Expanding the coverage of health insurance to a wider segment of the population, regardless of its type, is important. This aligns with the needs of citizens, the majority of whom lack real health insurance that covers their necessary healthcare requirements. However, this amendment raises the question of whether it will constitute an alternative to the comprehensive health insurance that governments have promised over the past years without achieving. This is especially true in light of governments' reluctance to address this issue, hints from officials and specialists about the high costs that comprehensive insurance will incur for the treasury, and pressure from stakeholders to maintain the current status quo.
It is clear that these amendments involve an invitation to a broad segment of citizens covered by government employee health insurance (civil health insurance) to include family members who were not covered by the civil health insurance system, given that they are, "at least legally," financially independent from the subscriber and are not considered entitled to his care.
The amendment may be intended to alleviate pressure on the government from advocates for social justice by providing universal health insurance, as it aims to include a significant segment of citizens deprived of health insurance. However, this outcome is uncertain given the high cost this amendment imposes on subscribers, given the limited incomes of public sector workers. This may prompt many to decline to comply with the new provisions.
These amendments may contribute to narrowing the gap between those covered and those not covered by any form of health insurance. However, at the same time, they will not achieve the desired justice, given the presence of large groups that remain uninsured, including most categories of workers in private sector institutions other than large institutions, agricultural sector workers, self-employed workers, day laborers, social security retirees, and non-workers, all of whom are not covered by any health insurance.
These amendments will not bridge the gap, as vulnerable groups not covered by such insurance will have to resort to other means to obtain minimal healthcare at lower costs, despite the complexity of their procedures, such as the health insurance program for poor families, which aims to provide health insurance for poor families through the preparation of a social study in the social development directorates, or to solicit limited support from humanitarian organizations and associations. Despite this, we are not exaggerating when we say that there are large groups of citizens who cannot even access and benefit from these options, and remain without any healthcare, and some of them are silently ravaged by diseases, and in the best of circumstances, they exhaust all their savings and burden themselves and their families with debt to provide some of the treatment they need.
There is no alternative to comprehensive health insurance, regardless of its cost. This insurance should cover all segments of society, particularly the deprived who are not covered by the public or private sector insurance system. It should unify the prices of medical services and not eliminate the work of existing insuranc
