As you can see from this link, health care is an important issue to the bloggers here at WeblogBahamas. Unfortunately the new FNM government has now indicated their desire to nationalise it.
But as pointed out by Mrs. Joan Thompson at this recent Nassau Institute meeting, there is a certain irony to the Prime Ministers recent pronouncement that the government is going to fix the Princess Margaret Hospital in an effort to nationalise health care, yet he has stated the phone company will be privatised by the end of the year.
On the one hand he sees the importance of privatising the public phone company because it is in a shambles, yet he wants to nationalise health care.
What’s wrong with this picture?
All this of course will lead to that leviathan that many of us fear.
My view is that the telephone company is less beneficial to the general public than the hospital. People don’t have to use the phone but they get sick and they will need to use this essential service. If you are suggesting they privatise, rather than nationalise the hospital then something would be wrong with THAT picture. Here is why….when you privatise a hospital, it will be operated like a business, instead of a social service, servicing the wider community. Therefore, with the privatisation of the hospital, it would mean that those in the lower socio-economic bracket will not be able to afford health care….which leads to a lot of sick people…which leads to wider social and economic problems. Also, I don’t know if the Bahamas is under any IMF or World Bank watch, but usually those institutions pressure countries to privatise phone, water and light in order to borrow money from them…as in the case of Bolivia and here in Jamaica….if you owe money you have no business running the phone company or light company….says most multilateral institutions before you get one tranch!
Thanks Jamaican Girl.
Privatising the public hospital does not mean poor people cannot get help.
The difference is when you provide ‘free’ services’ you get what you are having in Jamaica now with the ‘free health care’ for all children.
Like mandates for car insurance, maybe there should be mandates for health insurance if you are working.
If you are legitimately poor – determined by means testing – you will get help. And we must all admit the service our poor get now with the public health system is very poor.
A hostile takeover of the entire health care industry to provide health care services for the poor is simply unconscionable in my not so humble opinion.
Well true….I have always believed that free services = poor services. However,I am not a big fan of means testing as there has been much debate over the methodology and it is heavily flawed. Yes, if you’re working you ought to have health insurance but the reality is that when you have doctors working in the private system they won’t want to work or give much service to the public system….I have seen that happen here…I do not think that the government should privatise health services, for the reasons I gave initially. It’s not good enough to say that we run a means test to determine who gets help from who doesn’t. The government must guarantee each citizen, regardless of background, some semblance of health care…this is also in keeping with human rights and remember, if you have a lot of sick or ill people, it will affect economic development….sick people cannot be productive and therefore, if for only that reason alone, basic health care is a must.
If you are not in favour of means testing then you do not want to control who gets ‘free health care’ services. Then chaos reigns no matter who runs the system.
Doctors here give loads of free services from their private offices. But they are not subject to the politburo forcing them to provide health care without proper compensation as a nationalised health care industry will do.
Am I to believe that you are satisfied with the status quo of government health care services in Jamaica, because most Bahamians are not satisfied with the ‘free’ services here.
I cringe when I hear the words, government must guarantee each citizen health care etc, when we know that is an impossible task.
Cuba supposedly does that and the Cuban people can’t avail themselves of the service. We can as foreigners of course, but the Castro mirage makes the world believe they do.
The same will happen here as the services will eventually be rationed, like in Britain and Canada and any other nationalised service I am familiar with.
I reiterate, mandated private health insurance for those that work is a must.
Only then will the system be better able to cope with the legitimately poor.
I have an idea. Maybe those that claim they are so concerned about the poor should donate health care insurance premiums for one poor person. Then we don’t have to worry about government abusing our tax dollars to supposedly supply health care, when in reality they provide lousy service for the poor.
What do you think?
I didn’t say I wasn’t in favour of means testing because the reality is that when you have a large population you have to have means testing. I said that I there has been a lot of controversy over the methodology. There are many programmes here which use means testing…like our National Students Loan and our poverty programme. However, they have had to redo the variables over and over again from time to time because it has eliminated many persons from obtaining services. I know for a fact that the Students Loan came under pressure because if you didn’t have a pit toilet or out house you wouldn’t stand a chance in hell to borrow money for tertiary education. In fact they had to change it up and give to EVERYONE who applies….however, you may not get a lot of money…but you do get something…the World Bank pressured them…so means testing is by no means the end all and be all….I am just saying that means testing is not necessarily the BEST way to award services. Free Market reigns I agree but as someone who is in the social services as well as in academia…I think that we need to be careful by saying just use a means test for determination….a lot of people who truly need it may not necessarily get…and what do they do if they can’t get help? Turn to crime and other social ills.
Thanks Jamaican Girl:
You said:
“However, they have had to redo the variables over and over again from time to time because it has eliminated many persons from obtaining services.”
An individuals situation can change for the better or for the worse in any given period of time, so the variables will continually have to be redone. That’s a normal part of doing business and protecting the taxpayer from being ripped off.
We have far too many cases of failed government programmes because we thought we were doing the right thing. Those good intentions have turned out to have horrible consequences. Our National Insurance is a case and point.
As Larry Reed said here in a recent presentation on privatisation – people are always more critical of the private sector than the public sector.
That’s a good thing and is what improves service – nationalising industries has the opposite effect.
I think you kinda missed my point…..when it comes to means testing, which is a quantitative methodology, there are many shortcomings if you just apply a means test to humans. Just as there will be abuse in the system, there will be so many others who will be denied because they didn’t tick A B or C. That is where my concern is…..in addition to means testing, there must be a QUALITATIVE component to review the cases who didn’t qualify because of a numeric test. The only thing I was saying is that you need to be careful in applying just one methodology to judge people. It is very easy and simple to say “Means test them!!” But there are so many flaws to applying that pure method. Are you familiar with research methodolgies and their shortcomings?
Thanks for the clarification.
The central point of this discussion to my mind is that nationalising services does more harm than good.
I believe there are ways to take care of the poor without a government takeover of an industry.
Of course if we do not create wealth, we will all be poor. And governments do not create wealth as history shows us.
Would you agree with that?