This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I removed poorly sourced, NPOV-violating, contentious, disputed maps and the confusing, contentious, disputed usage of the term "social health protection." The repeated readdition of contentious, disputed NPOV-violating material without consensus by Obiwankenobi ( talk | contribs) is unacceptable. Contentious, disputed material stays OUT of Wikipedia until an editor obtains consensus for its inclusion. Apatens ( talk) 21:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Your understanding of how Wikipedia works is ass-backwards.
Contentious, disputed
WP:NPOV-violating material stays OUT of Wikipedia articles until there is consensus for its inclusion.
You have to prove to other editors that material is accurate and unbiased and obtain consensus for:
• Why should this Wikipedia article include a map that makes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that 90% health insurance coverage = universal health insurance coverage, instead of the common use and everyday understanding that 100% health insurance coverage = universal health insurance coverage?
• Why should this Wikipedia article use a non-standard definition of universal health insurance based on a definition used in one obscure conference paper?
• Furthermore, why should this Wikipedia article contain a WP:OR map that has been altered from the source map in that one obscure conference paper which misrepresents that conference paper?
• Why should this Wikipedia article include a map that makes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim based on erroneous International Labour Organization statistics that U.S. health insurance coverage = 100%?
• 2011 U.S. health insurance coverage = 84.2%, 84.3%, or 84.9% according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, [2] US Census Bureau, [3] and OECD, [4] respectively.
• Is "social health protection" a synonym for "universal health coverage" or "health coverage" or some different, unquantifiable concept?
• Why is the following unintelligible caption used for a map of health insurance coverage percentages based on the error-laden "Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection" on pages 83–90 of the 2008 ILO paper " Social health protection: An ILO strategy towards universal access to health care. Social security policy briefings, Paper 1"?Note: The Social health protection figures from ILO used in this graph are one of three inputs to the indicator used in the map in the lead for determining which countries have Universal Health Coverage; as such, some countries may be shown with high levels of coverage here that nonetheless don't meet the legislative or service delivery thresholds for Universal Health Coverage.
Your answer several months ago was that the ILO was infallible and that unless I proved to your satisfaction that they were not, your maps MUST stay in your article, and that the discussion should be moved to a Wikimedia Commons talk page that no one would read.
Your Google Scholar search proves absolutely nothing. It does not say that other reliable sources back up wacky
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that "90% = universal" or that the U.S. has 100% health insurance coverage.
The onus is on the editor repeatedly reintroducing–without consensus–poorly sourced, NPOV-violating, contentious, disputed material making
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, to provide multiple, independent high quality sources for their
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims.
It is not MY responsibility to find sources discussing, analyzing, and contradicting the details of how a map in an obscure 2010 conference paper was constructed, or how erroneous data was concocted in a table of an obscure 2008 ILO paper, and carried over into a map and a table buried in a lengthy 2010 ILO publication. Non-standard definitions and erroneous data abound in little-read "scholarly" publications and are usually passed over and ignored by their miniscule audience of readers.
Non-standard definitions and erroneous data in little-read publications only become an issue when the editor who
WP:OWNs the "Universal health care" article insists that the maps they created MUST remain no matter how asinine and ridiculous their
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, because
WP:BRD.
Contentious, disputed material should not be repeatedly reintroduced into this article without talk page consensus.
Apatens (
talk)
01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If you prefer a difference source, we could cite this paper, which has some of the same authors, but was published in 2012 in a peer reviewed journal: http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ds450/details/P630%20Universal%20health%20coverage.pdf . This is also a useful background http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/02/index.html%3FcontentType%3D%26itemId%3D/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-53-en%26containerItemId%3D/index.html - note how they say 'nearly universal coverage' which means they accept that not all costs are covered, even in countries which they agree have UHC (like Austria) -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The second source you listed here [5] states, "Four OECD countries do not have universal health coverage," then goes on to list Chile, Mexico, Turkey, and the United States.
This source [6] entitled, Universal Health Coverage: A Quest for All Countries But under Threat in Some, shows that the United States doesn't have Universal health care (see page 4).
See this source [7] which states, "The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people."
See this source [8] which states, "This is not just an academic question; to understand how to move effectively toward universal health care in the United States, it is essential to understand how we got to where we are."
See this source [9] which states, "Combined public and private spending on health care in the U.S. came to $8,233 per person in 2010, more than twice as much as relatively rich European countries such as France, Sweden and Britain that provide universal health care."
Obi-Wan Kenobi, please keep your response concise. When you flood the talk page (as you have a tendency to do), you make constructive debate overly tedious. Please just quote sources without theorizing. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have highlighted the ILO's erroneous data in red for your convenience.Formal coverage in social health protection
Formal coverage
Total (%) = State (%)2 + SHI (social health insurance) (%) + PHI (private health insurance) (%) + Other (%) + Company based/trade union (%) + MHI (mutual health insurance) (%)
Country: United States
Formal coverage, Total (%): 100
Formal coverage, State (%): 32.488
Formal coverage, PHI (private health insurance) (%): 71.99 66.489
2 All data regarding OECD countries from OECD (2006). OECD Health Data 2006, Paris: OECD-IRDES, and for Latin America from Mesa-Lago (2005). Las reformas de salud en América Latina y el Caribe: su impacto en los principios de la seguridad social. CEPAL/GTZ, Santiago: United Nations, and Mesa-Lago (2007). " The extension of healthcare coverage and protection in relation to the labour market: Problems and policies in Latin America." International Social Security Review 60 (1): 3–31, except other sources are indicated.
