The nitty gritty29 diciembre, 2015 • By Alberto de Rosa
It is a fact that healthcare is subject to permanent public debate which it has to live with. A different issue is whether I consider this to be positive or negative; but to not acknowledge it would be naïve.
I always try my very best to play an active role in this debate by introducing common points of view as well as consensus and different considerations. I believe in putting yourself in other people’s shoes, understanding other points of view and showing that the world is full of nuances, that things are not black or white. If there were only one solution and it were easy, there would be no discussion.
However, public debates sometimes bring about situations which are, at the very least, surprising. In the Community of Madrid there are 11,585 journalists who, together with their direct relatives, receive health care through the Asociación de la Prensa de Madrid (APM) (Press Association of Madrid) medical service, financed by the Community of Madrid (which allocates it 8.6 million euros), in a highly prestigious, privately managed, public hospital in Madrid.
This is just like the Muface Model (for civil servants), but for journalists in Madrid. News published in the media reported that some political parties wanted to get rid of this service (although they have since rectified) and the main protagonists, the journalists, wish to continue receiving medical care through a privately managed public hospital.
And so I do wonder why, when asked, users always prefer to receive medical care through public-private partnership mechanisms? Why is it that every year in MUFACE more than 85% of users wish to receive their medical assistance through private companies? Is the profit motive all right in this case? Why do Madrid journalists prefer and believe in privately managed public health for themselves, and why don’t they also request it for everyone else?
I am sure that if transparency, generosity, intelligence and an aim to agree were present in all these public debates, then we would avoid many arguments that get us nowhere and so find both roads to consensus as well as numerous solutions.
So, throughout 2016, I will continue to persevere down this path and try to add and not divide, agree and not confront, create and not destroy. These are my good wishes for this coming year.
Finally, I wish you, dear reader, a very Merry Christmas and a new year filled with success both on a personal and professional level.
Until next year!