Say what, Bobby?

Let me begin by making something perfectly clear, such that even the pretend journalists at Labour’s ONE TV will get it: members of the disciplined forces deserve the very best protection that the State can reasonably provide.

They put themselves in danger on behalf of the rest of us. If anyone merits the best medical care and proper financial protection against injury, disability or death, it is those who run towards danger while everyone else is running away.

That is not the issue.

What I want to examine is the point that Robert Abela has once again managed to produce a headline without making clear what he actually meant. He announced that the government intends to provide health insurance to all members of the disciplined forces, saying this will give them “more widespread access to the health services they need.”

Read that sentence carefully. Then ask yourself what it actually means.

If it means exactly what he is reported to have said, then he has admitted something rather awkward. He has effectively told the rest of us poor peasants that the national health service is not, after all, capable of providing the level of healthcare that his own government believes its employees should receive.

For years we have been assured that Malta possesses a first-class public health service. Ministers never tire of telling us that our system compares favourably with the best in Europe. Whenever anyone points to shortcomings, the official response is that everything is wonderful.

Let me insert a personal note here: my own personal experience of the health service confirms that we are blessed with a pretty good system, staffed by excellent people.  That it could do with improvement in many areas, especially when it comes to taking the load off the Community Chest Fund, is also a fact.

That said, here is the Prime Minister effectively saying that for one category of public servant, the State’s own health service is not enough. That raises an obvious question.

If the health service is inadequate for police officers, soldiers, prison officers and civil protection personnel, why is it considered good enough for everyone else? Why should only one category of citizen require private health insurance, funded by us, to obtain the healthcare the government itself apparently believes they need?

Of course they need, and deserve, the best, but so do the rest of us.

There is, however, another possibility.

Perhaps Abela was not really talking about healthcare access at all. Perhaps he meant injury insurance, disability cover, income protection or life insurance – precisely the sort of financial protection one would expect for people who routinely place themselves in harm’s way.

If that is what he intended, then, hey, no problem, not even a tiny one. Officers injured in the course of protecting the public should not have to worry about the financial consequences for themselves or their families. Enhanced insurance benefits are entirely consistent with the exceptional risks they undertake.

But if that was the proposal, then say so.

Don’t announce “health insurance” and justify it by claiming it provides greater access to healthcare services. Those words carry a very specific meaning. They inevitably suggest that private healthcare is being offered because the public system is insufficient.

Words matter. Particularly when spoken by a Prime Minister.

This has become something of a habit with Abela’s administration. Announcements are increasingly designed for the headline rather than for clarity. The details emerge later, if they emerge at all, leaving everyone to guess what was actually promised.

Government communications should not resemble a game of political charades. Governments owe citizens precision, not headlines. When a Prime Minister announces a major policy, people should not have to guess what he meant.