The government offers free healthcare services but not to everyone. According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage is the most important aspect of eliminating socioeconomic disparities and a critical component of sustainable growth. In several countries, universal health coverage is sought by a mix of private and public sector healthcare programs (Plianbangchang 2018). The government gives older people above 65 years of age free medical services; they also consider younger people suffering from disabilities and people who have renal issues. It definitely means that the government does not consider the other members of society, especially the working class. My essay will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of universal healthcare due to the government not offering free medical services to everyone.
Universal health care exemplifies nationwide healthcare programs in which all citizens have equal access to superior healthcare facilities regardless of individual or familial financial circumstances (Maruthappu, Ologunde, and Gunarajasingam 2013). Furthermore, universal health care encompasses social programs that include both nonmedical and medical services and infrastructure that is critical in promoting public health. Furthermore, universal health care (UHC) can significantly advance the trajectory of humanoid development. However, to achieve UHC, the government and the public health community must mobilize significant financial, technical, and human capital while still avoiding implementation challenges.
Many people will be glad and overwhelmed when they can walk into a hospital and feel optimistic that they will receive medical assistance regardless of their financial status (Jewell and McGiffert 2009). This will bring life to many citizens who were dying and suffering because they cannot afford to pay for medical bills, but the government has helped this group of people at the expense of the working-class group. UHC is also essential for a variety of reasons. First, preserving everyone's mental and physical well-being is compatible with distributive justice ethics and proper behavior. The second explanation is related to the recognition of health as a fundamental human right. The ultimate aim is economic, in which UHC modifies market deficiencies related to health, such as the social benefits of sickness prevention and good health, which promote economic welfare at the macroeconomic level.
Furthermore, universal health care benefits society's overall economic and social growth (LiPuma and Robichaud 2020). Based on primary healthcare, virtually every nation created its national health policies, which were later consolidated into the Global Plan for Health for All. Many countries worldwide have been captivated by the UHC concept application because they see it as a guiding force to assist governments in achieving the goal of good health for all individuals. Furthermore, as the number of sick people grows, governments worldwide have adopted UHC to provide sufficient care and treatment while also improving medical facilities. UHC is critical because it plays a vital role in reducing the rising prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases, which necessitate long-term care and treatment that is prohibitively costly. In addition, ambulatory treatment and public hospitals are typically endorsed and promoted as essential components of national healthcare systems when the UHC approach is used.
The government's strategic goal of universal health coverage is to ensure that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, has access to the health care they need without financial ruin or the possibility of poverty (Blattner, Price, and Holtkamp 2018). Specific patients, as well as the entire population, are served by UHC facilities. Many national governments worldwide see progress toward UHC as a driving value for the development of healthcare systems to provide a healthy population. Furthermore, the curative and preventive services provided by UHC protect both income and health. The explanation for this is that when we have healthy children in a society, they learn well without any health complications; however, when adults are well, they contribute both economically and socially (Burke, Normand, Barry, and Thomas 2016). Nonetheless, under the concept of universal healthcare, no cash payments will be made that exceeded a certain affordability level for the most unfortunate people. As a result, all governments must decide on the appropriate health services and devise strategies to ensure affordable, accessible, high quality, and effectiveness.
Insurance-based health funding is exceptionally vulnerable to profiteering by the private healthcare industry. UHC not only raises healthcare costs in a country noted for its fiscal prudence, but it also degrades existing public health services due to the increased likelihood of individuals opting for private healthcare (Zieff, Kerr, Moore, and Stoner 2020). As a result, the private sector maximizes its profits by focusing on more cost-effective issues while driving complex, inefficient, and chronic issues into already overburdened public health systems. Furthermore, regardless of the thrust and growth surrounding universal healthcare, we can conclude that the continued neglect of primary healthcare elements will still be the same. Furthermore, recent research indicates that a tax-based public health system improves health equity and comprehensiveness while remaining highly affordable in low and middle-income countries instead of insurance-based universal health coverage.
As much as the government opted for the introduction of universal health care, it is a time-consuming process since it must go through regulatory, taxation, and legislative mechanisms (Kumar, Braeken, Jurcut, Liyanage, and Ylianttila 2020). The majority of people in single-pay systems face financial distress by using healthcare services such as health promotion, support, prevention, palliative care, and recovery. Many people see UHC as a burden because of out-of-pocket expenses as well as catastrophic healthcare costs. The goal of achieving universal healthcare is challenging due to many challenges in healthcare systems, politics, and the economic-political climate. Furthermore, achieving universal health care is complicated by the presence of gross disparities in health status between developed and developing nations, rich and poor, female and male, and other classes.
The government's free healthcare can make people irresponsible; people might decide not to take care of themselves and live irresponsible lives because the medical services are free (Plianbangchang 2018). The quality of service offered in the hospital will degrade because of the rising number of patients making the doctors and nurses work extra hours attending to patients. In several countries, universal health coverage is sought by a mix of private and public sector healthcare programs. Furthermore, many low- and middle-income countries' healthcare programs are expanding rapidly in the private sector. The key cause is a shortage of infrastructure and doctors to meet all healthcare needs in the public sector. Nonetheless, almost half of the healthcare funding in low-income countries comes from their own pockets. However, with the anticipated increase in the general fraction of care provided by the private sector, the costs may be financially catastrophic for low-income individuals.
To summarize, the government should not offer free health services to everyone in society but to only the aged and the disabled people who are not in a position to work or earn enough money for paying their medical bills (Jewell and McGiffert 2009). Society should also support universal healthcare and not look down on the individuals using this medical cover as people who are not well off in society. As governments work to ensure that free health care is implemented, they can also strengthen the infrastructures of medical facilities to ensure that the number of patients who come for treatment is well cared for and that they access all of the available services to them.