Near the end of his term, the Government has devoted a good part of its efforts to securing in the long term some points that it considers crucial. This is the case of the pension reform, in which it is played to maintain the private system of individual capitalization. And in terms of health, it seeks to preserve the mixed system of Isapre and Fonasa, that is, one health for those who can afford it and another for those who do not have the resources.
In this context, the pressure that various actors have exerted in recent weeks for Congress to support –almost without objection– the Government’s project called “Better FONASA”, has been strongly felt.
But our answer has been clear. In the context of a pandemic, which has left painful consequences, and an exhausted and precarious health system, citizens would not understand that their legislators approved a regulation that does not take care of the problems that afflict the public and private health sector and that, clearly, is totally insufficient. For this reason, we have voted against the idea of legislating the government project that regulates Fonasa.
Citizens have mobilized for the right to decent, equal and quality health. With the pandemic, this has become even more meaningful, both in its urgency and its relevance.
I am convinced that the new Constitution will open the door for health to be considered a right and not a consumer good as it operates today, in which those with more resources can opt for quality, fast and timely health, while those who they have deficiencies they must settle for swelling long waiting lists for medical attention or surgery.
I am not in favor of the logic proposed by the Executive that favors the idea of a Fonasa in competition with the Isapres and where the emphasis is placed on the purchase of services from private providers, which will inevitably end up dismantling the public healthcare network.
Since the current Government took office, as an opposition, we have raised the need to advance in a comprehensive health reform that would lay the foundations of a universal system for the entire population. In this framework, when it was agreed that the bill on Fonasa should be entered by the Senate, it was understood that it would be processed jointly with the Isapres bill, since both initiatives address the “Universal Health Plan” ( PSU). However, that did not materialize and the text of La Moneda does not have any proposal regarding the private health system.
Thus, the greatest weakness of the Government’s initiative is that it does not advance in universality, that is, that it provides more benefits to more people. Far from that, the Executive’s proposal is not supportive and could end in the establishment of the Universal Health Plan generating a reduction in the coverage currently provided by the system.
To this we can add that it does not contemplate a system that protects people with a maximum annual spending limit per beneficiary or family. Nor does it consider a Joint Health Fund, which operates on the basis of solidarity contributions from the public and private system to finance universal and public health benefits, such as organ donation.
In short, far from advancing in the strengthening of the public health system to provide it with greater resources, endowment and equipment, it diminishes it to the point that it blurs it in its role to provide quality health to people.
If the Government really wants to advance in an effective reform, it has to open the dialogue and space for participation to the main actors involved and, above all, define a route that did not lead Congress to a resounding rejection. We only ask for a more solidary, universal and equitable reform. It is not so difficult to understand.
- The content in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of The counter.
–
<!– Descargar documento anexo de esta noticia –>
–
