When I was growing up in the UK I had to undergo regular medical check ups at school, which I dreaded because it would variably involve some sorts of vaccination shots or other. Moreover, I was made to go to the dentist twice a year, which always ended up with my teeth being drilled and filled. When they tested my eyes they found I was short sighted and I was fitted with a pair of horrible National Health Service glasses that made me look like an owl. I didn’t like those glasses very much. So, as soon as I saved up enough money from my Saturday job, I bought myself a fancier pair of frames.
How much did it cost my parents? Nothing. Like the school that I attended, the books that I received, everything was free. Of course my parents paid a lot in taxes, but what they got in return was, they spent hardly a penny putting me through school until I graduated at the university and keeping my eyes, teeth and general physical health in good working order, plus the knowledge when they became pensioners and fell sick, they didn’t have to worry about paying for medical bills.
Of course, things have probably changed a lot in the UK since my schooldays, but access to public healthcare in general hasn’t been much of an issue in Europe since the middle of the last century.
Hence, I find it quite strange why there is so much resistance to the health care bill in the U.S. Even when it was passed, the House failed to secure a single vote from the Republicans, which does not bode well for the bill’s future. So, what’s the big deal? Surely it can’t be just because it will cost bigger government spending or higher tax for the well off?
After all, it is a matter of prioritising state spending, and as long as the country has people in it, health is and should definitely be at the top of the list of any government spending. The US is still the world’s richest country and the government is already spending a lot of money and resources to increase public security to prevent the odd terrorist attacks. So why not invest a bit more to protect the public from the daily heart attacks?
Even here in Indonesia where the state budget is minuscule by comparison, we have the Jamkesmas, health coverage for the poor that currently guarantees public health service to around 70 million people who cannot afford to pay for insurance or medical costs. For the low paying civil servants and pensioners, there is the Askes, state owned health insurance, while for the rest the workplace has to provide health insurance coverage or for those who could afford it, pay for their own insurance or foot the medical bills out of their own pockets.
So why is the thought of subsidising public health care out of tax payer’s money or even paying a bit more tax to ensure a wider health coverage for the population such a bitter pill to swallow for many Americans? There is nothing socialistic in this approach. It’s realistic. A healthy population is a productive population and a good investment for the country’s future. Like education, access to health service is a basic right, not a luxury or a bonus given by a generous employer.
Or may be it’s the thought of too much government intervention on personal things such as one’s health, which is best left to one’s individual choices? That may be so for those who have the choice. Here, for instance, medical costs can be expensive especially for those who want to have good service. The moderately wealthy often don’t think twice to fly to Singapore to find better treatment. However, for the segment of society who doesn’t have the means let alone the choice to pay for basic healthcare, leaving them to suffer untreated should not be an option.
Moreover, caring for the society’s most vulnerable, such as the young, the old, the weak, the poor and the sick is the foundation of any civilized and democratic society of which the US is supposed to be a shining example. National health care has nothing to do with too much government intervention but a lot to do with providing the people basic public services that will serve the country good in the long run.
And there really is nothing wrong with spreading a bit of wealth around more while you could afford it if only to ensure that when you or your family fall sick, grow old or become poor, you would have access to a decent health care. Taking care of the people’s welfare is not big government. It’s good government.
(Desi Anwar: First published in The Jakarta Globe)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
