The Case for Universal Free Healthcare: Advantages and Challenges
Rovya Chalak Khalid
5917
Ms. Hesta
The argument concerning universal free healthcare is whether the government should ensure
that medical care is provided free of charge for its citizens. This article comes with a clear
opinion: the government should offer free healthcare for all its people. Not only does free
healthcare enhance the public’s overall health and relieve individual nancial pressures but it
is also good for equity and ef ciency in the wider economy. Opponents raise the argument of
high government spending and possible demand on healthcare facilities, but evidence from
proven universal setups shows that these problems can be contained with responsible
funding arrangements and cautious resource allocation.
Universal free healthcare systems foster early detection and treatment of illness, which
translates into measurable public health gains. In nations with no-cost primary care,
vaccination rates exceed 90 percent and preventable disease outbreaks are rare. For
example, after Canada adopted universal coverage, infant mortality dropped by 15 percent
over two decades and overall life expectancy increased by 2.5 years compared to pre-
coverage levels. Early intervention reduces the incidence of chronic complications such as
uncontrolled diabetes or hypertension that, left untreated, lead to costly hospitalizations and
long-term disability.
Medical costs account for a leading cause of individual bankruptcy in out-of-pocket-heavy
systems. In the United States alone, close to 60 percent of bankruptcies list medical bills as a
cause. The risk is eliminated with universal free healthcare as the onus of payment is passed
along to pooled government funding. Even in the United Kingdom, with the National Health
Service delivering care with no point of service charge, families average £500 per year in
savings on direct medical expenses. The savings release household income for necessities
like food, shelter, and education which increases overall standards of living.
fi
Access should not be based on one’s employment status, race, or socioeconomic status.
Universal publicly funded healthcare is a re ection of the idea that health is a basic human
right. In a system of free care at the point of delivery, disadvantaged groups such as the
unemployed, low-income households, and minority ethnic communities no longer encounter
institutional obstacles as a barrier to appropriate treatment. Scandinavian evidence concludes
that the universal models have decreased the difference in mortality between highest and
lowest income groups by half. Such decreases in health inequalities enhance social solidarity
and represent commitment to fair public policy.
Preventive care including screenings, immunizations, and check-ups is a high-value
investment. Each dollar spent on immunization programs in developed nations returns up to
sixteen dollars in bene t to society through prevention of disease and lost productivity.
Guaranteed universal free coverage removes the nancial constraint against preventive care
seeking behavior, eliminating the need for emergency and inpatient costs. French system net
savings analyses show two percent of GDP annually when preventive care is
comprehensively used. A healthier workforce translates into increased productivity with lower
absenteeism and long-term disabling costs for employers and the government.
The argument is that free healthcare is nanced by unsustainable tax increases. Actually,
government expenditure on health in universal systems is as high as twelve percent of GDP
versus eight percent in mixed- nance arrangements. The critics warn that people would pay
more in income or sales tax and that it might inhibit growth in the economy.
Another argument is that free care is used excessively when unnecessary treatment is
requested which strains the capacity of hospitals and increases wait times. Opponents
reference evidence of eighteen-week average wait times among some universal systems
contrasted with four weeks under private insurance. They contend that lower-quality services
ultimately hurt patients.
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
Experience con rms that these obstacles are manageable. Properly funded through
progressive taxation, employer contribution, and sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco this
expense is well within an affordability range that does not smother growth. Further, demand
control mechanisms like gatekeeping by primary care doctors and evidence-based referral
guidelines maintain wait times within acceptable parameters. The United Kingdom’s NHS,
despite its capacity struggles, averages nine weeks for elective surgeries with ongoing
ef ciency reforms and investment in community care. These instances establish that
universal free healthcare need not implode due to scale.
Universal free healthcare is not a fantasy but a feasible policy priority. It achieves better public
health outcomes, protects families from debilitating medical expenses, and embeds fairness
by ensuring access for all on the basis of needs not income. Gains in economic ef ciency
from prevention justify the upfront investment. While critics raise issues of funding and
capacity, practical examples of real-life models show such concerns are neutralized by good
design and regulation. Governments have both a moral and practical mandate to provide
universal free healthcare. Not doing so puts our individual and collective well-being at risk.
fi
fi
Anderson, G. F., Reinhardt, U. E., Hussey, P. S., & Petrosyan, V. (2003). It’s the prices,
stupid: Why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Affairs, 22(3), 89–
105.
Berwick, D. M., Nolan, T. W., & Whittington, J. (2008). The Triple Aim: Care, health, and cost.
Health Affairs, 27(3), 759–769.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Health at a Glance 2019:
OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
Oberlander, J. (2012). The future of Obamacare. The New England Journal of Medicine,
367(16), 1578–1581.
World Health Organization. (2010). Health systems nancing: The path to universal coverage.
WHO Press.
fi
