By Lubna Abdel-Aziz Whose life is it anyway? Are we as individuals responsible for our own happiness and well being or is that the charge of our community, the burden of our society, the duty of our government? Two centuries ago the world started to wake up to the sounds of liberty and freedom, equality and human rights. As despotic rulers toppled, education became available to all children and the pursuit of happiness became everyone's right. Without good health, there could be no happiness. It was only a century later that governments became concerned with public health. Sooner or later each country, developed or underdeveloped, had to confront the issue. The Russians started shortly after their revolution in 1917. Socialized medical care was a disaster but a right for all, nominally, claiming that "illness is a product of a sick capitalistic society, and that socialism would rid it of the pathologies of the old order", resulted in poor care and poorly trained physicians. As of today, the present state of health care is abysmal. This brings us to the question of government run health care. How efficient, how successful can it be? Americans are presently embroiled in a divisive, messy, health debate. Should the government, mired in inefficient red tape in all that it endeavours, take on one more responsibility -- the nation's health care? Or should they concentrate on the small percentage of those uninsured, among them the invulnerable young and the illegal immigrants? Should all the rest, now, quite satisfied with their system of health care, be subjected to a huge, mismanaged compulsory public system? Statistics show that the majority are against it, but a hyper, largely Democratic Congress headed by the President, will not rest until they rob the public of the freedom of choice. Flashing human freedom does not deprive individuals of the right to think, to choose, how, when, where and by whom they wish to be cared for. Most countries maintain a dual health care system, which provides free care for the needy but leaving it up to the rest to select their preferred form of health service. In a free- enterprise society, there is a competitive market that allows insurance companies to negotiate their own terms. Consumers can pick and choose what is best for their own needs. The primary question, lost in the shuffle, is the quality of care. Each government maintains a Ministry of Health or as in the US a Department of Health and Human Services. They generally care for the general health of the community, administer research and disease control, provide for hospitalization, medication and treatment for the poor and disabled. Whine and whimper all they want, everyone in the US has access to health care, even if they do not possess a health insurance policy. No country in the world turns away the sick for lack of finances. Again the issue is the quality of care -- which is not created equal - government run care by all standards, is inferior, in most cases. Europe went the way of Russia in an attempt to provide health care for all. Following WW II Britain established a medical care system known as NHS -- the National Health Service -- private health care continues parallel to the NHS, funded mostly by private insurance. It is only used by 8% of the population. As in most countries there are other health care providers including charitable trusts, religious groups and private organisations. By and large they offer a higher quality of medical care than the government run facilities. Canada's system is similar to the UK- publicly funded and mostly free. There is usually a waiting period of 2 weeks to 17 months. 51 % of Canadians admit they wait for 4 weeks or more to see a specialist. Critics are cynical, among them Dr. Brian Day, quoted as saying: "this is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week, and humans can wait two to three years". If you are in luck, you will fall sick in one of the Scandinavian countries. In Norway, there is government run and government funded universal health care for all. Hospitals are free, doctor's visits almost free. In Sweden the publicly funded system is comprehensive and compulsory. In Switzerland, compulsory health insurance covers costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation. Germany has a universal multi-payer system with both state and private health insurance. France, according to the World Health Organization provides the best overall health care in the world. 80% of the expenditure is from government but a private practice is an option to public practice. The Asian, South American, African health care systems fall far short of optimum, as governments struggle to provide health care for an ever-growing, underprivileged population. Singapore is an exception with a universal health care system. Government ensures affordability largely through compulsory savings and price controls. A private health care system exists side by side with the public system, and patients are free to choose either. WHO reports "Singapore has one of the most successful health care systems in the world in efficiency, financing" and quality care. The US maybe alone among developed countries in not having a universal health care system, yet it has the best quality care available. Moreover it does have significantly funded components for the elderly in Medicaid and Medicare, Children's Health Insurance military veterans coverage. Corporations of charitable and religious services are invaluable. Research funds for medical centres have raised the standard and knowledge, efficiency and quality. The US health care system has contributed greatly to a better standard of health care, worldwide. Complaints are ludicrous when patients come from all over Europe, Canada and other countries seeking, above all else, the US efficacy and care, if they can afford to do so. There is a lesson to learn from all the American brouhaha. How about staying away from health problems as long, as far and as best we can? Prevention of disease is an important part of medical care. Barring accidents, fatal or chronic diseases, maintaining a healthy lifestyle is essential. We start by avoiding all the habits detrimental to physical and mental well-being; What do you think tobacco, alcohol, drugs, bad nutrition, poor sanitation, lack of exercise, lack of sleep do to our constitutions? The government can take care of the pollution we breathe, the water we drink, control the spread of contagious diseases by improving sanitation and immunization. The rest is up to us. A regular regimen of good nutrition, exercise and a good night's sleep relieves fatigue and restores the body's energy. Pleasurable and relaxing activities help the body shed tension. Stress can contribute to serious diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and stomach ulcers. Cleanliness is essential. A daily shower keeps the skin from collecting bacteria and other germs that can grow and multiply. Dental care is part of personal cleanliness. In an effort to avoid doctors' visits, let us begin by attending to our own needs and taking charge of our own health. No government or private insurance can help us do that. It is entirely up to us. It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do. -- Moliére (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin 1622-1673)
