why Choiseul/Saltibus Must Stay Alert but Calm

Choiseul/Saltibus is a swing-heavy constituency with volatile margins. Any perceived shift triggers alarm quickly. That is understandable. But instead of panic, here’s the productive approach:

✔ Ask for clarity from the Electoral Department

The public is entitled to know the number of new registrations, transfers, and verifications.

✔ Compare this year’s polling-division numbers with past lists

If there is a spike, the numbers will show it.

✔ Demand transparency, not chaos

Parties, agents, and community leaders must work together to ensure integrity — not weaponise suspicion.

✔ Keep the focus on voter education

The real danger to Choiseul is not imported voters — it’s rejected ballots and low turnout.

The Bottom Line

Right now, the allegation that voters are being moved from Laborie into Choiseul/Saltibus remains unverified. What is clear is that Saint Lucia is experiencing heightened election-season anxiety across multiple constituencies, and Choiseul is part of that national mood.

Rather than jumping to conclusions, let’s do what strong communities do:

• Watch carefully
• Ask questions
• Demand transparency
• Stay informed
• And above all — make sure every eligible Choiseulien casts a valid vote on December 1st

If solid evidence emerges, it deserves a full, serious investigation. Until then, awareness, vigilance, and calm analysis are our best tools.

Before You Vote: The Qualities Every Electorate Must Look For in a Candidate

As the campaign season heats up and political promises fill the air, it’s easy to get swept away by charisma, color, and catchy slogans. But elections aren’t beauty contests or popularity shows—they’re about leadership, integrity, and the future of our communities.

Before casting that all-important vote, the electorate must take a hard look at who they’re voting for and what they truly stand for. Here are the essential qualities and traits every voter should look for in a candidate:

1. Integrity Above All

A candidate’s integrity is the foundation of trust. Look for someone who has a proven record of honesty and transparency, both in public and private life.

If a candidate twists facts, dodges questions, or changes stories to suit the moment, that’s a red flag. Leadership without integrity is leadership headed for corruption.

2. Vision and Competence

A good leader doesn’t just criticize what’s wrong—they clearly outline how to make things right.

The electorate must ask: Does this candidate have a realistic plan? Can they manage resources wisely? Do they understand the needs of the people they wish to serve?

A vision without competence is just talk. Competence without vision is chaos.

3. Commitment to Service, Not Self

Public service is exactly that—service. A candidate must show genuine concern for people, not personal gain.

Watch how they treat ordinary citizens when cameras aren’t rolling. Do they listen? Do they follow up?

A self-serving politician will always find excuses; a servant-leader will always find solutions.

4. Courage and Accountability

It takes courage to speak truth to power, to stand up for what’s right even when it’s unpopular.

A true leader doesn’t blame others or hide behind committees—they take responsibility.

Voters should ask: When faced with tough decisions, will this person do what’s right or what’s convenient?

5. Emotional Intelligence

Leadership isn’t just about intelligence—it’s about empathy.

The best candidates are those who understand people’s struggles, communicate respectfully, and stay calm under pressure.

A candidate who listens more than they speak and values dialogue over division will always make better decisions.

6. Track Record and Community Connection

Promises are easy to make, but past actions speak louder than words.

What has the candidate done for the community before election time? Have they shown up only when votes are needed?

A person who has consistently contributed to community growth—without political reward—is someone worth trusting with greater responsibility.

7. Respect for Law and Institutions

Every democracy thrives when its leaders respect the rule of law, independent institutions, and due process.

Beware of candidates who think they’re above the system or use power to intimidate or silence others.

A good leader strengthens institutions—not weakens them.

In Closing: Choose Wisely

Elections decide the direction of a nation. The next time a candidate comes knocking, don’t just listen to what they say—watch what they’ve done, and how they live.

Vote not for the loudest voice, but for the most consistent one.

Vote for character, not color.

Vote for vision, not vanity.

Vote for service, not slogans.

The future of your community depends on it

A Batting Rethink Is Overdue for the West Indies Team

For decades, the name West Indies cricket carried an aura of fear, respect, and admiration. Bowlers like Holding, Ambrose, and Walsh brought thunder, but the brilliance of batsmen like Viv Richards, Brian Lara, and Shivnarine Chanderpaul defined the team’s soul. Today, that sparkle has dimmed — and it’s becoming painfully clear: a serious rethink of our batting approach is long overdue.

The Problem Isn’t Just Technique — It’s Mindset

Modern cricket demands adaptability, patience, and smart shot selection. Too often, West Indies batters collapse in clusters, playing rash strokes at critical junctures. The power-hitting culture, while exciting in T20s, has seeped into Test and ODI formats where restraint and situational awareness matter most. Cricket isn’t just about sixes — it’s about surviving sessions, building partnerships, and showing discipline.

