An absolute YES…
Free public WiFi should be provided by Municipalities
An absolute YES…
Hi you all,
as we claim “Hope is back” we should aim for serving public tasks by public providers.
If private corporates are allowed to get into it (because of privatization) it always ends (or just can end) up to the same: the public has to guarantee as last resort, although the privates take the profit.
So as far as we see health as a common and guaranteed, basical good there should no private corporate be involved.
I wonder if we can really say that there is genuine economic competition between the public health system and any private one mainly because one is free and the other has significant monetary cost. For many working people (including myself) I don’t have the financial situation to even consider private treatments. (Not that I would use them overall, anyway.)
Yes, you are right to a degree that " cherry-picking the best or most well-known doctors…will compromise public care and education of younger colleagues."
That is unavoidable but in my experience living in Spain, many of the better doctors work in the public system and not for private health insurance companies who may well pay them better. Their work is terribly dull and has no daily challenges or interest.
Private hospitals here often have good doctors but the other staff are equally often very poor and under-trained. They make serious mistakes and then these patients tend to return to the (slower) public system.
My biggest reservation about outlawing any private health use is that it goes against the basic right to choose to spend earnings where you wish.
Equally, it would be electoral suicide for any political party to say it is going to ban private health entirely.
I am friends with a bunch of people from the US and I get daily requests of crowdfunding for basic, life-saving heathcare needs by US residents who are too poor to afford health insurance or cannot afford the co-pays requested by their lower-cost insurance. This causes untold stress to people who have chronic diseases or disabilities and can cause bankruptcy in case of acute and/or severe events such as a heart attack or the onset of cancer.
I believe that leaving any inroad to private insurance schemes or “competition” in the healtchare market can cause a dangerous slippery slope and enroachment in the current late-stage capitalist system.
So I stand with @Martha_M, @Sebastian_P and @Hans_Eickhoff in saying that we should clearly state that healtchare should be public, high-quality and free to the point of access as a matter of principle.
Then, if people want to/can afford to have integrative mutualistic schemes or something like that, they can do with their money whatever they want, but the principle should stand for everybody, regardless of age, health status and disability.
Limiting free access to healthcare to young people would leave out vulnerable categories such as elderly people, adults with disability and chronic illnesses, adults who contract a long-term condition such as HIV, cancer, etc… you name it. It would leave people destitute and desperation and mental health issues.
Probably, we should actually ban private healthcare at the hospital level and provided by large economic groups because this is the beginning of a system for the rich and another one for the poor. On the other hand, it is absolutely necessary to capacitate the individual to take care of his or her own health without becoming a consumer of “health services”, whether private or public. Which also means providing healthy living and working conditions, access to clean air, healthy food, adequate shelter and education (understood as learning under self-determined conditions and not imposed from societal superstructures.
And doctors are “providers”! We left the ideal of health on “business hands”.Sad!!