I have spent much of my professional life in emergency medicine, where delay is never an abstract idea.
A delay can mean a limb lost, a life lost, a mother waiting too long, or a doctor silently breaking under pressure after one night too many.
That is why the National Health Insurance (NHI) debate has never felt to me like a simple argument about policy. It has always felt like a question of whether SA is willing to build a health system that can truly carry the weight of its promise.
The idea of health for all is morally compelling. In a country marked by deep inequality, no honest person can argue against the principle that every citizen should be able to access care with dignity.
But noble intent does not automatically create a workable system.
In healthcare, the distance between intention and implementation is measured in hospitals, staff, medicines, beds, ambulances and the physical and emotional limits of the people expected to make the system function. That is where the present NHI debate has become so important.
The latest development confirms what many doctors, medical scheme bodies and provincial leaders have been warning for some time.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has paused the implementation of the National Health Insurance Act while the Constitutional Court considers the legal challenges, particularly those concerning public participation in the process that led to the law’s adoption.
That pause matters. It means the country has not moved into a clean phase of implementation. It means the law remains politically alive, but operationally restrained.
It also means that SA has been given a window to think more carefully about whether it is trying to run before it can walk.
If hospitals are overcrowded, if clinics are understaffed, if nurses and doctors are exhausted, and if infrastructure is broken, then no funding model can save the system by itself. It can only shift the pressure from one place to another
I have watched this country’s health system from the inside for decades, including in places like Mdantsane and Cecilia Makiwane Hospital, where pressure has long exceeded capacity.
There is a tendency in policy debates to speak as if the problem is mainly financial design. It is more basic than that. A health system begins with the ability to receive patients safely and treat them properly.
If hospitals are overcrowded, if clinics are understaffed, if nurses and doctors are exhausted, and if infrastructure is broken, then no funding model can save the system by itself. It can only shift the pressure from one place to another.
That is why the current pause should not be seen as a defeat. It should be seen as an opportunity to ask whether SA is prepared for the responsibilities that a universal system demands.
Ramaphosa’s delay was not made in a vacuum. It followed consultations with health minister Aaron Motsoaledi and was linked directly to the constitutional litigation.
The message is clear — even the state recognises that implementation cannot be detached from legal and practical readiness. The question is whether the rest of the system is equally willing to admit that truth.
The strongest criticism of NHI is not that universal health coverage is wrong. The strongest criticism is that SA still has unresolved problems at the level of care delivery.
The country does not have enough doctors in the public sector. It does not have enough nurses in many facilities. It does not have enough beds in the places where demand is heaviest. It does not have enough functional clinics. It does not have enough ambulances.
It does not have enough public confidence that promises made in Pretoria will translate into care at the bedside.
A single national fund cannot compensate for those deficits unless the foundations are first repaired.
I have also seen something else that no policy document captures well enough — burnout. Burnout is not just tiredness. It is the slow erosion of a doctor’s patience, concentration, confidence and humanity.
It is what happens when the body is asked to do impossible work and the mind is expected to remain untouched.
I have seen young doctors collapse under pressure, and I have watched some walk away from the profession altogether. Others have required psychiatric help.
When people who are trained to save lives begin to feel they are no longer able to continue, the crisis has already moved beyond administration. It has become moral.
The NHI debate also cannot be separated from trust. Doctors need to trust the system they work in. Patients need to trust that the system will see them, not process them. Medical schemes need to know what role they are still expected to play.
Provinces need clarity about powers and responsibilities.
And the public needs reassurance that reform will not mean the destruction of the services that still function, however unevenly, in the private sector.
At the moment, too many people hear the language of reform but fear the reality of disruption.
That fear has been sharpened by the legal challenges.
Whether one supports or opposes NHI, the legislative process, especially that of participation, cannot be ignored.
A law of this magnitude must not only be noble in ambition; it must also be defensible in process.
If the public feels excluded, the legitimacy of the outcome is weakened from the start.
I believe SA should use this pause wisely. That means speaking less in slogans and more in concrete terms.
Before any national system is imposed, the country should first strengthen hospitals and clinics, increase bed capacity, recruit and retain doctors, nurses, paramedics and technicians, and clean up the administrative culture that protects underperformance while punishing those who actually work nights and weekends.
It also means confronting the habit of overloading doctors with expectations while paying managers and officials far more than the people who face trauma, violence, childbirth and emergencies every day.
There is another uncomfortable truth that must be stated plainly. If a universal health system is introduced while the public sector remains unprepared, the burden will fall first on the patient and then on the clinician.
That is how reform becomes resentment. That is how a noble policy becomes a source of fear.
I still support the dream that every South African should receive proper care. But a dream must be matched by a structure that can hold it
SA does not need ideology in place of infrastructure. It needs readiness. It needs honesty. It needs a health system that is built from the ground up rather than announced from the top down.
The current pause gives the country a chance to decide whether it wants to create something durable or merely politically satisfying.
I still support the dream that every South African should receive proper care. But a dream must be matched by a structure that can hold it.
If NHI is to mean anything real, it must begin not with compulsion, but with credibility.
It must begin not with pressure, but with preparation.
It must begin not with the assumption that doctors can be forced into trust, but with the proof that trust has been earned.
Only then will universal healthcare become more than a slogan.
Only then will it become a system worthy of the people it claims to serve.
Dr Amitabh Mitra, retired orthopaedic surgeon, emergency medicine expert, poet and visual artist, SA
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.