Communist vs Capitalist approach of healthcare
American presidential elections are due in November this year, while India had its 17th Lok Sabha polls earlier this year. With the Gaza crisis still unfolding and the Russia-Ukraine conflict unresolved, the international sections of major newspapers are filled with debates about economics, politics, and other bilateral and international issues. It has become nearly impossible to find an article discussing how policymakers, the economy, and politics actually affect a country's healthcare system.
When I thought more about it, I came up with the idea of debating how two major political ideologies—capitalism and communism—impact healthcare systems.
So,while capitalism supports a free market and an unrestricted free economy.Communism supports the total control of the government's overall production standards and other resources.?
Now, let’s explore this with a few examples. Communist countries like Cuba have a very decentralized approach to healthcare, where they allocate available resources effectively. Cuba’s healthcare system is one of the most renowned among communist states. The country operates a neighborhood doctor model, where physicians and nurses live within the communities they serve. This approach fosters strong relationships with patients and allows for early detection of health issues.
There are clear benefits of healthcare in a communist state. Communist countries often prioritize universal healthcare as a public good, driven by an ideology of equality and collective welfare. Healthcare is typically state-controlled, with an emphasis on making it accessible and free for all citizens.
While this may sound appealing, it isn’t an ideal approach for every country. For instance, Cuba has a total population of 11.2 million, while Delhi alone has more than 20 million people. Full-fledged state control of healthcare in India could lead to corruption and inefficiency, and it might also degrade healthcare standards, especially in rural parts of the country.
Now, looking at the capitalist approach, a market-based healthcare system emphasizes competition, choice, and innovation but can also lead to inequalities in access. The U.S. healthcare system is largely privatized and relies on private insurance companies. Public options like Medicare and Medicaid provide coverage for specific groups (the elderly, disabled, and low-income populations), but most people obtain healthcare through employer-based or private insurance plans. This system is known for delivering high-quality care but also comes with high costs and significant inequalities.
One drawback of such a system is that it can lead to fragmented care, with multiple providers and insurance companies, causing confusion and inefficiencies for patients trying to receive consistent treatment.
领英推荐
Both systems aim for good health outcomes but follow very different ideological and economic paths. Each has its own set of advantages and trade-offs. For a country as diverse as India, relying solely on one approach could have negative consequences, but an uneven mixture of both could be even more problematic. In conclusion, what India needs is clarity in its approach to healthcare, combined with the flexibility to adjust when necessary.
Reference Links?
Credits: Aishwarya Raj