However, these services are not free on themselves (i.e., poor people could and should have prompt access to a hospital in case they need to, but that doesn't mean that the doctor doesn't charge for his/her services, that the tools don't need maintenance, and that the needles don't cost nothing at all).
That a service is "free" what means is that the government is taking the public funds (i.e., taxes, that come from your own pocket) and are allocating these funds to the health ministry, so it can then provide funds to the health sector and, at last, health sector can provide "free" or at least cheap services. More wealthy people contribute with more taxes to a system to which poor people can have access without paying for them, but they cost (to someone).
The problem I see with this traditional model (that has been successful in some countries) is that the money is not properly managed by the ministries, or simply that the money doesn't get to the health sector in a permanent basis, so this brings instability and poor quality on the service.
In conclusion, wealthy people give money to the government understanding that it will gather it and get good services for all the population, but this has not been the case. So, money is there, services are there (in more sophisticated ways than what the government can provide)... so what is lacking? A way to allow people to have access to these services without an "ineffective intermediate".
Instead of money flowing from People to Governments - (in the way of taxes) - then from Governments to Ministries (by appropriations of the national budget) - from Ministries to Health Sector (by making acquisition of goods & services so Governments can provide services in "public hospitals") - and finally from Health Sector back to the People - (so the citizens can feel they are getting a "free" and horrible service)
VERSUS
Having a system in which the money (taxes) only get to the Governments to be redistributed directly to the people (taxes from rich -represent around 80% + taxes from poor - represent around 20%). In this scenario, you would have money flowing from People to Governments (taxes) - from Governments to all People (inverting the proportion, I mean: giving 80% to the poor and 20% to the rich.. until we achieve certain level of equality) - and then People being able to pay for the services which in reality are not free, but they do not depend on the Government taking care of a sector in which Governments have no expertise.
Why should the Government be running hospitals? Why should they be running schools? It is my belief that Governments should just govern, and make sure that the things they are handling are in order and correspond to an efficient management of people's aspirations. Under this proposed model, Governments would manage the regulatory environment, advocating and guaranteeing a free market in which full and open competition drives the bests suppliers of these services to provide the best products and services at the very best prices. Suppliers that are non-competitive will simply go out of market. In Government Procurement, this is what we call "Best Value", and should be the final goal of any public procurement system.
And regarding the citizen, is now empowered to get these services: has the money on his/her pockets, has diverse offerors to provide them, and can have a timely access, without relying on an inconsistent and inefficient manager.
I know is not a perfect model, in fact, I think there are other ways to solve this. But the fact that services have been "free" for a long time has made us believe so, and forget that we can take all the money we give to Governments and manage this money in more efficient ways, because apparently they can't.
