The situation in today’s world, strongly restricted by a global pandemic, urges different governments that have not done it yet to consider switching to universal healthcare. An effective healthcare system available to the majority of residents would be an efficient means of keeping living standards high enough and preventing deadly diseases from spreading. However, the question whether to have universal healthcare or not is not as simple as it may seem.
First of all, it is crucial to look into possible positive aspects of universal healthcare, should it be implemented. Numerous studies show that the introduction of universal healthcare leads to a significant decrease in mortality rates, whereas the average lifespan of citizens becomes prolonged. It is explained through a variety of factors, on which the state of healthcare in a certain region relies heavily. Thus, for example, the expansion of medical services’ coverage for people who could not previously afford them plays a major role in the prevention of infectious diseases, such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Essentially, they are less likely to lead to death if the patient is taken care of timely and the illness is effectively treated. (Bloom et al. para. 26). Such situations have a higher chance of occurring in regions where healthcare is universally accessible.
Furthermore, expanded vaccine coverage has a positive population level outcome for the average health condition. The reason for it is the fact that vaccination serves to stop a disease from spreading so that medical institutions do not need to treat them very often. In turn, it leaves more time for the treatment of more dangerous or less researched illnesses (Bloom et al. para. 27). Additionally, universal healthcare has a positive impact not only on the average health state but on social and economic well-being on the whole as well. Bloom and others claim that a 10-year life expectancy increase is equal to an up to 1% rise in the growth of the annual income per capita (para. 30). It is related to the fact that better health conditions allow for more efficient resource management, control of fertility rates, and, as a result, a longer average lifespan.
On the other hand, the introduction of universal healthcare can lead to the opposite results. If this system is implemented hastily, without proper preparation, the lack of quality in necessary medical services may affect patients adversely. For example, instead of presentable treatment, a patient acquires an infection through poorly sanitized medical instruments if the supply of sanitizers is scarce due to the rushed nature of universal healthcare’s introduction (Bloom et al. para. 33). It is also connected to insufficiently trained medical personnel, increase in bribing, and low funding, which results in negative effects on patients’ health.
Apart from that, the shift to universal healthcare can cause rising rates of antimicrobial resistance due to the possible lack of means necessary to prevent it. Hypothetically, a situation can occur when the overall access to antibiotics expands abruptly and the usage of them is not restricted in any way (Bloom et al. para 37.) It can reflect on population level health drastically, and it can be extremely difficult to advertise the consequences of a sudden rise in antimicrobial resistance.
In conclusion, not having universal healthcare makes essential medical services less accessible to the majority of citizens and mostly reflects badly on their economic and social well-being. In contrast, an abrupt introduction of universal healthcare to a country that was not ready for it can be damaging to population level health if it is not implemented gradually. Universal healthcare remains a system that makes medical services accessible to the vast majority of people, but its introduction should not be rushed in order to make it truly efficient.
Work Cited
Bloom, David E., et al. “The Promise and Peril of Universal Health Care.” Science, vol. 361, no. 6404, 2018.