|
Healthscare 1: Liberalization is a threat to state
provision of healthcare
One of
the key arguments advanced by opponents of cross border trade in healthcare
services is that it threatens state provision of healthcare.
“The
GATS negotiations are a huge threat to keeping health care publicly
provided” (Ottawa Citizen, September 11th 2000).
The GATS
process seeks to liberalize trade in services between companies, firms and
individuals living in different countries of the world.
The theory behind the drive towards liberalization is that trade
between parties from different countries will only take place if it is for
the mutual benefit of both parties to the trade.
Does
this constitute a threat to public (state) provision? There is nothing in
the GATS negotiations which suggest that the state should be outlawed from
providing healthcare services. Liberalization simply gives people the
opportunity to choose private alternatives to state provision.
If
healthcare provided by the state is poor, or
the state is unable to meet the healthcare demands of its citizens, people
will naturally choose to pay for private alternatives.
Only poor or inadequate state healthcare services are threatened by
liberalization. Proponents of
state provision have nothing to fear from liberalization in countries where
the state provides high quality healthcare services.
One
anticipated benefit of GATS is that better alternatives to the state will
become available in countries with low standards of state provision. In some countries, new healthcare treatments will be made
available for the first time.
| 
