(Mis)understanding Medicare

The air in Karnataka was abuzz for some time past with (a) Confrontation between the medical professionals and the State Government and (b) Public debates on the question which of these sides was taking a proper stand on specific issues of medicare of the citizens and which other side was on acting in a way that would stand societal scrutiny. Not unsurprisingly though, the rural population did not perceptibly figure in the proceedings, although the rustics outnumber the urbanities in the land by a few hundred millions apart from the undisputable fact that the village population looks up to the government to bail them out in times of loss of health. However, in an overheard narrative, as disclosed by a seasoned physician who could articulate in rustic language, a farmer whose only asset was his small holding visits the city-resident doctor for consultation about his wife’s debilitating health condition. On being told by the doctor that the treatment would be for six months costing a sum that sounded whopping to the villager, he sought to know if the cure was guaranteed. When the doctor failed to give any such assurance, the villager argued that he needed a healthy woman to be his wife and declined to subject his ailing wife for treatment. Urbanites may take umbrage at the rustic’s action, but that is where he scored a pragmatic win.

Health, in some circles, has been defined to be freedom from sickness in a restricted sense and thought to be 100 per cent achievable with the help of medicines, of course under a physician’s direction. Quoting World Health Organisation, many knowledgeable writers on the subject of wellness have rightly observed that it is a combo of many more components such as safe-to-consume food, sanitation of living environs, exercise and so on.