Rrl on Health for All

The debate on government-funded healthcare

It is recognised by several entities that healthcare is a fundamental human right. This implies that the economic status of an individual should not be a reason why one cannot receive medical treatment. Sachs (2012, pp. 944-947) identified two motivations to universal healthcare: 1) individuals have the right to health and; 2) there are negative externalities from the individuals, community, and to the international community when health is poor. Ergo, this means that in order to protect the interests and well-being of society in general, access of individuals to quality healthcare must be protected. Sachs, however, pointed out that providing access to universal healthcare also depends on the socio-economic conditions of the concerned area. In cases where the domestic budget is scarce, that is when external assistance (from aid agencies) is needed. Accessibility of healthcare, however, is not the sole factor which influences health outcomes, especially in developing nations. According to Sachs, social class of individuals, the environment, and knowledge are some of the factors which greatly affect health outcomes. Even if there is a multitude of factors which affect the health status of individuals, Sachs stressed the importance of how a strong publicly funded healthcare can still make a massive difference on health outcomes, especially when reducing the excess disease burden is concerned. Subsequently, Sachs laid out dangers of having private providers and imposing fees on health services. Sachs denounced that imposing fees on health services would prevent leakage and instead, argued that “even a tiny user charge imposed at point of service can drastically reduce the access to health services by the poorest members of a poor community”. Letting the private sector provide healthcare would not do either as there is a tendency for private providers to inflate costs and, in the case of mixed public and private healthcare...