Making non-vacancies for their hospital costs will not solve anything!
Posted on January 27, 2022-A+
Marked by an explosion of COVID-19 cases due to the "dazzling" progression of the omicron variant in France, the truce of the confectioners saw the "speech of fear" reappear on the safeguard of the hospital and the roleNon-vaccinated in its announced submersion.In particular, lawyer and columnist Charles Consigny offered himself a few minutes of celebrity in the program Les Grandes Gueules de RMC on December 20 by advocating to charge non-vaccinés their hospital access to covid care:
I let you appreciate the curious global logic of Charles Consigny's intervention.
Let's only say that to proclaim yourself confident in science, do not hope that the vaccines will not trigger neuro-degenerative diseases within two or three years "otherwise we will seem fine with our obligations", then bake without interest and without humorOn the obvious neuro-degenerates of certain debaters of the great gules then concluding "to be serious" that one would squarely prefer a universal vaccination obligation voted by the National Assembly rather than the implicit obligation of the vaccination pass-let's say that all this breathes moreThe desire to foam by remarks calculated to be iconoclasts than to feed the vaccination debate consistently.
If we do not want to "look fine with our obligations", there is only one way to proceed: allow medical information to circulate freely and leave to everyone, with the advice of the doctor ofhis choice, the responsibility to decide how to protect and protect others from the coronavirus.It can be vaccination.For many, it will be vaccination, if not already done.But in a poorly known and uncertain medical context which continues to reserve us a lot of surprises, it cannot be the vaccination obligation, whatever the more or less explicit form.
Paying non-vaccinated is not a solution
But let's move on and now talk about his proposal to charge their hospitalization and their possible resuscitation to non -vacinated patients arriving at the hospital for COVVI-19.Everything stems from this idea that in the face of an irrepressible pandemic wave, our care system will not hold up through the fault of non -vacinated.Less well protected than vaccinated, they will arrive en masse to the emergency room, forcing the services to deprogram interventions and treatments to make them.
Charles Consigny is not the only one who wants to find a solution to this disaster scenario.Last Sunday in the JDD, Professor Emeritus of CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière André Grimaldi suggested that to answer the question of "sorting" between patients that doctors may have to do in intensive care given the limited number of places, people "claimingThe free choice not to be vaccinated "should also assume" their free choice not to be resuscitated ".Hence its recommendation to ask non-vaccinated adults to write "early directives" indicating whether or not they "wish to be resuscitated in the event of a serious form of covid".
Two proposals, pay for your care in one case, give up care in the other.But in the end, the same Malthusian approach in the context of a healthy health system threatened with submersion, COVVI or not COVID, as we see each year in the emergency room during influenza, bronchiolitis, gastroenteritis epidemics or duringscorching episodes.
We discern at CONSIGNY a certain delicacy to pass for the villainic capitalist of the Grandes Gueules.In addition, we understand that his suggestion aims more to assist non-vaccination under the threat of significant pecuniary retlays, as does the health pass by prohibiting their access to restaurants and other sports halls, thaneffectively pay:
The fact remains that his idea and that of Professor Grimaldi are perfectly illegitimate.They are even similar to a form of theft which does not say its name, because all as much as we are, vaccinated or non-vaccinated, employees or independent, we already pay in advance the care we have and/or will need via viaSocial contributions taken from wages and other emoluments, without forgetting the CSG and the CRDS.
And let's say right away that in this area our country is not late with samples.Health insurance deficits are widening and yet God knows that France devotes an important part of its annual health creation each year - 11.2 % of its GDP in 2018, equal to Germany,Or the highest level after the United States and Switzerland according to the OECD 2019 health panorama: OECD:
"How to connect a wii to a westinghouse hd tv?"http: // t.CO/LKH5E2WX
- my questions Mon Dec 03 06:03:32 +0000 2012
God also knows that all those who wanted to leave the security and adhere to another health insurance system at the company or individual level to lighten their expenses and regain freedom of choice have broken their teeth under the implacablemonopoly of said security, collective solidarity obliges.
Oh, of course, between the solidarity imperatives of the redistribution of income and the recurring policies of falling social contributions on low wages - because we ended up understanding that their magnitude could harm the competitiveness of companies therefore to their ability to createof wealth and employment - it is correct to say that everyone does not pay their health at the same price.But in no case is this difference motivated by health, food, sports, etc. behaviors.patients.
Professor Grimaldi recalls this himself in his gallery, the doctors made the (Hippocrates) oath to treat patients according to their medical needs, not according to their more or less observance of public health recommendations.
The latter - for example eating less fatty or less sweet or less meat;Usefulness or uselessness of masks - are very variable over time, because there are modes, because there are advances in medical research and also because there are political agendas to preserve.We cannot therefore be based on it to "sort" the good patients and the bad patients except to find themselves a few months or a few years of distance to dismiss the patients who had first favored and vice-versa.
In addition, the slope is slippery.Everyone now knows that smoking is the first risk factor for lung cancer, which is in France in the second rank of incident cancers in men and third place in women.Should we refuse to treat a smoker-or make him pay for his care or ask him to voluntarily give up being treated in our health system?Should we refuse to treat an athlete who engages in a particularly risky sporting activity?Should we refuse to treat road accidents who were speeding at the time of the accident?
Few people, and certainly not caregivers, would answer yes to these questions.It is therefore difficult to see why such a perspective would become acceptable with non-vaccination against COVVI-19.
It is a question of empowering individuals about the question of their health, we sometimes hear.Relaxable perspective!
But the reality is that Covid's pandemic revealed with even more acuity than usual than our care system, although very expensive, is above all stiffened by a collectivist, centralizing and bureaucratic - "Caporalized organizationand Sovietized ”to use the terms of Michaël Peyromaure, head of the Urology Service at Cochin Hospital, during his hearing in the Senate yesterday - who turns out to be unable to allocate his resources with flexibility at the time and to the domains where weneed it.
Far from the solidarity of which he adorns himself, he generates from the shortage and consequently places the patients in competition compared to each other for access to care.Not exactly the competition we dream.Who would have believed, in 1945, when the glorious social security monopoly was established as we still know it today, that we would one day see the beneficiaries fighting them to access it?Or play on their relationships to have an appointment with the ophthalmologist or the gynecologist a little before the others and if possible in less than three months?
We rather open this monopoly from which one cannot go out, whose prices, skillfully masked by an appearance of free, are high and which we see that it is not able to meet our needs correctly.Let's introduce competition, not in patients, but between health organizations. C’est à ce prix seulement que l’on verra les propositions de soins s’améliorer et s’accroître, sans nul besoin de pratiquer un tripatients injuste et, en fin de compte, fort peu « solidaire ».
Article initially published on January 6, 2022.
-
On the Web
