The World Health Organization, WHO, explicitly states that a fundamental human right, is the right to health. Amongst the key facts as listed by WHO on December 1, 2023 are: The right to health is indivisible from other human rights, including the rights to education, participation, food, housing, work, and information. It is not discriminatory in any way. It has equality no matter the person’s race, age, color, sexual orientation, social class or religion, political party, or nationality.
Let’s take this simple story as an example. Aling Kryselda (not her real name) was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of a long-term illness. She was confined for a whole month. She could not be discharged because she still had her unpaid hospital bills, which kept piling up. If she were a member of an efficient government Health Care Program, it would partly contribute towards the settlement of her hospital bill. Because she was unaware of her Right to Health, she was not able to avail of this to cover her medical needs. Aside from that, she also needed maintenance medicines after discharge. And since it is a long-term illness, wouldn’t it have been helpful if it was covered by an affordable medicare?
INADEQUATE HEALTH PROGRAMS
Many private health programs are inadequate, as many known diseases/illnesses are not covered by their insurance. For example: Patient X has a pre-existing heart ailment when she availed of her healthcare insurance. The Y Health Program refused to pay for the hospital stay of Patient X because her discharge diagnosis was already a pre-existing illness prior to her hospitalization. If under private health insurance they disallow the majority of pre-existing illnesses, what more with a government-run medical care program?
In 2010, the U.S. government had the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which prohibits private health insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing illnesses. Here is the question: Was it effective? Does having a law that protects patients enough for it to be successfully implemented? Or are there still loopholes for private health insurance to avoid having to pay what is due to the patients? Either that, or they are charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions.
Patient Lewis Annie has a mental health illness. It was getting harder for her to find a private medicare that would cover her pre-existing illness. One of the questions before you can depend on a reliable medicare is if it asks if you have a pre-existing mental illness and if so, they will not cover said mental issues. One of the questions before you can avail of a dependable and reliable Medicare is if it asks if you have a pre-existing mental illness and if so, make sure they specify that they will not cover said mental issues. In this way, everything is clear that the mental issue is not covered.
Another point is that you can avail of either the monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual coverage from a private health company. What if you are not hospitalized or get sick within that allowable period of time? It seems like you just threw away your money out of the window! It should be an extendable coverage at a lower premium because you did not get sick. Having a period for the insurance would not be at the advantage of the patients but only a good profit-making business for the Health Programs. Health benefits should come first and not marketing strategic tools for profits.
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
The Hospital Industry and the Government of any nation should remember that Medical Practitioners have taken a pledge with their Hippocratic Oath. It is not a business. It is not for profits. In fact, at the Emergency Room, hospitals should not even ask you for a down payment to be admitted. That only goes to show it’s business for them, not for the benefit of the patients, if they ask you to pay first. Their usual argumentative point is: Who will shoulder the hospital’s expenditures? A hospital cannot keep running if they cannot provide for the salaries of their hospital workers. They will not be able to fulfill their role in providing proper medical care if they have no funds or profits to cover their day-to-day expenses. So how can both sides come up with a solution that will sustain operations and still fulfill medical needs? How can Medical Practitioners live up to their Oaths of providing help to those in medical need?
The gist of it is this: When does an appropriate Medical Care Program become effective and when is it not working? When the people are burdened with a mountain stack high of hospital bills. When a cancer patient cannot sustain long-term care. When a pre-existing illness surmounts to a long maintenance of medicines but simply because it is pre-existing, the health care aid does not want to cover the expenditures. So, when does it become a workable solution?
