Dear Editor,
The Gold Rush Administration, lead by a man whom many believe is far from the top of his game, is on the wrong path at the wrong time. It is astounding that this administration seems to be so tone deaf as to the real needs and aspirations of the average Bahamian. It is almost as if the collective leadership cadre of this iconic party has forgotten the original objectives of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and is hell bent on handing the next general election to the opposition forces.
Value-added tax (VAT), as much as we might hope and wish for it to succeed, has proven to be a catalyst for certain merchants to increase their prices for goods and services far over and above the 7.5 percent taxation with impunity. And, while the government needs more revenue, how is it being spent and with what degree of accountability? Now we are entering into another 'debate' on whether or not we should introduce National Health Insurance (NHI) by January, 2016, as proposed by this administration.
The PLP came back to office on the premise and promise that there would be no new taxes and that there would be fiscal accountability. We now know that none of these things will happen under this dispensation. What about NHI however, is it workable and even sustainable?
National Health Service was introduced in England in 1948 with much fanfare and great expectations. The lead politicians of that era thought and believed that no one should be unable to access the basic health care services on a universal basis. In theory this all sounded good and even worked for a short while. Today, however, many are complaining about the shoddy medical care available and the inordinate time frame it takes to access the basic expert health care services and personnel.
Back in the day when I was a law student in the UK, I was able to also access medical and dental health care services at a relatively low cost. Today, however, I understand that that system is disjointed and nothing is working as it was intended. Wealthy and middle income people are now beneficiaries of that system more so than those for whom it was intended to best work.
You see, dear reader, while free basic health care services looks and sounds good, the bulk of the population will never use the same for any number of reasons. As proposed, the NHI will be used as a vehicle for additional fleecing of taxpayers and employed persons. It is a given that additional revenue is needed by the administration to shore up its fiscal position but where will this almost rapacious appetite to get into people's pockets end?
It is my stance that we should be promoting healthy lifestyles, regular medical checkups and stress management. Far too many individuals are obese by choice. Far too many have treatable conditions but neglect to secure the appropriate medical attention and as a direct consequence die or live a life of debilitating pain.
To introduce NHI in January, 2016 as proposed by this administration will prove to be the Achilles heel of the PLP. If it is fleshed out properly at the least expensive price factor, it just might work. What I would suggest as an alternative would be to encourage the formation of a public/private sector consortium whereby the administration and selected private insurance companies set up an umbrella organization whereby individuals are able to voluntarily join regardless of preexisting conditions. In addition, the insurance premiums being charged by current insurance companies must be revisited as in far too many cases they are exorbitant if not outright criminal.
People really need to shop around and exercise more direct involvement when purchasing insurance. I have received countless complaints and reports about various insurances companies, inclusive of some big name ones, collecting hefty premiums on an insured person's life but who balk when it comes down to actually paying the survivors or beneficiaries the face value of valid insurance contracts with impunity.
In such cases, the insurance company would claim that the deceased had a preexisting condition, which, of course, its medical doctors should have detected. Unfortunately in such cases, people accept a refund of the premiums paid and walk away with nothing else except a bitter taste in their mouth.
From a legal point of view, they would have a reasonable cause of action but due to a lack of funds they are unable to retain a lawyer much less put up the exorbitant filing fees with the Registry of the Supreme Court. I simply do not trust this or any other administration to 'do the right thing' with NHI. We have what appears to be a successful National Insurance scheme. What are the objectives of the same; what is the reserve balance and where is it parked? Are there any annual reports on the performance and profitability of the National Insurance Board and, if so, are they ever released into the public domain?
Bahamians are a wonderful people but many of us are too gullible and often expect something for nothing. There is, my brothers and sisters, no free lunch. It really sounds good for someone, especially a politician who has his/her eyes on the next electoral cycle, to crow that: 'We believe in Bahamians' and 'It is better to pay a tax than to die'.
These bogus concerns about the health of the unwashed masses are expressed with the greatest degree of piety and go down well with individuals who through their own individual choices failed or neglected to secure adequate private insurance. NHI should be completely voluntary and should be administered by a public/private sector body. To allow any central government to administer the same is yet another road leading straight to possible corruption and the amassing of a huge electoral slush fund.
The average Bahamian is already over-taxed and under economic stress. Where is the opposition and others in all of this? One cannot simply oppose something; one must offer, as I have done above, an alternative. The FNM and its leadership cadre are allowing the PLP to get away with political incompetency of the highest order.
The DNA and its delusional leadership are able to find the time to go down to Cuba to hold talks with unnamed Cuban governmental officials but not to remain at home and do some heavy lifting. Many of us complain about too much governance and that our politicians, across the board, have 'attitudes' once in office. We should not complain because we created the very political 'monsters' of which we complain. The average politician is more than aware of the dependency syndrome which has long infested this nation and her people. This culture is now so ingrained that it would take dynamite, literally, to get rid of it.
As it relates to NHI, the politicians and their ever present, buzzard-like consultants and cronies, tell us, with straight faces, that the main objective of the same is to ration health care on the basis of need. Medical care they opine would be given to those who need it most. This certainly was the objective over in the UK which first introduced National Health Service. Like the siren-like ploy of the PLP administration, the then British politician argued that medical care would be made available to most based on need rather than the ability or willingness to pay for it. They also postulated, just as this administration is now doing, that the medical costs for the nation would actually go down per individual!
Yes, those arguments sound noble and humanitarian with a strong dosage of Christianity but are they sustainable? Indeed, within a few years of its implementation in the UK, the NHS was abused by those who least need it and who are more than capable of paying for private medical insurance on their own. Prime Minister Christie and others, I am sure, mean well, but we all know that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. To God then, in all things, be the glory.
- Ortland H. Bodie Jr.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
