Universal Health Care: How It Works

Universal health care provides universal coverage for all members of society, with public and private elements. This article discusses the various ways this type of system works, how it can be done in practice and what other systems are like. We will also look at the arguments for and against universal healthcare to help you make an informed decision about whether or not it would work well in your country.

The 3 main types of universal health care systems

Are single-payer, state-funded, and multi-payer. Under a single-payer system, the public fund’s everything, so providers deal with one entity instead of many different private insurance companies. State-funded healthcare is just what it sounds like: the government pays for all costs of providing medical services to its citizens, but there can be multiple private providers as well. Multi-payer means that both public and private entities contribute funding, usually via taxation or premiums paid by individuals and businesses, respectively.

The United Kingdom operates under a nationalized health care system where doctors work directly for the government and hospitals operate publicly. Some countries run their universal health care systems at least partially privately, such as France, which has a combination of public and private clinics.

One advantage to universal health care is that everyone in society is covered no matter their income level. This means fewer uninsured individuals have to rely on emergency rooms or charity for medical treatment, which places a burden on the entire system when they cannot contribute financially. Universal healthcare also reduces the cost of insurance administration because companies do not need to hire so many employees whose job is to process claims from patients who may not actually require much service.

Additionally, with one entity taking responsibility for funding rather than having multiple sources comingling funds through intermediaries, savings can be passed along in terms of lower premiums and better overall. The downside to universal health care is that it can lead to waiting times for certain services in some countries since the system has finite resources and must triage patients. This means someone with a serious medical issue may have to wait longer than they would under another type of healthcare system.

While not all countries offer nationalized universal health coverage, more are moving towards this model as access to affordable insurance becomes less available due to rising costs associated with providing care. The United States does not currently operate on an official single-payer or multi-payer basis but rather leaves much of its infrastructure in private hands while mandating minimum levels of coverage that insurers cannot exceed. Instead, the government pays out through subsidies based on income level, so most individuals receive some assistance which is not the case in most other countries.

The best healthcare system for any country will vary depending on many factors, especially its size and population. Some universal systems are more efficient than others; some promote better overall service while others prioritize equity of access to care. The choice ultimately comes down to what each nation values most as they determine their own national priorities based on political views, social conditions, and economic constraints.

Universal health coverage is a complex issue

There are strong arguments for it being included within government policy or left entirely up to private organizations, so it can be difficult to determine how successful these programs have been thus far at providing quality medical services across the board. It also depends greatly upon location since certain nations have different levels of infrastructure and economic stability. Despite progress made in some areas, universal health coverage has yet to be perfected internationally.

Nationalized healthcare is when the government owns all or at least most medical facilities within a country that provide care for its citizens with minimal private involvement. Universal health care involves everyone having access to affordable insurance regardless of their income levels but does not dictate how that service will be provided, including public clinics and hospitals run by public agencies and private companies.

Multi-payer systems are ones where multiple sources contribute funding. They operate similarly to universal health care, except they may allow more direct control over certain aspects such as setting prices via power rather than legislation.

Universal health coverage is great for equity of access and overall cost containment but can lead to inequities in quality depending on where it is implemented. It also means the system needs enough funding and does not work as well when providers are paid less than their private counterparts, which happens with some types of universal healthcare systems such as those run by single-payer insurance funds or social security agencies.

Additionally, there may be a large wait time for certain services, so they must triage patients based on medical urgency rather than the ability to pay since all citizens have guaranteed care regardless of need. Multi-payer systems allow more flexibility regarding how overall costs will be handled, along with being better suited to incentivize physicians who might be overworked due to an increased number of patients per month.


1. Universal health care is a system of providing quality medical care to all people, regardless of their ability to pay

2. The United States is the only industrialized country without universal health care

3. Universal health care would reduce the number of uninsured Americans and help control costs for employers and individuals

4. Opponents say that it will limit choice in providers and worsen wait times for services

5. Supporters say that universal healthcare will improve access to treatment, preventative services, and long-term management plans

6. Canada has had universal healthcare since 1966 while other countries like France have had it since 1946

7. 45% of Canadians support universal healthcare compared with 30% who oppose it (2017)

8. 16% of Canadians say that the current system is too expensive to continue; this has led many to push for greater privatization (2017)


When it comes down to universal healthcare versus nationalized health coverage, many pros and cons depend on the nation in question. Universal health care is great for equity of access but does not always guarantee high-quality service. At the same time, nationalized systems provide more direct control regarding cost containment which can be beneficial though they may also lack flexibility compared with other models. As nations continue debating how best to handle their own populations’ medical needs, these two types of universal healthcare will likely remain hot topics until a system that works well across all countries emerges.


Viable Outreach

© Viable Media, LLC