Are we healthy?

This is a very difficult question. To answer it briefly, the answer is "no"!

Today, dear readers, let us delve into our topic by expanding on the short answer to this difficult question. Furthermore, if I must share with you why I need to address this topic today, it is because the issue of health has come to the agenda during budget negotiations. However, in one way or another, health is a subject that must always be on our minds, both in its current state and in the context of the situation that will emerge tomorrow.

First, let us examine this well-known issue of budget negotiations. When we think about how much of society is concerned with the issue of health during budget negotiations, I do not think a very large group comes to mind. The reason for this has to do with the way we perceive the concept of "health." When the general topic of health is discussed, we almost exclusively think of acute situations; that is, we think about health more intensely when we are sick.  When such a situation arises, the fact that the service we receive is paid only bothers us in cases of poverty or destitution. If we have the money, we pay without hesitation and do not even question why the costs of health services are not socialized. For example, have we ever wondered why political parties do not advocate for the public health system to be much more inclusive and valid in every hospital under all circumstances during their political propaganda? Especially since I can see that the wealthy segment absolutely does not think about this issue, they also oppose the privatization of health to the death. Yes, they oppose it to the death, yet they do not know that unless health services are widespread with a certain quality, the quality of life of the wealthy will also be low, and even their guarantee of life may disappear! Did a president of a country not lose his life while in office because an ambulance could not be provided, and did the son of a wealthy family not lose his life for a similar reason? Is it so difficult for people to think and take a lesson from this!

Given this state of affairs, why would the government, with what logic, impose a tax burden on the wealthy segment to provide services to a broad segment that cannot think of its own interests and therefore cannot exert pressure on political power, thus serving a segment with a blinded consciousness? That is why health services are reflected as a service item that lags far behind in the public budget. In capitalist-bourgeois societies, both the wealthy and the politicians at their command think not of the general public, but of their own positions and situations. The public, trapped in false consciousness, thinks that the political power they elected (or rather, think they elected!) is looking out for them; they cannot wake up from their ignorance to realize that both the wealthy and the political power are thinking only and exclusively of themselves!

On the other hand, the most fundamental difference between socializing health and making it public is not to make the poor finance the wealthy, and to make the person concerned pay for a service like health—which everyone might be ready to give everything they have for—by putting it on the market. Especially in an environment where individuals in the lower-income group have false consciousness and can be lulled to sleep through mainstream media, why bother the wealthy! Moreover, it is not as if public hospitals do not exist; if the issue of appointment queues has been partially resolved by adjusting for decreasing consultation times for each patient, the problem may be drifting toward a solution. 

So, is health a subject that should only come to our minds in cases of acute illness? While this is not the case in a developed society, it is unfortunately so in underdeveloped societies. This is because treating health as a subject that should only be activated in acute situations is a very fundamental desire of both the wealthy, their political agents—the political authority—and, more importantly, the health personnel themselves. The socialization of health services is a policy that shifts market income distribution against the wealthy and in favor of the poor. As such, unless the consciousness level of the poor is equal to or even superior to that of the wealthy, the problem cannot be solved in bourgeois societies. Furthermore, the problem is not just related to the level of consciousness, but also to the income level of health personnel in different fields. In this regard, health personnel are also extremely justified. Since it would not be appropriate to use ugly expressions in such an article out of respect for the reader, I will take refuge in your understanding and suffice with expressing what is on my mind by saying "that kid from yesterday"; yes, that kid from yesterday and his family can spend a five-day school holiday abroad under the pretext of letting the child relax, while this problem cannot be solved if health personnel at every level and field—a job no one would do by choice—are trying to survive by thinking about their daily rent.

Considering the issue of preventive health versus curative health, which I could not enter into due to the length of the article, and the issue of the degeneration—or even decay—of the physical and mental structure of the future generation in the face of today's waste, it is understood that the subject is very broad. 

The issue, clearly, is a systemic one that runs very deep. And that system was chosen by the public with its blind consciousness. Who is there to explain anything to!