Thursday, September 27, 2012

Right vs. Privilege: Africa’s Health Care




One of the most prevalent issues condemning Africa today is that of health care. The lack of health care throughout Africa is not only depleting the population, but it also places ramifications on the government that harbor very unstable conditions. I chose the topic of public health because I believe that health care concerns are what plague the continent and what ultimately stimulate the majority of conflicts in Africa. It all boils down to basic human needs; all humans deserve the right to life and when that is jeopardized, it can bring out animalistic actions that might otherwise never surface.

The potential for universal health care has recently surfaced as a viable method for providing basic human needs to the continent of Africa. Currently, health care resides in the private sector and therefore is very expensive and essentially unachievable to the poor populations. Since the poor and poverty stricken populations compromise the majority of Africa, it is feasible to assume that health care is by no means easily accessible. Therefore, we see skyrocketing rates of death by diseases, infections, viruses, etc. Death is rampant in all demographics of the population, i.e. men, women, and children.  With the initiation of universal health care among African countries, it will save countless lives and hinder the spread of diseases throughout the region (primarily the spread of HIV/AIDS). Health care will be more equitable and accessible due to the affordability which has previously been scarce (AllAfrica). Countries that have already begun the movement towards universal health care or have already implemented the method are Ghana, Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, Mali, and South Africa (Namuwaya). Due to poor levels of governance throughout the region the ability for implementation seems unlikely. However other countries have proposed a two-sector idea for providing health care, one optional private health care and another universal health care. South Africa is a country that exhibits this two-sector method of providing health care (AllAfrica).

We have learned that political instability via protests stem from an array of deprivations: economic deprivations, lack of public resources, poor living conditions, etc. If the public is poor and seemingly has unchangeable health conditions, then protests will inevitably rise when the public has nothing else to loose. By providing universal healthcare, the public will receive basic human needs that everyone should be entitled too. This public resource will raise their self-worth, hence increasing stable conditions within a state. From a human rights stand point, it seems to be a win-win situation. However, taxes will need to rise by an average of 11 percent (AllAfrica). Although this seems daunting and a bit steep, African countries have already attributed successful stories (AllAfrica). Therefore it seems quite possible across the board if governments stop allocating all state revenues between the hands of the few and release corruption to better this nation state’s well-being (the opposite of neopatrimonialism). Overly optimistic, perhaps? Lets hope not.


Article (no listed author)

5 comments:

  1. Good post, Alexandra. I am one for the unification of Africa. Problems from within the states spill over to other countries. Yet, it is not always negative. Influence arises to other states when the people choose to act (as we saw in Wednesday's class). I think that battling disease and having the forgotten basic human needs (like health care) should be included in the list of demands by the people. With a united Africa the problems can be dealt by greater numbers. Leaders can learn from each other and provide assistance to each other. I don't think you come off as overly optimistic, it is a realistic approach that is hindered by the obstacles faced in present-day Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting post, Alexandra. I was not aware of the two-sector health care system exemplified by South Africa. Even though a few articles I came across have criticized it as having a polarizing effect on socioeconomic standings, it seems that such a system can function if strict regulations are followed. If strong levels of transparency between private health companies and government health bureaus are maintained, the two-sector methodology just may work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a intriguing issue. It seems that a lot of the regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa have been experiencing difficulty making any progress in building domestic infrastructure. To have the funds to build these institutions the leaders of many of these countries need to relinquish some of the wealth that they have acquired from essentially stealing public revenues. A good portion of citizens residing in poor African nation can only afford health care with their low incomes if the coverage is free, and the only way this is going to happen is if the elite of the country want to give up some of their income for the benefit of the entire country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This obviously a positive step in the right direction for these African nations but what I am worried about is where the funding is going to come from. It seems okay for now but you have to wonder if this high level of funding will be able to be sustained long enough to truly implement this program. I would just be curious to learn more about the plans for sustainable funding. But this is a really interesting issue, especially since healthcare has recently been a hot topic in the United States as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alexandra-

    Interesting post, especially as it highlights that some political issues are prevalent around the world. I do echo some of the previous comments in wondering where the money would come from for universal healthcare in some of the weaker states. Perhaps I would push you to think in somewhat greater detail about how this could be accomplished.

    ReplyDelete