Do you believe the NHI is a good thing for South Africa?

Do you believe the NHI is a good thing for South Africa?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 8.6%
  • No

    Votes: 268 79.1%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 24 7.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 18 5.3%

  • Total voters
    339
Yes, free medical aid for everyone.
NHI is not medical aid, it is universal medical care. Everyone who cannot afford medical aid, already has free medical care. You can go to any state hospital and get treated for free, with that funded by taxpayers. Your statement is false.

No more apartheid hospitals
There is no such thing as apartheid hospitals. Show me a hospital where the color of your skin determines the care you get please. Your statement is false.
 
If well managed yes. And if it only includes the Citizens and PR of South Africa then yes. With PRs paying a premium more than citizens.

Our Medical Aids have been getting far more greedy asking higher earners to subsidize lower earners by upto 3x more for the same benefits.
 
Maybe the cause and effect are reversed.
Maybe you can find a counter example, but for the big ones the cause and effect does not seem reversed.

The following is from GPT:
Several countries are known for their successful national health plans, which offer comprehensive and universal health coverage to their citizens. Notable examples include the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, South Korea, and Sweden. These countries have developed robust healthcare systems that are accessible to all residents, largely funded through taxes or social insurance schemes.

  1. United Kingdom: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was established in 1948, providing free healthcare at the point of use. Before its implementation, the UK had an unemployment rate of around 1.5% in 1948, and the GDP per capita was approximately $6,000 (adjusted for inflation).
  2. Canada: Canada's healthcare system, Medicare, was rolled out in the 1960s. Before its full implementation, the unemployment rate in Canada was around 7.1% in 1965, and the GDP per capita was about $3,700 (adjusted for inflation).
  3. Germany: Germany's healthcare system has roots in the 1880s with the establishment of the world’s first national social health insurance system. By 1883, when the Sickness Insurance Act was introduced, Germany's unemployment rate was not well documented in modern terms, but it had a rapidly industrializing economy with a GDP per capita of about $2,500 (adjusted for inflation).
  4. South Korea: South Korea achieved universal health coverage by 1989. In the years leading up to this, the country saw rapid economic growth. In 1988, the unemployment rate was approximately 2.5%, and the GDP per capita was around $4,800.
  5. Sweden: Sweden's healthcare system, established in the 1950s, is known for its efficiency and comprehensive coverage. Before the implementation of universal healthcare in 1955, Sweden had an unemployment rate of about 2.5%, and the GDP per capita was around $7,000 (adjusted for inflation).

As of 2024, the countries with successful national health plans have the following current economic statistics:

  1. United Kingdom:
  2. Canada:
    • Unemployment Rate: 5.0% in March 2024 (ONS Website).
    • GDP per Capita: About $52,000 USD in 2023 (ONS Website).
  3. Germany:
  4. South Korea:
  5. Sweden:

I would even argue that a big factor for positive health outcomes across a population would be lower unemployment and higher GDP per capita, once this is achieved national health services could be a great solution to entrench these already positive outcomes.

I would however be happy to read any research to the contrary.
 
I see some posts referring to countries NHI-type system has worked in. Please let me know which ones, want to compare countries where it has worked vs where it hasn't (or in South Africa's case, won't work).
 
In principal? Yes, but we know, practically, what the likely outcome is going to be! Don't we? Come on now, don't be silly...
Spot on.

We have been around this block 100s of times with ANC cadres. They always end up looting and stealing.
 
Problem with thinking the world owes you something is that they too end up with less and less.

The concept of capitalism isn’t as selfish as you think. It literally builds career opportunities and prosperous economies for people to function and thrive together.
What you are discussing is individualism. Capitalism is a flawed system that imagines infinite growth with finite resources and has painted humanity in to a corner.

