Universal Health Coverage : Assessing Political Landscape

Universal Healthcare sounds appealing, but it actually lowers the quality and quantity of healthcare services that are rendered to patients, thus downgrading the healthcare system as a whole.  Not having to pay, with everyone having coverage leads to longer wait times for medical service and many people overusing health care services. Implementation of Universal Healthcare in the United States would lead to a detrimental crippling of the nation’s health system. For those countries that have implemented Universal Healthcare or a system similar to it, all or most aspects of the coverage such as cost and care is generally provided by and tightly controlled by the government, a public-sector committee, or employer-based programs, with most of the funding essentially coming from tax revenues or budget cuts in other areas of spending. This paper will conclude with comparing the US healthcare system to others and how the US has one of the most advanced systems in the world.

However, the same lack of restrictions applies. In any case, approximately 85% of the populations having Universal Health Care are very happy with the system. A much, much higher percentage

Providing healthcare coverage to all citizens can be challenging to many countries and only the most developed countries have adequate resources to truly provide universal coverage to their citizens. Still, when coverage and resources are not sufficient, care is rationed through limited supply or limited access. Most countries have mechanisms in place, however, to insure that affordability does not limit access to necessary services.

“Health care is an essential requirement for well being” (Maruthappu). All over the world, health care is a constant concern because of the difficulty maintaining quality and affordability. In the United States, health care reform has been a huge debate topic. The purpose of health care is to satisfy the medical needs of an individual. However, many Americans consider health care a “luxury,”because millions of low-income families cannot afford the same care as the middle or high class. In this case, the right to quality and affordable health care is not extended to all Americans. Universal health care will ensure a higher life expectancy, reduce the cost of medical treatment through a single-payer method, and improve medical treatments.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If these words are true then why should we segregate one another by a precondition such as Universal Health care? A system that should allow residents of a specific region the opportunity to have healthcare coverage. This paper argues stipulations that all residents should be given the opportunities stated in the founding documents as well as the right to suitable healthcare, economic productivity and, a base for a just nation. In 2014 according to the US Census Bureau 33 million people in the United States which equates to 10.4% did not have health insurance. Thus, possibly assisting with the inability to provide residents with lifesaving treatments and accurate care for those in dire need but were unable to receive certain previsions due to not having health care.

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.

Over the years, government agencies have tightening their focus to improve the healthcare of people who live in poverty, although the results are not promising. According to Amartya Sen, there has been a misconception that a country needs to be rich in order for it to be healthy (Sen, 2015). While richer societies tend to be healthier, ‘’the connection is not automatic because it really depends on a wide range of factors, such as how societies choose to organize itself and deploy resources’’ (Sen, 2015). A research conducted by Bloom and Canning on how to improve healthcare reform for the underprivileged population suggested that our nation’s health spending was ‘’misallocated and inefficiently applied toward the affluent, and not the poor’’

The first topic of the SOCHUM committee is health care as a basic human right. All people should have basic medical care available to them; however, 400 million people around the world do not have access to vital health services. Around the world, many have to pay out of pocket for medical care which pushes many into extreme poverty.2 The SOCHUM committee advocates for human rights issues that impact all people. Thus, countries should provide people access to health care. Universal health coverage is an issue in regards to international human rights law. The international human rights law is a body of laws that promote human rights in the international system. This treaty expects states to protect and provide basic human rights to their people.

The right to health care can improve public health. According to a 2012 study in the Lancet that looked at data from over 100 countries, “Evidence suggests that broader health coverage generally leads to better access to necessary care and improved population health particularly for poor people”. In the USA, people are 33% less likely to have a regular doctor,25% more likely to have unmet health need, and over 50% more likely to not obtain needed medicine compared to their Canadian counterpart who have a universal right to health care. Everyone needs good information, and the opportunity to make good choices. Many people do believe everyone should have health care coverage and that nobody should be left out of the system. It is prove that the society is highly

In this paper I use a case-study approach to discuss the feasibility of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in low and middle-income countries. First, I define UHC and contextualize it within the goals of a health system. Then, I describe healthcare reforms aimed at achieving UHC in one middle-income country—Mexico—and one low-income country—Rwanda. Through these descriptions, I attempt to identify common patterns that promote UHC by analyzing three dimensions of healthcare reform: the contextual factors; the health services design, implementation, and evaluation; and the financing.

One of the main argument for government provision of UHC is that it is a fundamental human right; this argument is a main pillar of the WHO constitution that was created in 1948 ("What is universal coverage?"). Governments should provide UHC, not just because of the commodity egalitarianism

There are many processes that shape the way health care programs go into effect in the United States. One of the key issues is that the states have the ability to decide who gets what from a specific health care program, which leads to many different determinations (Knickman & Kovner, 2015). Another thing that affects the way health care systems are formed is that we have a fragmented governing institution that often disagrees on a lot of issues, and makes it a lot harder to pass legislation. Many of these legislative administrators impede the movement towards universal health care by tying up proposals and dragging things out (Knickman & Kovner, 2015). No one in the government can seem to agree on what they want done with our health care

Around the world, high-income countries struggle making a decision on whether health care is an essential coverage or an optional coverage. If one has the right to health, then should it be mandatory for all governments to provide the health care coverage one needs? This is a common question in governments around the world and most high-income countries do aim to offer universal coverage. Universal health coverage is defined as “the goal that all people obtain the good quality essential health services, including promotion, prevention treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation, that they need without enduring financial hardship” (1). However, there are several steps and obstacles a government must face before being able to achieve the ultimate goal of universal health coverage. This paper investigates the health financing mechanisms of four high-income countries (United States, Australia, United Kingdom, and Japan), which are all at different stages of this process. Although they all aim to ultimately provide reliable, affordable, and comprehensive coverage to all individuals, these countries face similar obstacles in establishing successful public health financing.

Worldwide, approximately 1.3 billion people do not have access to affordable and efficient healthcare and out of those who have access, almost 170 million are forced to spend around 40 % of their income on medical treatment (Asante et al,2016).In low and middle income countries (LMICs), the major constraint to the access of healthcare is financial burden, where out-of-pocket payments (OPP) contribute to approximately 50 % of total health expenditure (WHO, 2010). As a result, in these countries there is high probability of many households being pushed into poverty due to high medical expenses (McIntyre,2006).The matter of concern in LMICS is that poor and disadvantaged groups of population do not have access to adequate quality of healthcare.For instance, according to WHO (2010) up to 20 % of women in rich population are more likely to have a birth attended by skilled health worker than a poor woman. Therefore, taking an action to address health inequities faced in these countries would save up to 700,000 women.

“The End of Poverty,” is written by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a former Harvard University professor and current director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York. In his book he impressively clarifies the complex nature of health policy and economic development. Through his professional experience he argues for the introduction of economic development standards and accountability through country specific case studies. He justifies the importance of spreading economic prosperity across the world through differential diagnosis, strategic economic reforms, foreign investment, and furthering a global economy. The grand theme presented by Sachs in "The End of Poverty,” is that rich countries do not need to make poor countries rich through aid, but invest in poor countries enough to get them on the first rung of the development ladder. From the first rung, Sachs believes that natural economic momentum will carry countries further up the development ladder. The implications of this grand theme will be discussed throughout the report. However, generally this calls for more cooperation