Essay About Health Expense Extension Proposal for Expenses: A Repeated Accelerated Bid!

Last week, the “Democratic Gathering” bloc proposed a law, as a matter of urgency, to amend Article 16 of Decree 13955 (Social Security Law), to extend the “health coverage period for those who spend their jobs due to economic conditions for a period of one year instead of three months”, with the increase in individual and group exchange for workers and employees after last October 17.

The proposal included amending the fourth paragraph of Article 16 to be added to it. As for the content in which the necessary conditions for its affiliation are no longer fulfilled to guarantee the disease, as a result of the economic conditions in which institutions and companies signed after the date of October 17 of 2019, its right to benefit from diseases that they appear during the six-month period following the date of the expiry of the above-mentioned conditions. Likewise, the guaranteed person has the right to benefit from maternity benefits if the presumed date of birth falls within the six-month period following the end of their guarantee. In the event that the time limit specified above has elapsed without the content regaining the conditions Necessary for Ntsabh to ensure the disease, the Ministry of Public Health to cover the expenses of hospital.

In the concept of “democratic gathering”, this law comes within the framework of “helping people and standing beside them”. It is a “solidarity stance”, says member of the “meeting”, MP Bilal Abdullah. While this text could pass through a generous pass, as the “Democratic Meeting” wants, but the problem with which they turned their backs lay elsewhere: Who will finance the costs in the event that this law is passed?

In the first place, the problem with the proposal is that it comes “out of place”, according to a member of the Board of Directors of the National Social Security Fund. Charging Social Security imposes double costs that are not essentially based on resources. As the Social Security Law requires the financing of social security funds from the contributions of individuals paid by institutions and the state (the largest employer). Contrary to that provision, there are no subscriptions from other sources. On this basis, and according to the law, when a worker or employee is dismissed from work, he remains registered in the Social Security for a period of only three months, after which the conditions for his affiliation are not fulfilled.

As for the request to extend the period, it is a “utopian subtraction”, without which there is an additional problem related to the state’s contribution to the sickness and maternity guarantee branch, which is the branch that is required to increase its services to those who have been dismissed from work. According to the law, the state pledges to pay 25% of the annual cost for this branch. However, the state did not pay for four years what it owes, and the value of the branch of the state reached about 3400 billion pounds, which makes the possibility of extension an almost impossible task.

The source was surprised, “How can a man like Representative Bilal Abdullah, who for four years was a member of the Board of Directors of the Social Security, to walk with a proposal like this?” He finds no explanation except that what is happening comes within the framework of “bidding and laughing at the poor”, especially since he knows how to go things are in social security.

“An urgent recurring bidding”, says a Social Security official, based on the fact that the resources for this additional cost “will be drawn from the value of other funds, and the closest is the end-of-service compensation fund”. This is a reality that cannot be crossed, especially since “there are no savings in order to increase certain benefits”. Add to that the National Social Security Fund is a public institution and not a stand-alone state, and thus, “does not have a lathe to knock a coin whenever the need arises”. The latter summarizes the state of the proposal by saying, “Come with us, like a single person, who sprinkles benefits on the world, but a receptive pocket”.

However, the financing problem is not all about it. While the latter is a dilemma that is impossible to solve in light of the continuous deficit of the state, there is another problem related to amending the Social Security Law and who will walk in it? As it is supposed to be presented to the House of Representatives, but in light of the state of crisis and social security as an important institution, this calls for “a lot of work to dare to amend, which will undoubtedly increase the burdens”.

So, the law faces two dilemmas that may stand in the way of its passage. As for if it was approved, then who would finance the “new branch in Dukana?”