EDITOR, The Tribune.
Health Minister Duane Sands’ flippant and deeply ignorant observation that “nothing in life is free” in relation to universal healthcare gave me chills. It immediately brought to mind the thought that, one day, I could be robbed at gunpoint and, getting the attention of a passing policeman, I am saved from the prospect of gunshot injury and recover my goods, only to be told by the officer that my bill for his intervention is $250.00 plus VAT.
That such an incredibly daft and insensitive statement could be made by a senior cabinet minister in relation to universal healthcare speaks volumes of the mind-set of this new government and the moneyed interests behind it. The fact that I (and all other residents and citizens of this country) are entitled to certain basics as taxpayers appears to be lost on them.
For the record, in The Bahamas, our taxes are focused predominantly on consumption, rather than income. This means that it is the poor (presumably the target of the minister’s condescending warning) who disproportionately shoulder the tax burden. This compounds both the arrogance and the ignorance of the statement.
There is, of course, a well-worn playbook from which the minister drew this silly statement. It goes something like this:
Get into office (by any means);
Spend the first month or two feigning shock at the utter recklessness of PLP spending;
Malign and slander every PLP-built programme and institution;
Roll back any kind of progress that potentially complicates life for any of the special interests that got you elected.
Dr Sands and those who parrot the nothing-in-life-is-free criticism of universal healthcare have clearly not read anything about the subject from the most respected sources, including those who have looked specifically at the Bahamian model and economy. There is among them almost universal agreement that one of the effects would be to boost economic growth, even in the short term.
It seems that, in line with the playbook, this minister is intent on narrowing the focus of his consultation to the profit-motivated actors only. That is why, on the important questions (like funding and costs), only the BIA and medical professionals seem to have an input, with the minister then taking to the television and newspapers to announce a fait accompli.
It is among these profit-motivated groups that the question of what is “free” naturally ignores payments (like taxes) that do not go directly to them. So the minister’s most unfortunate choice of words is merely a confirmation of just who he has been consulting with.
ANDREW ALLEN
Nassau,
July 17, 2017.
Comments
sheeprunner12 6 years, 9 months ago
This letter writer gives me chills ........... He is a PLP .......... Must be a SLOP bogeyman
Well_mudda_take_sic 6 years, 9 months ago
Duane Sands is from a big time Lodge family that believes in looking after only its brothers. He has been known to refuse to do much needed heart surgery on patients until after they paid in advance his surgical fees, which often exceed $30,000 for the less fortunate among us.
jujutreeclub 6 years, 9 months ago
No nothing with the healthcare program is free to the point where the former minister of health admitted that he did not know where the funding for NHI was coming from. The simple answer for that," was the people." How can you introduce something of that financial magnitude and don't know where the money was coming from. That is why you need to look at it again and see how financially prudent it is to offer these services free. The pharmacies are not even subscribing to the NHI program. That's tells you that this was not planned out properly in the first place and like the bridge in Kenya, it collapsed. Was just a campaign promise rushed just like that same bridge in Kenya.
themessenger 6 years, 9 months ago
Andrew Allen, obviously still dazed and confused, I'm quite sure that all of his clients are dealt with Pro Bono...... "One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." Also, "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you've earned, but not greed to want to take someone elses money."
Thomas Sowell.
Reality_Check 6 years, 9 months ago
You are obviously an "all-for-me" greedy self-absorbed idiot! In a civilized society a dying young woman known to urgently need heart surgery is fully entitled to receive it if taxpayers have made the resources available notwithstanding that she has been financially destitute all of her life. This is one of the key arguments in our society today for a much more progressive tax structure and better control of unreasonable physician charges.
themessenger 6 years, 9 months ago
And If the government pisses away $100 million dollars of their current hospitals budget, can't account for where it went, then want to tax me for the double the amount to launch their "new" healthcare system I suppose that's just peachy. I suppose I should also feel privileged by destituting myself to look after all those illegitimates I never brought into this world because their "parents" couldn't afford the price of a condom. And I don't suppose for one minute that you would have any difficulty with the government regulating what you charge for your services or dictating what you are able to earn by the sweat of your own brow? As Winston Churchill once put it " The inherent vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Well_mudda_take_sic 6 years, 9 months ago
Just think how much money would be available to a universal single payer healthcare system if the private healthcare insurers were taken out of the equation altogether. Such a system run on the basis of the right performance metrics by independent administrators, contracted by the government on the basis of periodic competitive bidding, may be exactly what we need. The system would of course need to overseen by a panel of commissioners representing practicing physicians, hospitals/clinics, the Ministry of Health, and the public users with five year term limits on some kind of rolling basis for continuity purposes. Existing healthcare insurers could re-configure their businesses (if they so wish) to compete with both other local and foreign healthcare system administrators for service contracts with the universal single payer healthcare system. The plain reality of the situation is existing private sector healthcare insurers, while still making profits for their shareholders, have failed to control not only their own administrative costs, but also escalating healthcare provider costs. As a result very few can afford the exorbitant healthcare insurance premiums being charged by the private sector insurers today. Many believe the U.S. will have no choice but to move to a similar single payer healthcare system in the not too distant future with appropriate regulations on all suppliers of goods and services to the one system.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID