”Em meio às discussões da reforma do
Sistema de Saúde dos Estados Unidos, o portal do
canal a cabo de notícias norte-americano CNN divulgou
um artigo elogiando o “Sistema Único de
Saúde” (SUS). O autor do texto, Eduardo Gómez, ressalta que, desde o início
do século XX, o governo brasileiro e a sociedade civil têm trabalhado juntos
para estabelecer a saúde como um bem comum, ao compartilhar o ônus de pagar
pelos serviços por meio de impostos.
Para ele, os norte-americanos
precisam aprender uma lição importante com o Brasil: perceber que a saúde é um
direito humano fundamental. “O SUS é
descentralizado, de modo que a gestão, formulação e implementação de políticas
são de responsabilidade dos governos estaduais e municipais. Além de fornecer
cuidados de saúde primária, cirurgias e medicamentos, o SUS também oferece o “Programa
Saúde da Família”, onde médicos e enfermeiros visitam famílias que vivem em
lugares de difícil acesso”, explica o autor.
Segundo Gómez, todo o trabalho do
SUS tem valido a pena. “A expectativa de
vida do Brasil melhorou em um ritmo mais rápido do que o dos EUA desde 1960,
apesar de continuar atrás. A expectativa de vida dos brasileiros subiu de 54.49
anos, em 1960, para 73.1, em 2010. Nos Estados Unidos, a expectativa aumentou
de 69.77 anos para 78.24”, exemplifica.
O autor aponta, também, alguns dos
desafios da saúde no Brasil, como as dificuldades na gestão de hospitais e a
falta crônica de médicos e enfermeiros, especialmente em áreas rurais (o que a matéria aponta também como problema
nos EUA). Mas, apesar dos problemas, a América pode, certamente, aprender
uma grande lição de seu parceiro do sul.
“Os
brasileiros nos mostram que o direito à saúde precisa ser discutido
incessantemente em debates políticos, independentemente dos inúmeros desafios
que os sistemas de saúde possam enfrentar. Os brasileiros nos mostram, ainda,
que a saúde é um bem comum que todos os norte-americanos deveriam apoiar”,
finaliza Gómez.
IN BRAZIL, HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT
By Eduardo J. Gómez, special to CNN, July 13, 2012
Eduardo J. Gómez
A woman grabs bunches of flowers during a demonstration for greater
spending on health care in front of the National Congress in Brasilia, on
September 27, 2011.
STORY
HIGHLIGHTS:
- U.S. is divided over who should be responsible for paying for health care
- Eduardo Gomez says Brazil has long considered health care a right
- He says Brazil's life expectancy has increased at a faster rate than that of the U.S.
- Gomez: Brazil still lags behind in some areas, including widespread access to medical technology
(CNN)
- This week's congressional battle over the GOP move to repeal President
Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA), as well as the NAACP's boos
in response to Mitt Romney's proposed elimination of what he called the
"nonessential" Obamacare program, provides yet another reminder of
how divided America has become over this issue.
Other nations have avoided these rifts and built a consensus for
universal health care coverage. Consider the case of Brazil.
Since the early-20th century, the government and civil society have been
proactive in establishing health care as a common good, while sharing the
burden of paying for these services through a myriad of taxes.
Still, there are several cracks in Brazil's generous health care system.
While the government has certainly been committed to providing a public
option, it is simply overstretched. Federal health care spending is minimal at
best, failing to meet ongoing needs, while several managerial, human resource
and infrastructural problems remain.
Despite these limitations, it seems that there is one key lesson about
health care in Brazil that we can learn from: that is, an enduring cultural
belief and expectation that everyone should contribute to health care and that
it is a fundamental human right.
Brazil's universal healthcare system is called the Sistema Único de Saude (Unified Health System, SUS).
SUS is
decentralized, such that the management, formulation and implementation of
policies are the responsibility of the state and municipal governments. In
addition to providing free primary care, surgery and medication, SUS also
provides a Family Health Program,
where doctors and nurses visit households to provide services.
Brazil's health care system is funded through a variety of taxes at the
federal, state and municipal level. The states receive money from the federal
government, while the municipalities receive funding from both the federal and
state governments. What's more, the government has always been committed to
levying taxes, increasing them and even tapping into the state's oil
revenues to fund SUS.
This endeavor reflects a long history of social and political
commitments to providing health care as a government and civic responsibility.
After obtaining independence from Portugal in 1822, Brazil saw the emergence of
well-organized social movements advocating for government intervention in
health care.
Supported by personal income and social security taxes, health officials
agreed with these movements that health care was a government responsibility
and that everyone should contribute to the system.
This policy idea survived several democratic governments and military
dictatorships throughout the 20th century, lasting up through the transition to
democracy in 1988. It was also sustained with the help of proactive social
health movements, such as the sanitaristas,
comprised of medical doctors, bureaucrats and politicians.
This idea of a shared responsibility in providing health care was so
popular that it eventually became part of the 1988 constitution. Through the
constitution's introduction of SUS, health care became an official government
responsibility and human right, an issue on which liberals and conservatives
could agree.
Brazil's health care system seems to have paid off.
Brazil's average life expectancy has improved at a faster rate than that
of the U.S. since 1960, though it continues to lag behind. Life expectancy
there increased from 54.49 years in 1960 to 73.1 in 2010, compared to the U.S.
increase of 69.77 years to 78.24.
But several challenges remain.
First, notwithstanding heavy demand for health care services, the
government has only modestly increased spending for SUS from 50.2 billion real ($24.6
billion in U.S. dollars) in 2008 to 61.7 billion in 2010.
Second, SUS hospitals and the Family
Health Program have often had a difficult time treating individuals in hard
to reach areas, such as the Amazonian region while individuals often have to wait
a long period of time for prevention and treatment services.
Consequently, many of the poor in need of immediate care have had to
purchase private insurance, or pay out of pocket for services. In fact, the
percentage of individuals purchasing insurance increased from 8% in 2000 to
14.4% of the population in 2005.
What's more, there is a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses,
especially in rural areas. Many hospitals are also poorly managed, lacking
autonomy from state governing boards. And finally, there is a high level of
inequality in medical technology and infrastructure, with larger, more affluent
municipalities able to provide better technological equipment and medical care.
While the U.S. joins Brazil in lacking sufficient health care personnel,
especially in rural areas, U.S. cities in general are wealthier and have access
to the latest technology and health care infrastructure.
Despite Brazil's ongoing commitment to providing health care, the
government will need to ensure adequate funding, hire more personnel and
strengthen its facilities before its citizens can effectively benefit from SUS.
In short, government "capacity" must meet its unwavering passion for
taking care of its people.
Even so, America can certainly learn a big lesson from its southern
partner.
That is, Republicans viewing
the ACA requirement to buy health insurance as an unfair "tax" versus
Democrats perceiving it as a
"penalty" should put their haggling aside and instead view the ACA as
a shared responsibility and human right.
Indeed the Brazilians show us that the right to health care is way too
important to be mired in incessant policy debates, regardless of the
innumerable challenges that generous health care systems confront, and that it
is a common good that all Americans should support.”
FONTE: escrito por Eduardo J. Gómez e publicado na CNN (EUA). “Editor's
note: Eduardo J. Gómez is an assistant professor in the
Department of Public Policy & Administration at Rutgers University at
Camden who has written extensively about health care in Brazil.” Texto transcrito no “Blog da Saúde”
e no portal de Luis Nassif (http://www.advivo.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-artigo-da-cnn-elogiando-a-saude-brasileira).
Imprensalão internacional do PT ataca novamente
ResponderExcluirBy Professor Hariovaldo
Mais uma vez os petrodólares do présal são desperdiçados pelo (des)governo dilmístico no exterior bancando reportagens mentirosas de propaganda comunista, visando ofender aos princípios liberais e a livre empresa mundial, atentando contra a lei natural onde se lê que só os mais fortes sobrevivem, máxima essa aplicada e aceita pelos cidadão norte americanos, verdadeiros heróis que impedem que o demoníaco plano de saúde obâmico seja aprovado no Congresso.
Chegam ao cúmulo de transcreverem trechos dos panfletos marxistas e postarem nos sítios noticiosos como se fossem “reportagem” séria. Confiram se as linhas a seguir não foram escritas por membros do comitê central: “Os brasileiros nos mostram que o direito à saúde precisa ser discutido incessantemente em debates políticos, independentemente dos inúmeros desafios que os sistemas de saúde possam enfrentar. Os brasileiros nos mostram, ainda, que a saúde é um bem comum que todos os norte-americanos deveriam apoiar”
Se isso não é propaganda comunista ostensiva eu queimo minha coleção do Semanário dos Homens Bons! Discutir direitos é coisa dos Sovietes, não de uma nação capitalista como a América. Lá, os que tem competência e mérito vão em frente e os fracassados perecem, não cabe ao Estado ficar auxiliando os fracos e perdedores, diminuindo a nação e acabando com o vigor capitalista, como os socialistas querem. Assim como o casal Rosenberg, os jornalistas traidores que publicaram esta matéria criminosa pró socialismo deverão ser executados na cadeira elétrica.
http://www.hariovaldo.com.br/site/2012/07/18/imprensalao-internacional-do-pt-ataca-novamente/
Maria Tereza, o "Professor" não é sensacional???
Probus,
ResponderExcluirAdorei esse texto inteligente e irônico do Professor Hariovaldo.
Obrigada
Maria Tereza
Não entendi o texto do professor Hariovaldo, é uma ironia?
ResponderExcluir