In relation to health care provision, there are three central models. These models include private insurance, social insurance and national health service. Private insurance contrasts from the latter two as it has virtually no state involvement with the provision or funding of health care services (Blank et al., 2018, p. 8). As for social insurance and national health service, there are several similarities and differences between the two health care provision models. The social insurance model predominately focuses on universalism in accordance with social security (Blank et al., 2018, p. 8) The national health insurance model takes influence from both the private and social insurance models, although it focuses mainly on the notion of universalism
…show more content…
9) This model of health care provision originally became established in the country of New Zealand in which the 1938 Social Security Act “promised all citizens open-ended access to all the health care services they needed free at the point of use” (Blank et al., 2018, p. 9). This model would expand overtime, with the model centrally focusing on the government ownership and operation of a nation’s health care. Consequently, the government owns a multitude of a nation’s hospitals and health care clinics. The government also has the ability to regulate what care physicians are able to provide and how much these physicians can charge for their services. As a result, the motive for profit, which is present in other models, is removed from the institution of health care in this model. The concept of high-quality health care is the predominate goal of the model, as there is no ulterior motive for profits. In addition, health care is arguably treated more as a human right rather than a privilege in this health care provision model. Every citizen has health care coverage in countries that have this model implemented, regardless of their ability to pay for said health care. Consequentially, no person will go bankrupt in an effort to pay for health care. Among the countries that have this model implemented are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom (Blank et al., 2018, p. 11). In order to develop a greater understanding on which health care model is more successful, the social insurance model or the national health service model, one must look to comparisons of the
9) This model of health care provision originally became established in the country of New Zealand in which the 1938 Social Security Act “promised all citizens open-ended access to all the health care services they needed free at the point of use” (Blank et al., 2018, p. 9). This model would expand overtime, with the model centrally focusing on the government ownership and operation of a nation’s health care. Consequently, the government owns a multitude of a nation’s hospitals and health care clinics. The government also has the ability to regulate what care physicians are able to provide and how much these physicians can charge for their services. As a result, the motive for profit, which is present in other models, is removed from the institution of health care in this model. The concept of high-quality health care is the predominate goal of the model, as there is no ulterior motive for profits. In addition, health care is arguably treated more as a human right rather than a privilege in this health care provision model. Every citizen has health care coverage in countries that have this model implemented, regardless of their ability to pay for said health care. Consequentially, no person will go bankrupt in an effort to pay for health care. Among the countries that have this model implemented are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom (Blank et al., 2018, p. 11). In order to develop a greater understanding on which health care model is more successful, the social insurance model or the national health service model, one must look to comparisons of the