Despite the mounting deficit in the National Health Insurance (NHI) system, political figures in the ruling and opposition camps have turned a blind eye to the thorny issue in order not to risk losing votes. The only recourse now is to raise NHI premiums, but how could the average wage earners not complain, as their salaries have not increased in the last 10 years? Accountable politicians should take responsibility and make the correct decision to prevent the system from collapsing, even if it will affect their popularity among voters. Premier Wu Den-yih has called for public support for an NHI premium rate adjustment plan proposed by the Department of Health that will affect only the 25 percent of high wage earners, with premiums for the remaining 75 percent to be adjusted downward. He contended that those most able should assume more of the financial burden and that society should back the planned adjustment. Under the adjustment plan, higher wage earners will have to sustain a bigger increase. One average high-earning household would have to pay an extra NT$6,000 (US$187) in NHI premiums per month and that is not a small amount. However, the real problem is that NHI premiums for the real richest in the country will also be decreased along with those of the poorest. If the government unfairly collects NHI premiums only from what it calls able wage earners, how can the people with high unearned incomes escape the practice? We all know clearly that the worsening wealth gap in Taiwanese society results from a rapid growth in unearned income for people enjoying handsome stock dividends or fortunes from real-estate deals. But how can the government, going counter the international trend, unfairly keep the NHI system's financial burden only on wage earners while excluding the rich? What the hell is this kind of fairness? If government policy only serves to discourage wage earners from working hard and drives them to pursue high unearned income, it will definitely slash national competitiveness -- a question that is far more pressing than just social fairness. (March 5, 2010) 