LETTERS: Health policy is a must
Lately, there is a huge national hullabaloo about the medical expense that was allocated for the Nepali Congress leader Sujata Koirala.
As a human I wish her good health. However, there are moraldilemmas and issues when it comes to look at the issue of this sort.
The poor people who are working hard for boosting the economy of a country are deprived of even emergency medical attentions. They don’t have any other option than waiting for death.
One thing I really can’t understand is when there is an issue about health the government can manage whatever it takes to squandering the national economy in order for taking care of politicians’ health.
However, the government doesn’t bother about thinking even an iota of public health. This saliently implies that people are cheap-souls.
The government needs to have a fair share of national obligations to deal with this deeply rooted favoritism in our political landscape. I offer a moral challenge to the government.
The government needs to curb out how much tax she has had paid for the government to be eligible for this uniquely supreme treatment. The government is lacking the kind of policies that can easily tackle these sorts of medical-argy-bargy.
It is important that the government values every citizen’s life with the same moral-compass. The government can easily put polices in place for easing off medical-woes that majority of Nepalese are facing every day.
The government should enshrine the polices for the private hospitals that the treatment of poor people needs to be taken with utmost care and attention even if they can not afford to pay upfront.
Shiva Neupane, Melbourne
The picture in the news story “Heavy investments change little for Saptari’s malnourished” (THT, November 18, Page 7), is painfully distressing to the eyes of the 21st century people.
The 17-year-old kid could have landed in the lost paradise from Julius Cesar’s time before the Roman era, or from war-ravaged Yemen.
The government as well as its projects must be probed and details of Rs. 265 million spent must be sought and scrutinized. This amount would have easily feed 180,000 (28 per cent of total targeted population of 570,000) with nutritious food and transform them into “sukilo-mukilo” from live skeletons.
If this huge amount, donations no doubt, was well spent we would not have seen such degrading human forms in reality.
If indeed the managers had performed vanishing tricks of the huge investment, no amount of canning and flogging would do justice to atone for a single excruciating sight of such a pathetic picture.
Manohar Shrestha, Kathmandu