Universal Health Care - Should the USA Imitate UK? PSA Video

Universal Health Care in the UK Explained - Educational Video. Charley has the workings of the National Health Service explained to him. NHS. National Health Service Act. National Health Service Scheme. This item is part of the collection: British Government Public Information Films. Director: Halas & Batchelor. Production Company: Halas & Batchelor. Keywords: National Health Service; NHS. Introduction to the British National Health Service. This is an excellent visual aid for anyone teaching modules on the early NHS in Britain. It's an entertaining cartoon that provides a thorough introduction to the orignal aims of the NHS. Universal health care is health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region. Universal health care programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both. Universal health care systems require government involvement, typically in the forms of enacting legislation, mandates and regulation. In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care. In the 1880s, most citizens in Germany became covered under the mandatory health care system championed by Otto von Bismarck. The National Health Service (NHS), established in the United Kingdom in 1948, was the world's first universal health care system provided by government. Universal health care is provided in most developed countries and in many developing countries. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care. Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible. Most countries implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient but are subsidized by taxation and compensated to the patient by the government. Many programs utilize some form of compulsory insurance to accomplish this goal. Other programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues and provide automatic coverage for every citizen or resident. Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care. Countries include Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Universal health care in most countries has been achieved by a mixed model of funding. General taxation revenue is the primary source of funding, but in many countries it is supplemented by specific levies (which may be charged to the individual and/or an employer) or with the option of private payments (either direct or via optional insurance) for services beyond that covered by the public system. Most all European systems are financed through a mix of public and private contributions. The majority of universal health care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue (e.g. Portugal). Some nations, such as Germany, France and Japan employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions. A distinction is also made between municipal and national healthcare funding. For example, one model is that the bulk of the healthcare is funded by the municipality, speciality healthcare is provided and possibly funded by a larger entity, such as a municipal co-operation board or the state, and the medications are paid by a state agency. Universal health care systems are modestly redistributive. Progressivity of health care financing has limited implications for overall income inequality.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• universal
• health
• care
• insurance
• healthcare
• coverage
• government
• costs
• taxes
• national
• services
• programs
• funded
• sponsored

[Theoneandonlysparky]

In the UK we have greater life expectancy than the US. The only time that is not true is when we are on joint military manoeouvres!!! You guys are awfully good at 'friendly' fire.

[AliTheBrit19]

Im not going to go as far as to say, the UK has the best healthcare on earth, but damn, its in the top 5 at least... Something to be rivaled for sure, I love this country

[inkey2]

@cisseshairdresser ive tried to reply to you 3 times and my text vanishes while writing it....ill keep trying...i'm not ignoring you

[cisseshairdresser]

@inkey2 Oh, and if a person uses 'freedom of speech' to enact a hate crime, it is still a hate crime and should be punished irrespective of whats written down on a silly bit of paper. The written constitution against which everything is measured seems to cause more problems than it solves from my viewpoint.

[cisseshairdresser]

@inkey2 All those 'feedoms' or 'rights' you mention above are not ones that us Brits would want as we are not a mad gun-toting conservative country, we are a proud Liberal sem-Socialist country where the idea of people being free to own guns without question would be viewed as abhorrent. We're happy the way we are thank you.

[bmuralter]

im from germany and i definitely prefer our system

[inkey2]

@bmuralter it does have to do with freedom...the freedom to protect ones life without the worry of going to prison for doing so.....like in the UK

[bmuralter]

@inkey2 to blow someones head of has nothing to do freedom

[EbsNhexz]

@inkey2 In terms of the US gun laws I don't have a final opinion(im not a US citizen so I don't rightfully need one) . different nation, different things to consider. The US was a frontier on its formation, therefore the protection of homesteads through deadly force was justified as being a constitutional right. And because of this historical context the present number of firearms in the US may mean that gun control isn't realistic. It is a different case in the UK however.

[inkey2]

@EbsNhexz statistically...."murders" by guns in the USA is minimal in relation to our 300 million population. As high as 40% of of the gun deaths are suicides .....the rest are police returning fire on armed criminals and citizens returning fire on burglers etc...........what is left over is actual "murders" by guns

[EbsNhexz]

@inkey2 You were talking in the context of the UK, so going on a tangent about the US drugs law is pointless.And the lower crime rates relate to social and economic reasons as-well. The limited supply of legal firearms in the UK means the black market is small and deaths by firearms are very low. legalising firearms would increase the number of homicides resulting from violent crime. A petty criminal poses more threat with a gun than with a knife or fists.

[inkey2]

@cisseshairdresser I respectfully still contend that the UK has less rights than the USA....(although we are losing more rights as the years pass) ...........the UK: .IE survelience cameras on every(?) street corner, virtually no gun rights for citizens, viewing freedom of speech as a "hate crime"....we even have the legal right to burn a koran or two if we feel like it.......actually the most extreme example would be walking around in a Ku KLux Klan costume