Vēsture mainās, ekonomika iet tālāk

..a combination of MBBS and AYUSH psaniciyhs combined with a strong re-certification and continuing medical education programme in primary medicine and a strict protocol based approach towards the provision of primary healthcare combined with real-time audit, can provide a very good solution to the challenges of healthcare personnel . . I think that coercive methods have always failed not just the people they have been applied to but also the spirit of democracy and freedom of choice . There is always a way worked out by the people to take advantage which makes a dent on the faith of the community towards the system. I think if we want more personnel of any type to be participating in rural or even urban areas to work there for a given period of time then positive exposure has to be presented as a part of training and pedagogy. Nevertheless the quoted startegy is already a part of governement's policy.However, the article sounds more inclined towards financial aspect and reliance on professionals some of which may even not be possible in human capacity like knowing each cleints .geo-location, exposure to risk factors and behavioural traits..' I need help to understand the bit on insurance its too technical for me. At least not explained simply for a layperson like me. Moreover , if I have undestood it correctly, it is not clear if the proposition in the article is for cost effectiveness or pro poor or genrally for all sections ? neverthless, Quoting Zeena .However, if the government is not willing to spend this much money, since the people are already spending on average close to Rs.2500 per capita, there may well be a need to develop a more carefully designed user fee model to ensure that healthcare is provided universally by putting to use at least a part of that expenditure and organising it better so that pre-payment replaces out-of-pocket payments at the point of service. if this is the rationale behind then one also needs to look where the poor arrange for this out of pocket expenditure for health directly by loosing current wage or borrowing or selling of assets; and when it becomes absoultely necessary to address the health issue. Then how do we imagine a pre payment in that condition of living.And on whom does the onus of proving the expenditure due to health condition be on?One more thought one needs to see what goes into help/health seeking behaviour other than financial arrangements? what are the gender implications ?Overall, here an example to substantiate would be very useful even if it is just a stand-alone case.

Sveiki Jāni! Thank you for commenting. I've read the aicrtle, and I think the idea absurd. Although for sure GDP is not the best indicator of economic development, it reflects well the level of economic activity. The author not only seems to not know economic theory, including Friedman and Hayek, as there is a deficit of logic. I shall ask you to forgive me not going into details, but basically the money spent by the government goes to the private sector, for example, by the consumption of goods and services from people who work for the government. Another example is the war industry, which each year consumes gods and services produced by the private sector. All financed by the government. In other words, following the author's idea, the money spent by the government would never go into the private sector, remaining intra-government. Lacks logic, isn't it? The author should go back to Economics 101.