For most who follow the US politics, it is hard to miss the raging debate on the health care situation in the US. To me, this raised the obvious question - what about the state of health care in India? To begin with, it is almost laughable to talk about the 'state of health care' - and it is indeed a cruel joke. To make it worse, a cruel joke that has largely been ignored and as with most things in Indian political economy, it is convoluted. For one, it is the responsibility of the states (and not the Centre). And yet, you rarely hear anything of substance being done at the state level. As for the Centre, less said the better - the one big thing that the Health Ministry did achieve was a wholly pointless witch-hunt against smoking. Agreed that smoking is an area of concern in health policy, but it should not make it into any rational top-25 list of health issues in India.
In terms of numbers, the India's per capita expenditure on health is at around $91 (2007-08), as compared to Brazil ($1,520), China ($277) (see the country-wise number published by the UN). As I suspected, most of this comes from private spending - see this article from the Hindu for some very interesting (and depressing statistics). One very obvious conclusion - the state has failed miserably in the area of health care.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
To start with, the typical Libertarian position holds that Govt has two functions - protection of property rights and enforcements of contracts. Many equate the libertarian movements to zero govt/anarchy (not necessarily saying that you have implied that in the blog) and that is not accurate.
The thought that poverty breeds poverty in a free market is not true at all... you only have to go back and study the history of US to realize that. The idea that all men are equal was not meant to imply the same resources at disposal, but in terms of opportunities anybody can aspire to become whatever he wants to and achieve that through sheer hard work. Enough commentaries on this is there on the net and so will not add here. But if there's one system where poverty breeds poverty it is when the redistributive function happens that leads to a feeling of dependency rather than placing the onus on the individual.
The problem with the Planning Commission are many: one, they are dull-headed; two - they are immune from the stupidity of their recommendations (unlike a private consulting firm that would go bankrupt soon for lack of customers) and three - the consequences of their stupid recommendations gives them greater discretionary powers.
These flaws cannot be corrected within the framework of a non-market institution. So it really does not matter what they do - the output will be rubbish by definition. & if a govt wants a think-tank so direly, they can always go to a private firm that gives good advice. No reason why they should have their own entrenched bureaucrats folks making it.
Anyway, I was impressed to the extent that you were aware of the Libertarian movement. But some ideas are flawed (e.g. "we are yet to see a libertarian Govt at work" -- there have been plenty. The US itself before 1914 was libertarian. The US Constitution itself was a very libertarian minded one).
A couple of books might help you to understand the principles of Libertarinism better - Pillars of Prosperity by Ron Paul and Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
Post a Comment