The truth is, the regional circuit no longer molds players for the long game. Young talents are being fast-tracked through franchise leagues, where entertainment trumps endurance. As a result, many promising batsmen arrive on the international stage without the foundation or patience to construct a big innings.

Where the System Is Failing

The domestic setup has struggled to produce batters who can consistently perform under pressure. Weak pitches, limited exposure to quality bowling, and inconsistent coaching structures all contribute to this. The regional tournaments must become a true breeding ground — not just a formality.

Investment in mental conditioning, data analysis, and technical mentorship must become non-negotiable. Why can’t each territory have a batting academy led by a former great? Imagine a structure where players are groomed by legends like Lara or Sarwan, learning to build innings the Caribbean way — with flair and fight.

A Call for Leadership and Vision

The West Indies Cricket Board and coaching staff must stop papering over cracks. Changing captains or shuffling the order won’t fix the deeper issues. The team needs a clear batting philosophy — one that values temperament as much as talent.

Players must be taught that every run matters. Whether it’s grinding in a Test match or pacing an ODI chase, the approach must be thoughtful, not impulsive. Leadership must inspire pride in wearing maroon — not just participation in another tournament.

The Way Forward

A batting rethink means more than technical tweaks. It’s a cultural shift — from carefree hitting to calculated aggression. The Caribbean still breeds natural talent, but talent without structure leads to waste.

If the West Indies want to reclaim their cricketing glory, they must invest in the art of batting again. Discipline must become fashionable, patience must become powerful, and pride must return to the crease.

The world still remembers the roar of the maroon. It’s time our batsmen learned to make it echo again — through courage, craft, and consistency.

One Rule for All: A Call for Fairness at the Choiseul Parish Cemetery

For decades, the Choiseul parish cemetery has stood as sacred ground — a place where families lay their loved ones to rest with dignity, reverence, and spiritual closure. But today, that sense of sacred fairness is under serious threat. What should be a space governed by order, compassion, and transparency has instead fallen into confusion, inconsistency, and troubling signs of favoritism.

The issue centers on the allocation of tomb spaces — a matter the Church itself previously admitted had become unmanageable due to years of poor planning. Tombs were placed haphazardly, permissions were issued spontaneously, and the cemetery evolved without a proper long-term plan. As a result, the parish administration later announced that no new tombs would be permitted moving forward. A difficult but understandable decision… if it were applied fairly.

“A cemetery is sacred ground — not a playground for favoritism.

 One rule, one standard, one people.”

But this is where the problem lies.

Despite the official policy, multiple families have been flatly denied permission to build tombs for their recently departed loved ones — while, at the very same time, other individuals are quietly being granted approval. These permissions are not publicly announced, not explained, and not justified. Yet they continue.

This selective treatment is not only unfair — it is deeply disrespectful to the grieving families who have had to navigate their loss without clarity, compassion, or consistency.

No parish should ever operate in secrecy or favoritism, especially when the matter involves the final resting place of its own people.

What’s Good for One Should Be Good for All

The Choiseul community is not asking for special treatment. Parishioners are not demanding privileges. All they are asking for is fairness — the same standard applied across the board without exception, preference, politics, or quiet backdoor decisions.

If the Church’s position is that the cemetery is full, then it must be full for everyone — not full for some and open for others.

If new tombs cannot be constructed, then no one should be allowed to build.

And if there is still space — or if certain plots can still be approved — then all parishioners must have equal access to that opportunity.

Anything less is a betrayal of trust.

A Parish Must Reflect Its People

Parishioners are the heart of the Church. They are the ones who support the parish, attend Mass, volunteer, tithe, maintain traditions, and sustain church life from generation to generation. To see their families treated unfairly in their hour of mourning is not only hurtful — it is unacceptable.

We say this with respect, but with unwavering clarity:
the administration of the Choiseul parish must correct this imbalance immediately.

• Either reinstate a fair, transparent approval process for all parishioners…

• Or stop granting permissions altogether, without exceptions, without favorites, without secrecy.

The community deserves honesty and consistency. Families deserve the right to bury their loved ones without politics or favoritism. And the Church, above all, must uphold the principles it teaches — justice, compassion, equality, and truth.

A Final Word to the Parish Administration

This message is not written out of anger, but out of commitment to fairness and love for the community. People simply want what is right: one rule for everyone. If the cemetery is closed, let it be closed for all. If space exists, let the entire parish have equal access.

Because what is good for the geese must also be good for the gander.

The people are watching.
And they are asking, respectfully but firmly, for the Choiseul parish to do the right thing.

“Justice is not justice when it applies to some and not to all. The parish must rise to the standard it preaches.”