Personally, I would love to see mental health explicitly covered under heathcare. A persons mental health can have a direct effect on their physical well being, and the cost of psychiatric and therapeutic care can be overwhelming for many individuals, as most insurance companies (at least that I have dealt with) do not cover mental health resources (ranging from psychiatrists to neurofeedback treatments, and more), or make them more or less unavailable in the area where the covered person resides, making it difficult for the person to seek help. Finding mental health resources locally shouldn’t cause more anxiety or mental stress to the individual.
Firstly, I would like to point out that health care should be absolutely free, provided by the state. When you put a price and privatize such a basic service, it is when prices rise and salaries stagnate. Moreover, I find it important that you stressed out the need for dental care, which in most welfare states is not tackled, however, I see mental health not being included. Nowadays I see a lot of posts on social media saying, “Yes! Normalize mental health and going to therapy”, which is great but also it should be made affordable. Mental health is as important as physical or reproductive health. Furthermore, I do not see a gender perspective in this article as it is important to stress in this article reproductive care, including free tampons and pads (such as what Scotland did), and free and cheaper contraception resources as many youngsters are running risks because they do not have money to buy. And to conclude, include more affordable and even free access to in-vitro fecundation (especially to single mothers or to lesbian/bisexual couples) and easier and cheaper access to transitional surgeries to trans.
I would like to see more inclusive wording in this article, particularly mentioning female and LGBTQ+ health, which is usually ignored or evaded due to religious reasons, such as period-related issues (ie. taxing of sanitary products), easier and cheaper access to contraception, pregnancy-related issues and transitioning surgeries, as well as mental health.
To me, the difference between free and low cost is essential because this can be very relative, especially when we are talking about the provision of these rights at the universal level and considering the disparities within countries and among countries. I think a welfare state should provide FREE access to health care
This is a good point, and it would also save the cost of collecting charges. Less paperwork. On the other hand, When people pay a small amount by credit card or cash they have a sense of contribution, at least that’s what some say.
It’s a key suggestion that will be put to the DC for a vote.
If you have specific wording to make this switch, please let us know. Thanks!
Thank you very much for your response. However, I would like to add that I don’t think people is happy to pay for going to receive healthcare, precisely because this “small amount” can mean a huge effort to low-income families. In addition, payments would vary according to the treatment. I would rather advocate for a system that ensures that these contributions are very small by making all participate in ensuring that a good health system exists for all. In Spain, for instance, people contribute through taxes, and the government makes sure that contributions vary according to income (progressive taxation). This ensures we all can benefit from one of the best health systems in the world. In fact, Spain is a country nº1 in organ transplant, which is a life or death issue. I don’t think people is actually happy for having to contribute monetarily for receiving these type of treatments when it’s their right to receive those. Of course, we cannot be so naive to think we don’t need to pay anything at all, but I guess a centralized recollection system through taxes would work better
Economic and social rights have the same stature as civil and political rights. Still, it is important that with a right such as health care that judges do not decide specifically what kinds of health care treatment a person must be provided. The details should be left to the legislatures to define. However, if the provision of health care is grossly inadequate, then judges should be able to order legislatures to provide a high standard of health care.
One way to strike this balance is to insert the works “as defined by law” into the text of the Article. These three words will create more deference to the legislature with respect to defining health care services, yet still allow judges to issue orders if services become grossly inadequate in one or more areas.
I recommend removing the period at the end of the Article and replacing it with a comma, then adding the words. “as defined by law.”
Health care is not tied to work. It is something you are entitled to have whatever you do and businesses should not bear the responsibility of providing health care.
Personally, I would love to see mental health explicitly covered under heathcare. A persons mental health can have a direct effect on their physical well being, and the cost of psychiatric and therapeutic care can be overwhelming for many individuals, as most insurance companies (at least that I have dealt with) do not cover mental health resources (ranging from psychiatrists to neurofeedback treatments, and more), or make them more or less unavailable in the area where the covered person resides, making it difficult for the person to seek help. Finding mental health resources locally shouldn’t cause more anxiety or mental stress to the individual.
Firstly, I would like to point out that health care should be absolutely free, provided by the state. When you put a price and privatize such a basic service, it is when prices rise and salaries stagnate. Moreover, I find it important that you stressed out the need for dental care, which in most welfare states is not tackled, however, I see mental health not being included. Nowadays I see a lot of posts on social media saying, “Yes! Normalize mental health and going to therapy”, which is great but also it should be made affordable. Mental health is as important as physical or reproductive health. Furthermore, I do not see a gender perspective in this article as it is important to stress in this article reproductive care, including free tampons and pads (such as what Scotland did), and free and cheaper contraception resources as many youngsters are running risks because they do not have money to buy. And to conclude, include more affordable and even free access to in-vitro fecundation (especially to single mothers or to lesbian/bisexual couples) and easier and cheaper access to transitional surgeries to trans.
I would like to see more inclusive wording in this article, particularly mentioning female and LGBTQ+ health, which is usually ignored or evaded due to religious reasons, such as period-related issues (ie. taxing of sanitary products), easier and cheaper access to contraception, pregnancy-related issues and transitioning surgeries, as well as mental health.
I think it is perfectly written and great to specify the subcategories of health-care that should be provided.
To me, the difference between free and low cost is essential because this can be very relative, especially when we are talking about the provision of these rights at the universal level and considering the disparities within countries and among countries. I think a welfare state should provide FREE access to health care
This is a good point, and it would also save the cost of collecting charges. Less paperwork. On the other hand, When people pay a small amount by credit card or cash they have a sense of contribution, at least that’s what some say.
It’s a key suggestion that will be put to the DC for a vote.
If you have specific wording to make this switch, please let us know. Thanks!
Thank you very much for your response. However, I would like to add that I don’t think people is happy to pay for going to receive healthcare, precisely because this “small amount” can mean a huge effort to low-income families. In addition, payments would vary according to the treatment. I would rather advocate for a system that ensures that these contributions are very small by making all participate in ensuring that a good health system exists for all. In Spain, for instance, people contribute through taxes, and the government makes sure that contributions vary according to income (progressive taxation). This ensures we all can benefit from one of the best health systems in the world. In fact, Spain is a country nº1 in organ transplant, which is a life or death issue. I don’t think people is actually happy for having to contribute monetarily for receiving these type of treatments when it’s their right to receive those. Of course, we cannot be so naive to think we don’t need to pay anything at all, but I guess a centralized recollection system through taxes would work better
Economic and social rights have the same stature as civil and political rights. Still, it is important that with a right such as health care that judges do not decide specifically what kinds of health care treatment a person must be provided. The details should be left to the legislatures to define. However, if the provision of health care is grossly inadequate, then judges should be able to order legislatures to provide a high standard of health care.
One way to strike this balance is to insert the works “as defined by law” into the text of the Article. These three words will create more deference to the legislature with respect to defining health care services, yet still allow judges to issue orders if services become grossly inadequate in one or more areas.
I recommend removing the period at the end of the Article and replacing it with a comma, then adding the words. “as defined by law.”
This suggestion will be put to a vote of the Drafting Committee (D.C.)
Health care is not tied to work. It is something you are entitled to have whatever you do and businesses should not bear the responsibility of providing health care.