On this page, two columns have been published in recent days with diametrically opposed views on the proposal, laid out in the next government’s program, to move toward a universal health system.
The initial comment is that the high degree of difference regarding the goals and mechanics of the proposal reveals more than just different policy options – those of Libertad y Desarrollo and the president-elect’s team – but also the scant public debate that there was about this idea during the election campaign. Incidentally, this criticism applies equally to the nomination that lost on the ballot, and whose government program in the first round was improvised – on health and other issues – as its spokesmen admitted.
The last campaign was not a democratic platform for competition between ideas and proposals, but rather for the confrontation of speeches and personalities. This will appear when it is time to judge, make decisions, and implement change.
Thus, for questions that the idea of single-state health insurance restricts people’s freedom of choice (because it would force them to be present in the public system), or that it completely excludes the private sector and puts all records in government health already overly required, it is reiterated that people will continue to enjoy Freedom of choice and that in no case will there be private providers (isapres and clinics) that continue to serve a large part of the population.
Of course, health goals are shared casually: to improve quality, efficiency and accessibility, to reduce inequality. level but higher. The extent to which this is possible depends on a set of conditions and variables that have not been clarified or discussed in sufficient depth with the public, which is exactly what awaits changes. This technical and political debate must urgently begin to break out of a sterile logic where some accuse false expectations and others thwart expectations.
“Beeraholic. Friend of animals everywhere. Evil web scholar. Zombie maven.”