We hear that if the university dons get a higher pay and other benefits that doctors are prepared to launch their struggle. Latter should be looked after by the state, if not we are in for trouble. It is and interesting question. Why is medical care subsidized by welfare states and under socialism? The answer is quite obvious in that medical care requires highly trained practitioners and state-of-the-art technology to provide the absolute best care. Such trained practitioners and technology is of limited supply inspite of increase in number doctors produced by our universities. In any case it is a problem allover the world. Hence doctors with accumulated knowledge are in great demand and thus incredibly expensive to procure for the average person without financial assistance, be it from welfare, insurance schemes or socialist handouts. However, one could argue that perpetually subsidizing medical care will never address the underlying cause of its scarcity and in turn, its incredible price. Also it is claimed that subsidizing is also unsustainable economically. For example it requires rationing and difficult “moral” decisions to be made regarding who receives what treatment. Such scenarios belittle both human dignity and the full potential of human existence.
Of course no one other than an extreme pragmatist tied to the market economy could seriously suggest that people deserve to be denied medical care for the simple fact that they cannot afford it. Yet the sad reality is that many people do not receive the best treatment available, subsidized or not, because neither they nor the state can afford it.
The answer to this problem is quite simple – perhaps so simple, especially when divorced from political ideology. So called Socialist handouts are tools. Like any tool they are only as good as the people using them. While the intentions of socialist medicine, welfare, education and so on seem noble, in reality in the present capitalist society ruled by Mahinda chinthanaya they are primarily used by self-serving crooked politicians as bribes handed out in exchange for the voting public’s servile dependency on a particular political agenda. Many kinds of voting blocs have been created using so called socialist handouts in just this fashion. Pragmatic solutions based on proper care and kindness are never seriously pursued because pragmatic, permanent solutions – while alleviating entirely any particular social problem – would undermine the real purpose of the handouts, namely, building a dependent, servile voting bloc. In the end we find drug companies and equipment sellers take control of the system creating a totally corrupt system.
In this situation it will be interesting to see what has been done in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez had agreed to invest in education and development of technology that includes medical sciences as well. For instance, if Venezuela elect to pursue more permanent, technological solutions to problems currently subsidized, then it would not by necessary to “open their markets” to foreign multinationals and crippling “neoliberalism.” In many Western countries one can already observe truly free markets or economic anarchy where giant corporations are free to do anything they wish. Hugo has avoided that situation for Venezuela. This has created many powerful enemies for his regime. For Venezuela, the threat of foreign subversion is still very real. There is a very real global network of subversion maintained by the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London, forming the foundation of modern super imperialism. If President Hugo Chavez wants to put down the hammer and begin using more articulate tools, he should communicate these intentions to his support base and mobilize the Venezuelan people and make them aware of the dangers, and payoffs of pursuing the next step. Finally, as a growing front of nations begin to rise up against Western global hegemony and the “Washington Consensus,” it is important to understand that people around the world are fighting the global power of the capital.