UCLA Library

Abstract: The concept of "right versus privilege" is inherent in a nation's system for funding health care. Privatized health care, such as that in the U.S., promotes an inequitable distribution of healthcare resources that leave several populations without access to health care needs. Completely nationalized medical care, like that found in the United Kingdom, provides more broad-based and equitable care but access to specialized health care on a timely basis is difficult, and there is little incentive to offer more costly technological diagnostic or preventative advancements. Japan, which has a hybrid public/private healthcare system, appears to offer the best model for equitable and advanced medical treatments, and clearly provides the best outcomes. However, the growing elderly population places an extreme burden on all three countries, and Japan's health care system, due to its culture, is more vulnerable to this change in population demographics. Ideally, a national healthcare system has a moral obligation to provide for the countries' citizens, and this can best be accomplished by analyzing the approaches of three different countries (the privatized U.S., the socialized U.K., and the hybrid Japan) to create a health insurance system that is equitable, not financially burdensome, and which promotes the best outcomes for all its patients.