Lots of people are just headline readers. It's really best to hear both sides and understand what was the thought process leading to this scenario. Please feel free to correct if my understanding is wrong.

1.) Leftover budget from 2024 can be used in 2025. Philhealth was able to acquire budget good for 2 years and was able to utilize only around 63%. There is still around 150B Php left. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/930094/doh-philhealth-still-has-p150b-even-with-no-subsidy-in-2025/story

They say that the lack of government subsidy only means no additional funds allocated, but there is an assumption that Philhealth still has a budget.

For me, I think this is fine and a matter of fund utilization. If the main proponents for additional subsidy claims that it is still underfunded, then they can argue if they have better projections.

I support Universal Health Care even though I know the middle class (salaried workers) mostly finance it. I'm sure anyone is willing to pay more as long as they see the value of where their taxes go. I also agree that gov't should look into the incentivization aspect of such policies. There should be countermeasures in order for these not to be abused.

One of the real problems in our society is that the majority is not picking the right candidates for certain roles. Congress and Senate should have politicians who are great and give focus in creating better laws. Unfortunately, I would wonder how many % really understand their role. They only think of politics as a platform but they don't abide to having systematic fixes. Always band aid solutions and always biased towards their favor.