He also implies that people will overuse the system and hence overwork the healthcare professionals.

The abuse of the system by a small number of those involved is a problem for any system, but it depends on how it is funded what the effect is.

In the UK, the general practitioners, who are the first line of treatment, are paid in accordance with the number of patients on their books, regardless of the level of service requested or given. Hence, doctors tend to have long lists of registered patients and want to work in the healthier (usually wealthier) suburbs. They are "overworked" because they register a lot of people, but many give very poor minimal service.

By contrast, in Australia doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis. In that system, the problem is some doctors "overservicing" patients; ie, getting them to come back for additional visits that are not really necessary.

Where patients have to pay a small proportion of the cost themselves, there is some constraint on overservicing. The other problem is false claims for services not provided, and the insurance system, run by the government from a levy collected at income tax time, has elaborate checks to detect patterns of claims that do not fit a standard pattern for particular service types' location of service. They also control reimbursement to the medical practitioner for a particular service, although the doctor is "free" to charge more.

Where this system gains over private insurance, with the insurance company reimbursing the patient, is in legal costs. The use of lawyers chasing bad debts reduced dramatically when the new system was introduced.

Of course, the legal profession opposed the new system.

By contrast, the US seems to have the sort of private-market-economy type of health insurance advocated by Knight. Contrary to his claims, I understand it is very expensive to get health insurance in the US, which means the poor are the losers, because they cannot afford it.

Or is it that the US does not have a healthy economy, and so free-market forces do not work properly?

Thailand's Bt30 system has a lot of room for improvement, but it is an improvement for those who were not being covered at all. The people it is meant to help are precisely those who cannot afford the high cost of uncontrolled private health insurance.

As for helping those people by having a healthy economy, economic data say quite clearly that in this country, increased economic activity has widened the gap between rich and poor, with the rich getting much richer, while the poor get even poorer, because of inflation.

Improve the Bt30 system but do not throw it out.

Gareth Clayton

Bangkok

--------------------------

Beware of constitutional rewrites by a single party

Re: "Dark-horse Chaturon sighted on horizon", Opinion, April 13.

Delineating the political road map here in Thailand, you get to the part where the new Parliament, in complete opposition to the present Constitution, proceeds extra-constitutionally to modify that late, great document:

"Then the Constitution would be up for a rewrite, after which it will be put to a referendum. Nobody knows how long this process will take, but the rewrite will concentrate on less than a dozen articles."

Presumably, those articles of most interest to the single party that will compose the new, extra-constitutional body that does the modifying.

Could you please elaborate on which articles those might be?

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

--------------------------

Thaksin's behaviour is of a pattern that must be broken

Re: "Thaksin's behaviour is par for the course in this society", Letters, April 13.

"Thaksin's ethical issues were overlooked for the simple reason that it is all part and parcel of Thai life (corruption, nepotism etc). Ultimately, Thaksin behaves in a way which is acceptable in Thai society, so why the call for his removal?"

So, according to A Warner, we should ignore the rule of law, which itself is ever-evolving, embrace corruption in all of its forms, simply because it's easier to ignore it in the name of culture, and just allow dictators to rule.

Wonderful! Of course, Warner chooses not to live in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or even King Gyanendra's Nepal.

Freedom and democracy have been won through long and bloody conflict in the past, to shake off the chains of dictatorship. We simply must not allow evolution in politics and law to shudder to a halt in the name of culture or blind acceptance.

A Voter

Bangkok

--------------------------

We should all take a good, hard look in the mirror

I am rather astounded by many of the news items, letters and editorials published in your newspaper. Both sides seem to refer to those they oppose as the "mob".

A woman screaming, "Thaksin get out!" gets reams of paper and almost giggly prose about the elected leader's inability to eat his meal. On the other side, the opposition leaders are physically assaulted in the North of the country. All in the name of "democracy".

A deputy prime minister makes a less-than-thinly veiled threat towards demonstrators. This brings a quiet response from the Royal Thai Army chief about what the job of security forces truly is.

A former prime minister who brought true democracy to the land has his compound bombed. Not much of a thank you for an ageing patriot.

The leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy seem to have their own agenda, and it has to do with removing an elected prime minister, with nothing except vague references to "people power". The problem is simply: which "people"?

Farmers march on Siam Commercial Bank to avoid paying loans. People scream about free-trade agreements, and politicians use these sentiments to garner support.

A deal is struck in which a private business is sold, and screams of "Corruption!" and "He is selling Thailand!" emanate from all quarters.

Watching are those who have been sought after to bring investment for economic growth to the country. We should all hope they wish to buy and sell here. "People's republics" rarely make viable trading partners.

Where were the leaders in this very real crisis? Campaigning in an election that was virtually a one-party deal, most of the time in provinces far from Bangkok. The opposition would not participate, because, "We cannot win."

What was stated on all sides was, "Look at me, I am good."

Foreigners whose entire knowledge base is gained from whatever school they attended, what they find on their computer and which bar they frequent are full of advice for everything from what to do with the PM to the free-trade agreements and on to what to do in the South.

Perhaps it is time for all of us, Thais and foreigners alike, to take a look in the mirror and ask if we all are doing what is best for the people and country. For those foreigners who believe they have the right to march, riot or just speechify in the political process here, a day of reckoning will quietly come.

I know you are all smarter and more experienced than I am, but that is my only advice.

Major Mark A Smith

US Army, retired

Bangkok

--------------------------

Wrong to imply that all with well-paying jobs are corrupt

Re: "Rich city dwellers should consider welfare of the poor", Letters, April 9.

Mike Ayres, I can't believe you imply everyone with a "well-paid job" in Thailand is corrupt.

I, too, sympathise with the "have-nots", as you describe poor people. But remember, many of the "haves" started as have-nots. There are many in Thailand who have struggled and become successful. This is not only the case here, but also where you live in the UK.

Moreover, remember that all those free programmes offered to the poor, such as free medical care and affordable housing, have been made possible by tax money paid by those corrupt, rich folks. I paid millions of baht in taxes, just so many who have not can have more.

Unfortunately, many who do not have well-paid jobs are corrupt and siphoned these monies from those who deserve it. Ironic isn't it, that perhaps those without well-paid jobs can be corrupt?

Or is it?

Not everyone with a well-paying job is corrupt.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

--------------------------

Long-term future looks very dark and gloomy indeed

So the snap-election results showed a total lack of confidence in the government, but I feel also a total lack of confidence in our future.

No charges were laid against the administrative leaders, despite the allegations of high-level corruption. No lessons will be learned, and Thaksin will continue to pull the strings from behind the scenes. Corruption will continue, because no lessons have been taught.Thailand will remain at an impasse and continue to be regarded as a Third World nation, rife with corrupt practices. The life of the common citizen will remain miserable, and the standard of living might actually decline, because of rising costs. Not a ray of hope for my poor Thailand.

I am not being negative, just realistic. From what we have not achieved, I will continue to hang my head in shame.

My poor Thailand, what is to become of you?

A Sad Citizen

Bangkok