Concerns that expanded healthcare will lead to moral hazard and laziness are pitted against the argument that it is an essential policy to ensure people’s right to health. While the example of Cuba shows that healthcare programs can be successful, there are also practical limitations, such as the difficulty of forcing individuals to make excessive sacrifices in a capitalist society.
Excessive welfare breeds laziness! It’s a phrase we hear all the time when trying to expand or reform welfare policies. From free school lunches, free healthcare, free childcare, to half-price tuition, it’s all up for debate. Whenever welfare policies come up, one side argues for the guarantee of basic rights and the rights of the socially disadvantaged. The other side fights back with welfare populism, concerns about moral hazard, and finally the example of Greece, which has shown the disastrous consequences. Politics aside, these debates have made us think a lot about welfare, especially the idealized form of welfare, which is active and all-encompassing and tries to guarantee the basic needs of all people, is often criticized. After all, the worry that welfare encourages abuse, laziness, and moral hazard is an all-too-familiar one.
In order to live a basic human life, we must first and foremost be healthy. Healthcare is the key to ensuring that this health is not jeopardized, and ensuring that it is equally available to all citizens is the core of healthcare welfare. But can the expansion of healthcare welfare also be criticized for encouraging moral hazard and laziness? This is a concern that many people have when discussing healthcare expansion. The more low-cost healthcare is available, the more people will take advantage of it and overutilize it, potentially harming those who really need it. Furthermore, there is a concern that healthcare providers who provide low-cost healthcare will not be compensated sufficiently, leading to a decrease in the quality of care.
Of course, this would be natural if healthcare were simply a business like any other service industry. In a capitalist society, who would want to provide poor service for little compensation? But healthcare is fundamentally different from other service industries. It’s not just a service, it’s a vital part of saving lives and helping people stay healthy. As such, healthcare workers should have a high sense of mission and responsibility, which is an important distinction from other professions.
One country that realizes this ideal is Cuba. Despite being a poor country with a GDP per capita of only $9500, Cuba’s healthcare system performs above and beyond that of developed countries. Cuba has one of the highest rates of doctors in the world, and its family doctor system has dramatically improved basic healthcare coverage. It’s a great example of how the country’s healthcare focus and policies go beyond simply providing benefits to its citizens. Furthermore, Cuba has prioritized the health of its people by cutting its defense budget in half and increasing health spending, even in the midst of economic hardship.
As a result, Cuba became the first country in the world to be declared polio-free by the World Health Organization (WHO), and its life expectancy and infant mortality rates are among the highest in the developed world. The sense of mission of healthcare workers is central to all of these achievements. Despite not being highly compensated, Cuban doctors are dedicated to the health of their people. This shows that a strong sense of moral obligation and state investment are essential for healthcare to succeed.
Of course, there are many practical limitations to applying Cuba’s example to other countries. Under communism, Cuba was able to invest heavily in healthcare and demand a high level of moral obligation from its doctors because of the strong government control. In contrast, countries with liberal democracies and capitalist systems value individual freedoms and rights, so it’s difficult to ask healthcare providers to make the same sacrifices as Cuba. There’s also the potential for other social services to be marginalized if there’s too much focus on one area.
So what are the realistic options? The core goal of healthcare should be to ensure that no one dies for lack of money. In particular, we need to ensure that those who cannot afford it have full access to healthcare. All doctors should be able to practice medicine to the best of their ability, regardless of the economic or social status of their patients, and the system should provide more benefits to those with incurable diseases who truly need them. We also need to expand our healthcare infrastructure to ensure that all citizens have access to adequate medical care, even in emergencies.
Furthermore, we need to design a balanced welfare policy that rewards healthcare workers for their dedication while ensuring that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. This will help improve the quality of healthcare services and strengthen the sense of mission of healthcare workers. This requires countries to recognize healthcare as an essential element of human dignity, not just a service, and to invest in it accordingly.
After all, the ideal goal of healthcare is to ensure that every citizen can live a dignified life. Healthcare should be viewed as a social necessity, not an excessive welfare benefit, and it should help create a society that preserves human dignity. Medical professionals should not forget their sense of mission and work with dedication to serve people, and society should recognize and reward their efforts. We should all remember that there is no such thing as excessive medical welfare, and it should not be abused or neglected.
