Esponel (es)
Türkçe (tr)
Russian (ru)
한국인 (kr)
Italiano (it)
हिंदी (in)
عربي (ar)
Français (fr)
Deutsch (de)
日本 (jp)
中国人 (cn)
CandleFocus Glossary Editor
Universal Healthcare Coverage (UHC) is a system in which the provision of healthcare is made available and accessible to all citizens and legal residents of a particular country without any form of financial burden or limiting factors. As a result, individuals have access to quality and comprehensive healthcare services, including preventive and curative care, diagnostic services and treatment.
UHC is essential in realizing a society’s collective welfare and social justice objectives according to the UN and WHO. Countries decide how to achieve universal coverage with different combinations of public and private healthcare delivery and financing models. Some countries mandate that all citizens purchase private health insurance or face fines or tax penalties. Others strictly use public funds to pay for healthcare, either through single payer systems, such as the United States’ Medicare program, or through socialized systems in which the government organizes and provides insurance and medical care.
Many countries have achieved nearly 100% UHC, meaning that all citizens have access to medical and hospital care. Examples of countries that have achieved nearly 100% UHC include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several parts of Europe such as the Netherlands and Norway. And more recently, Thailand, Taiwan and Japan have achieved near-universal UHC.
Advocates for universal healthcare argue that it would lead to better health outcomes for people, fewer bankruptcies due to medical bills, and a more equitable society in which all citizens could access necessary healthcare. In addition, it could lead to a reduction in the cost of health care in the US, by allowing financing and the spread of the risk of medical costs across a larger population and benefit from the increased efficiency of private or public sector negotiation.
Those who argue against UHC argue that it could lead to significant bureaucracy, increase government control over healthcare decision-making, lower quality, and reduce the incentives to invest in healthcare services. Furthermore, they argue that the cost of UHC could be prohibitive in terms of the required public expenditure and could make it difficult to provide certain services or treatments.
In conclusion, Universal healthcare coverage is key in realizing a society’s collective welfare and social justice objectives, and many countries have achieved nearly 100% UHC. Some countries require that everyone purchase private health insurance or face fines or tax penalties, while others provide insurance and medical care through socialized systems in which the government organizes and provides insurance and medical care. Although universal healthcare can lead to admirable improvements in the lives of many individuals, those against it argue that it could lead to increased bureaucracy and lower quality of services.
UHC is essential in realizing a society’s collective welfare and social justice objectives according to the UN and WHO. Countries decide how to achieve universal coverage with different combinations of public and private healthcare delivery and financing models. Some countries mandate that all citizens purchase private health insurance or face fines or tax penalties. Others strictly use public funds to pay for healthcare, either through single payer systems, such as the United States’ Medicare program, or through socialized systems in which the government organizes and provides insurance and medical care.
Many countries have achieved nearly 100% UHC, meaning that all citizens have access to medical and hospital care. Examples of countries that have achieved nearly 100% UHC include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several parts of Europe such as the Netherlands and Norway. And more recently, Thailand, Taiwan and Japan have achieved near-universal UHC.
Advocates for universal healthcare argue that it would lead to better health outcomes for people, fewer bankruptcies due to medical bills, and a more equitable society in which all citizens could access necessary healthcare. In addition, it could lead to a reduction in the cost of health care in the US, by allowing financing and the spread of the risk of medical costs across a larger population and benefit from the increased efficiency of private or public sector negotiation.
Those who argue against UHC argue that it could lead to significant bureaucracy, increase government control over healthcare decision-making, lower quality, and reduce the incentives to invest in healthcare services. Furthermore, they argue that the cost of UHC could be prohibitive in terms of the required public expenditure and could make it difficult to provide certain services or treatments.
In conclusion, Universal healthcare coverage is key in realizing a society’s collective welfare and social justice objectives, and many countries have achieved nearly 100% UHC. Some countries require that everyone purchase private health insurance or face fines or tax penalties, while others provide insurance and medical care through socialized systems in which the government organizes and provides insurance and medical care. Although universal healthcare can lead to admirable improvements in the lives of many individuals, those against it argue that it could lead to increased bureaucracy and lower quality of services.