Published
Video length: 1 min
TRUE OR FALSE. What does the example of Spain teach us about AME?
TRUE OR FALSE. What does the example of Spain teach us about AME? – (franceinfo)
Defenders of state medical aid (AME) rely on the example of Spain. The country actually removed it and finally reinstated it a few years later. What can the Spanish case teach us about the consequences of abolishing the AME?
Defenders of state medical aid (AME) parade on television sets with an argument that they find unstoppable: the Spanish example. “In Spain, theSOUL had been deleted and, ultimately, it was reinstated“, explained Manuel in particular Bompard, national coordinator of La France insoumise, on BFMTV on December 15. Spain has in fact removed theSOUL to finally restore it a few years later.
The withdrawal of theSOUL took place in 2012 in the country. At the time, Mariano’s right-wing government Rajoy puts forward a financial argument: remove theSOUL would make more than 500 million euros in savings, at a time when Spain is going through a major crisis. However, no figures will be published by the government Rajoy proving that these restrictions did indeed save money. On the Spanish media side, on the contrary, we are talking about a measure which mainly increased spending.
The return of the AME with the arrival of Pedro Sánchez to the government
In 2018, the socialist Pedro Sanchez arrives at the government, and access to care for foreigners becomes free again. Beyond the financial aspect, the new executive offers another argument: the elimination of this aid has led to an increase in the mortality rate among foreigners in an irregular situation. For this, the executive relies on a study carried out by the Institute of Economics of Barcelona and the University Pompeu Fabra. According to her, the mortality of undocumented immigrants in Spain has increased by 15% between 2012 and 2015, which corresponds to the first three years of the abolition ofSOUL.
The return ofSOUL in Spain corresponds, of course, to the return of the left to power, but the decision was also motivated by an observation: the elimination of this aid does not necessarily reduce state spending. On the other hand, it can become a public health problem.