Whenever socialist injection into this fails every supporter of that always complains it wasn’t done correctly.
I tihnk you mean Communism? It could reasonably be argued that countries like the UK, Denmark, etc. are socialist states in practice if not in name. The bad ones (China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.) are usually run by communist parties (COP). Now if you'd simply said: graft and other forms of corruption ruin countries you'd be spot on and that is what you are actually referring to in the failure of these states, not the system itself.
Socialism is a far more rational system than Capitalism is. Corrupt governments can ruin a country regardless of the system, I mean, just look out the window.
 
What you are discussing is individualism. Capitalism is a flawed system that imagines infinite growth with finite resources and has painted humanity in to a corner.

Honk, no it doesn't. And even under your assumptions you are wrong.

1) Human ingenuity is pretty limitless so long as there are people.
2) The market always assigns the correct value to a resource, regardless of what a political might say or force people to buy it at. When a resource becomes scarce, the price goes up in a market, thus people use less, and make changes to everything downstream to use less of it as well. Probably a good thing to have when you have finite resources.


I tihnk you mean Communism? It could reasonably be argued that countries like the UK, Denmark, etc. are socialist states in practice if not in name. The bad ones (China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.) are usually run by communist parties (COP). Now if you'd simply said: graft and other forms of corruption ruin countries you'd be spot on and that is what you are actually referring to in the failure of these states, not the system itself.
Socialism is a far more rational system than Capitalism is. Corrupt governments can ruin a country regardless of the system, I mean, just look out the window.
Only rational if you are an insect with no individual thoughts or aspirations.

You are correct, corrupt governments can ruin a country, which is why it probably is a good idea to keep government power as restricted as possible. Pity you cannot do that on your glorious path to a socialist paradise, which requires the government squash every single person's individuality such that they end up a shapeless blob that will just do whatever the central planners want.

Wonderful part about capitalism is it works to the extent it is allowed. It doesn't need to be implemented perfectly to see some results, unlike your socialist systems which seemingly have to have a couple of million people die before people like you realise the perfect rational system isn't working. This is why mostly free countries like the UK and Denmark still function at the moment because they haven't had socialism destroy everything yet.

And Capitalism is the most rational system we have, hence why every place that implements it gets rich. It doesn't need big brained intellectuals like you, who think you know how to spend other people's money better than they can. It has simple rules that are easy to put into law:
1) Protect property rights.
2) Allow people to do whatever they want to provided they don't infringe on other people's individual rights.
3) Have a judicial system to enforce contracts and resolve disputes peacefully.

These rules allow people to act in their own self interest without hurting other people. It means the only way they can act in their own self interest is to provide goods and services to other people.
No need for grand 5 year plans that stipulate what the price of bread needs to be. No need for government committees to decide on how many computers to manufacture.

Denmark and the UK mostly get these right, except 1) and 2) to some extents as the government steals 50% of people's incomes which limits what they can and cannot do.
 
Last edited:
Said other for various reasons.

I believe NHI to be a good thing, where we should all be as a species. I do not believe that South Africa can succeed in this venture at this time for multiple reasons.
 
the government has the sole responsibility to the people, no matter that is health care, education, security and so on. nhi is just the other form of taxation, nothing else. people always ask, without money, how can the government afford free health care. But I just want to ask a simple question, if you are in charge the government but you don't know how to provide free health care without to collect more tax, why you don't free your seat to someone who can do that? people have to ask yourself a question, if the politicians don't know how to run a government, wtf you vote them in? for what?
 
the government has the sole responsibility to the people, no matter that is health care, education, security and so on. nhi is just the other form of taxation, nothing else. people always ask, without money, how can the government afford free health care. But I just want to ask a simple question, if you are in charge the government but you don't know how to provide free health care without to collect more tax, why you don't free your seat to someone who can do that? people have to ask yourself a question, if the politicians don't know how to run a government, wtf you vote them in? for what?

That is a question a lot of people are asking and not getting a sane answer to.
 
This is simple:

Working class, paying medical aid and taxes will vote :NO ITS NOT GOOD

Uneducated, non-working getting promised free luxury medical care for nothing will vote: YES ITS GOOD.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter