Universal Healthcare: Should the Government Provide Free Healthcare to Citizens?

“He who has health has hope, and he who has hope has everything," is a famous line by
Thomas Carlyle. Primarily, the saying does not convey a literal meaning, for it is evident that
many healthy people do not have everything. However, it reflects the interconnectedness of our
health and our other rights. Most certainly, not all individual is privilege enough to access health
resources, especially those who are wealth-deprived families. Poor health may hinder us from
doing daily activities and even participating in the community. States are responsible for
fulfilling human rights and keeping their citizens safe. In line with this idea, people should have
access to health care for it is a human right and not just a privilege.

Human rights are justified claims that we are entitled to as citizens and as human beings;
it is something that the public crowd must acknowledge and recognize that needs to be supported
and upheld, for it will help make certain that every citizen in the state can and will live a life with
honor and prestige. According to Kaufman (2019), the right to health entails states being
obligated to fulfill the right by providing access to health care and medical facilities, safe
drinking water and sanitation, food, and housing, and it also entails a system of disease
prevention, treatment, and control that includes access to essential medicines. It was first
recognized under the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1946, which stated that “the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every
human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”
This was affirmed in the ICESCR, or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966, and states that authorized states are bound to protect this
right, which means that the state must do everything they can up until their best resources are
available. The rights being recognized and affirmed by recognized and mentioned international
organizations prove that the right to health exists, but does it include free healthcare to everyone?

Healthcare has become extremely costly in the wealthiest and most developed countries
throughout the world. For example, let’s assume that the majority of citizens in the United States
of America lack insurance for their health. These citizens are very assured that they won’t be
able to pay for their own medical care. The same situation also applies in many countries around
the world. These instances have led to the assertion that healthcare is the responsibility of the
government. Some countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, have considered free
healthcare the norm. Since free healthcare is assumed to be a humanitarian right, it is also a
reasonable idea to consider. However, this right is a self-defeating argument. People have the
right to keep what they can produce; if they are given away for free, it can be a violation of their
rights. In terms of healthcare, medical laborers such as doctors and physicians have rights that
are the same as those of patients; it would be a transgression on their jobs if the public asked for
their services for free. Though free healthcare is not entirely free, people are just paying them
indirectly because the funds are being collected from the taxes of the citizens. Similarly, if
governments start taking taxes from one citizen for the healthcare of another, it is just morally
incorrect (Juneja, n.d.); however, isn’t it immoral if you’re not caring about other people even if
you know you can do something for them? Nonetheless, free healthcare is not only incorrect on
the moral level, for it is plausible from the humanitarian point of view.

Free healthcare is advantageous because it increases access to resources, facilities, and

services for people regardless of whether they can afford it or not. (NewDick, 2006). This has led
the government to subsidize the health sector by supplying facilities and even contributing to the
health services being offered (Acharya & Kumar, 2012). This helped enable access to healthcare
services, even in remote areas. In line with this, visiting a doctor and having check-ups have
become very easy and affordable, which eventually improved the health of the citizens, for it has
terminated illnesses that are being kept due to the avoidance of seeing a doctor because of the
high cost of services (Frist, 2005). It also removes the need for businesses to compete for money
because their target audience is the wealthy, neglecting the majority of the population, which is
those who are not privileged enough or the poor (Acharya & Kumar, 2012). This practice
focused on how many patients were served rather than the quality of the service being offered.
However, free healthcare aims to provide quality health services regardless of how much an
individual has. Additionally, receiving free healthcare removes financial burdens associated with
medical treatments. Citizens do not have to be anxious about the cost of the service, which may
be a major source of stress, particularly during times of emergency (Jordan, 2023).

As free healthcare has advantages, Juneja (n.d.) identified and gathered data about its
disadvantages and how it affects the economy. She claims that it distorts the free market.
Monopolistic administration is governing the free services, despite the quality being mediocre.
Also, the author also claimed that it will lead to excess demands, that because of free healthcare,
patients see doctors even for the smallest ailment, which led to requiring more facilities and a
shortage of healthcare providers to accommodate this demand. Shortages and long waiting times
are also emphasized in the article. People are forced to wait in line because of the monopolistic
system being set up by the government, unlike in situations where patients are supposed to pay
and can immediately get the services. Jordan (2023) also gathered some cons about the universal
healthcare. Some nations that provide universal healthcare may limit the resources and funds
available for medical treatments in order to control costs. This may result in citizens receiving
care that is of lower quality. In order for the government to fund universal health coverage,
nations with this system often have higher taxes. Lastly, because free healthcare services are
available, people become more negligent and careless about their health. People may lead to an
unhealthy lifestyle rather than focusing on taking precautions, in the instance that someone can
have a chronic and infectious disease, which could have been avoided by just taking precautions.

Considering both pros and cons, let us also examine the response of the professionals,
from the World Health Organization (WHO).

If well-designed and implemented, FHC policies can expand coverage in countries with few
resources and can therefore be part of a strategy and a catalyst to move towards universal health
coverage (UHC).