Universal Health Care Analysis

Health care in many parts of the world is considered a basic right that should be given to people. Access is crucial in order to ensure the efficient delivery of basic health care services. In general, health care systems are organized in order to provide treatment of diagnosed health care problems and these systems are usually government-run, meaning they utilize the people's taxes. Though most of the health care systems differ, they share common goals and outcomes as well as features that identify them with the universal health standards. Since the end of the Second World War, universal health coverage remained a contentious public issue in the United States. Today, it is the only wealthy nation in the world to not yet adopt universal health

and Canada are always basis for comparison because they offer two contrasting models. Canada, like many developed countries in Europe, follow a universal and single-payer healthcare system while the U.S. has decided to retain a limited and multi-payer system of health care. A comparison of the health care systems of both countries reveal that in terms of accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and health care outcomes, the Canadian health care system may be a better model from which the U.S. could learn

This entitles every citizen to have a universal access regardless of the ability to pay (Howard-Hassmann and Welch 2006). The universal single-payer system differs from what is being employed in the United States' privately funded system. Here, every citizen carries a health care card that can be used in seeking medical intervention without the burden of paying the bill immediately (Howard - Hassmann and Welch 2006). The funding is generally from the federal government but certain provisions vary depending on the province. It was in 1962 that a major reform in the health care delivery policy of Canada was done starting with the province of Saskatchewan, which was subsequently adopted in the whole country (Kendall 2008).

Reform attempts in the United States during Clinton's administration faced a strong opposition from insurance companies who held most of the funding (Howard - Hassmann and Welch 2006). In addition, various obstacles such as political and ideological factors, the complexity of the proposed reform plan and the diverse opinions in all the fifty states all militated against the passage of much-needed health care reform (Howard - Hassmann and Welch 2006). Until present, the problem persists and more than 40 million Americans are not covered by health insurance (Shi and Singh