Public health and the availability of healthcare services have become increasingly prominent issues in recent years. In the US, the controversial debate regarding the possible establishment of a public healthcare system has sparked many to revaluate their opinions towards public healthcare.
How public healthcare works
The fundamental principle behind a public healthcare system is that the tax payments which individuals make to the State will be allocated towards the payment of their healthcare. Therefore, every tax-paying citizen would be guaranteed the security of healthcare services when they are injured or ill.
Public Healthcare would utilise these funds to execute a series of administrative measures and provide healthcare services. These measures would include; the ongoing maintenance of hospitals, the creation of new hospitals and health centres, paying the salaries of doctors, nurses, medical staff, and other employees, paying the hospital bills of all legal citizens and the purchase of new drugs as well as research and development into the production of new drugs.
Immediate access to treatment regardless of circumstances
This system of healthcare hosts a wealth of advantages for a broad spectrum of potential patients. A public healthcare system facilitates for citizens to exercise a right to healthy and safety provisions from their government. Patients would have access to a wide variety of treatment; whether they suffer from a long term chronic illness or a singular emergency incident. They would be able to receive immediate health care services without worrying about monetary repercussions.
Public healthcare can exist alongside private healthcare
Countries who currently operate under a public healthcare system also have access to the option of private healthcare institutions. These private healthcare institutions exist for numerous reasons. Patients may seek these private institutions because they are not satisfied with the level of treatment they have received from the public healthcare system. Alternatively they may seek private institutions because they offer an alternative method of treatment which is preferable to the individual involved. For example, the UK is a nation which operates utilising a public healthcare system, the NHS. Yet they also have a variety of private institutions, such as Spinal Care Clinics and Harley Medical, which offer alternative therapies which are not so readily available from the public healthcare system.
Although there will be certain flaws in any system, the existence of private healthcare institutions within a nation which operates under a public healthcare system does not provide sufficient evidence to condemn public healthcare systems entirely. These private institutions exist as supplementary to a nationwide public healthcare system; they are available if certain patients are dissatisfied or wish to seek other medical therapies, for example chiropractic or homeopathic therapies. This does not mean that the nation as a whole is opposed to a public healthcare system, but it does provide the liberty of choice to any patients who wish to seek alternative methods of healthcare.
Ultimately, the central principles behind a public healthcare system exist to benefit nations as a whole. A public healthcare system would ideally distribute budgetary allocations equally so that all hospitals have a secure, reliable budget from which they can rely upon in order to improve their services and level of care. Moreover, a public healthcare system would also provide security to patients, who can rest assured that they will receive healthcare when needed, without having to worry about extortionate medical bills or any unforeseen problems due to irregularities in their medical insurance.