The Hypocratic oath states that doctors should treat everyone, regardless of race, religion, sexuality, financial status, personal history, etc.
First of all, Western countries already don’t do that. They discriminate by race, religion and sexuality (Catholic hospitals), and especially financial status. So not doing this is already standard practice.
But I personally think a case can be made the communist doctors shouldn’t treat everyone either. If a Nazi comes in, no, he can go fuck himself and no doctor should be treating him. Or in a triage situation, the proletariat should absolutely get priority over the bourgeoisie.
That’s just my hot take and admittedly I do not really know the theory behind this stuff, and I definitely want to learn, hence this post. What do you think? Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Cuba is a great example. They provide medical personnel around the world, not medical supplies. They have an abundance of the former and a shortage of the latter. During COVID Cuba sent doctors, China sent fewer (relative per capita to Cuba) doctors and way more supplies. Both countries sent aid in forms that was surplus to the needs of their domestic healthcare responsibilities.
Treatment is not free to outsiders visiting Cuba. Medical tourism is an important income stream for the Cuban health system that supports its ability to give free healthcare to its own people.
I’m not saying countries should refuse treatment to outsiders, I’m saying it’s not their responsibility. And there absolutely should be different policy toward them. Giving foreign nationals the same access to free healthcare is just offering capitalist countries a new way to exploit you and siphon your labour and resources. Health policy has to be decided based on material conditions and context, like how China has an agreement with the DPRK for giving free healthcare to one another’s citizens and settle costs between governments - and then China waives the charges for DPRK migrant workers.
And I know the Hippocratic Oath is outdated; I mention it because I’m responding to OP, who mentions it.
Thank you for clarifying comrade, I read your original post as advocating for the denial of service to foreigners. I agree that there should be reasonable charges for foreign nationals partaking in medical tourism.
That said, I would like to advocate for the idea that foreigners who are in a nation long term, such as those on working visas or some other form of permanent residency (probably not including any sort of retirement visa though) should be covered as those people are actively contributing to the welfare of the nation by working and living and paying taxes in the nation. I would also add students on student visas since… students are often poor and usually only allowed a limited amount of time per week they can work.
Otherwise, you are right that someone ‘just visiting for a few weeks’ or whatever should have to pay for the service in most situations, unless perhaps if they got injured while in the country or something else which wasn’t an issue before entering the country. But that is getting too into the weeds and ofc this discussion is more theoretical.
I agree with these. These are good examples of why it should never be a blanket ‘no’ enshrined in policy. So is the hypothetical of a visitor getting injured where the host is at fault… but even with that injury hypothetical, if a country like Cuba were to implement a hard rule about it you just know the US would direct vulnerable, financially desperate people in droves to Cuba to get themselves injured and then litigate. Yes that sounds preposterous, but it’s less preposterous than Havana syndrome or most of the Castro assassination attempts! It’s absolutely in their wheelhouse.