The free healthcare system has a notable impact on the nation's overall socio-economic environment. Despite this cost, the quality of care in other areas is worse than in comparable developed countries. The sheer cost of providing quality health care makes universal health care a major expense for governments. In contrast, the vast majority of post-industrial Western nations have used a variety of approaches to provide universal health care, fully or largely subsidised by government, to all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic status (SES), employment status or ability to pay.
Many residents are willing to pay for additional private health insurance to receive higher quality care. Moreover, if user fees, which were previously maintained in the facilities, are abolished, their effect as a direct incentive for health care staff disappears, which may lead to their demotivation. As a result, they are spared from many diseases, allowing them to lead healthier lives and contribute to the development of society. In a single-payer system, the government provides free healthcare paid for out of income tax revenues.
A healthy nation is the backbone of developing economies and countries, so this debate needs to be initiated. Before free health services were introduced, the national health insurance system started in Germany in 1883, which was called the Health Insurance Act. Universal or free health care is a concept that offers everyone the opportunity to enjoy good health, regardless of their economic or social situation. Everyone must have public health insurance, but those above a certain income can choose private insurance instead.
To do this, public bodies need to collect and analyse data and use their purchasing power to influence health care providers. The evidence on the impact of FHC policies in terms of financial protection and health service utilisation is mixed. In addition, if certain requirements are met, further savings can be made in the treatment of chronic diseases through Universal Health Care.