In many nations, the local authorities has taken it upon themselves to provide their citizens with a free-for-all healthcare system. Although certain drawbacks exist to such a situation, it still carries many merrits.
Supporters of a national healthcare system would argue that a government’s sole purpose is to ensure the general safety and good quality of life of the governed. Access to healthcare services undoubtly plays a vital role in the wellbeing of individuals and thus ensures quality of life. Additionally, illness is considered a state of great vulnerability, where if not treated promptly and correctly, could pose a threat of mortality and morbidity in affected individuals. As a direct cause, the community will continuely suffer the loss of its most valuable resource, contributing individuals. The loss of the healthy to death and disability due to possibly preventable diseases threatens the community’s stability, in addition to negatively affecting the economical state of the country. Moreover, the substitute of such a service, the privitisation of healthcare, poses an ethical dilemma as well as a conflict of interest and an unhealthy dynamic between doctors and their patients. This dynamic often leaves the latter wondering “Is it really ethical for the doctor to profit off of someone’s illness?”
On the other hand, it would be unrealistic to claim that this healthcare system will be void of faults. Due to the different economical and political stresses each nation might be facing, the amount of funding it would be able to spare for such a system would naturally be limited. As a result, the level of care provided by these government-funded medical care centers will be of a lower quality. Medical healthcare providers would have to settle for a less than average salary, and some expensive to acquire and operate equipment, such as MRI machines, might not be available.
To conclude, the downfalls of a government owned and operated healthcare system are inevitable and many examples exist. However, the importance of having basic medical care available for the mass public, including those affected by poverty, outweighs the drawbacks.