9 OECD (2006). OECD Health Data 2006, Paris: OECD-IRDES; except for Germany and the Netherlands, PHI is supplementary (1st number) or complementary (2nd number) to either tax-financed or SHI-borne social protection in health.
88 In 2003, 41.2 million US citizens were enrolled in Medicare and 54 million in Medicaid (US Census Bureau (2007). The 2007 Statistical Abstract, Health & Nutrition: Medicare, Medicaid, National Data Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/health_nutrition/medicare_medicaid/))
89 Hoffman et al. (2005). Health insurance coverage in America. 2004 Data Update, p. 10, Washington, D.C.: Kaiser Family Foundation ( http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Health-Coverage-in-America-2004-Data-Update-Report.pdf)
Apatens ( talk) 02:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)How mindlessly adding assorted invalid statistics produces nonsense: [19]
ILO 2003 U.S state health insurance coverage: 32.4% (41.2 million Medicare enrollees + 54 million Medicaid enrollees) / 293 million U.S. population
• It is invalid to add "point-in-time" administrative data to "ever during the year" administrative data:
41.2 million Medicare enrollees at a point-in-time in 2003 (includes 35.0 million aged + 6.2 million non-aged disabled) [20]
53.7 million Medicaid enrollees ever during the year 2003 (includes 4.7 million aged + 8.3 million blind/disabled; does not include 5.8 million SCHIP) [21]
Obewankenobi's KFF FY2010 65,989,147 Medicaid enrollees is an ever during the year number and also double counts aged and disabled Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. [22]
• It is invalid to add and double-count aged and disabled Medicare and Medicaid enrollees using administrative data
(this is why survey data is used instead of mixing and matching survey data and administrative data to determine the percentage of insured/uninsured):
41.2 million Medicare enrollees at a point-in-time in 2003 (includes 35.0 million aged + 6.2 million non-aged disabled) [23]
42.0 million Medicaid enrollees at a point-in-time in 2003 (includes 4.1 million aged + 7.5 million blind/disabled; does not include 3.1 million SCHIP) [24]
• It is invalid to pull statistics out of thin air (that are not in the cited OECD Health Data 2006 source):
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. primary private health insurance coverage 60.2% + government/social health insurance coverage 25.2%
= total public and primary private health insurance coverage = 85.4% [25]
Primary private health insurance (PHI): private health insurance that represents the only available access to health coverage because
(i) there is no government/social coverage or individuals are not eligible to coverage under government/social programs (principal);
(ii) individuals are entitled to government/social coverage but have chosen to opt out of such coverage (substitute).
note:
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. primary private health insurance coverage 60.2% ≠ ILO 2003 U.S. private health insurance coverage 71.9%
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. government/social health insurance coverage 25.2% ≠ ILO 2003 U.S. state health insurance coverage 32.4%
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. total public and primary private health insurance coverage 85.4% ≠ ILO 2003 U.S. total health insurance coverage 100%
• It is invalid to add "point-in-time" NHIS survey statistics (and/or administrative statistics) for all of the population to "entire year" CPS survey statistics for part of the population (< age 65):
OECD (NHIS) 2004 U.S. primary private health insurance coverage at a point in time for all of the population 60.1% [26]
≠ KFF (CPS) 2004 U.S. private health insurance coverage for the entire year for the part of the population < age 65: 66.4% [27]
The Harvard University link below discusses the 10 years, from 2002 to 2012, that the United States of Mexico used to achieve Universal Health Care coverage and the enrollment of 52.6 million citizens that were previously uninsured.
-- 108.214.145.96 ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the WP:OR additions:
History
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate healthcare reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.
which were then expanded by:
History
Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of health care reform, intended to make health care available to all in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Following the Declaration,international standards concerning social health protection continued to develop. The International Labour Organization’s Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention 102 (1952) Article 7 established a minimum for the provision of social health protection which would include curative and preventative care, Article 34 of this same convention goes on to define this medical care as including general practitioner care, dental care, nursing home care, hospitalization, convalescent care, and medical and surgical supplies. Article 12 of the The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) recognized the right of to the “highest attainable” states of mental and physical health.
Most recently, the ILO issued Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202). This recommendation advocates for the establishment of National Social Protection Floors (SPFs), including, among other social security guarantees, provision of essential health care and basic income security (R202).
Throughout this period various countries have established formal legislation promoting universal access to health care.
The removed text was WP:SYNTHESIS because the cited sources did not say that any UN resolution, UN covenant, or ILO recommendation inspired or led to the countries mentioned in the "History" section implementing their universal healthcare systems. Apatens ( talk) 03:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following addition to the "History" section:
History
In 2012, recognizing the importance in universality of health care, the International Labour Organization issued the Social Protection Floors Recommendation (R202). The recommendation advocates for provision of "access to a nationally defined set of goods and services, constituting essential health care, including maternity care, that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality." The criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality reflect the multidimensional nature of providing universal health care. The Recommendation expands upon ILO Convention C102, Social Security (Minimum Standards) adopted in 1952. C102 outlined minimum medical benefits as general practitioner care, specialist care at hospitals, essential pharmaceutical supplies, hospitalisation, and pre-natal care.
There is no evidence that a 2012 non-binding recommendation of the International Labour Organization was/is/will be significant to the history of universal health care.
There is no evidence that a 1952 convention of the International Labour Organization ratified by only 49 countries (not ratified by 136 countries—including Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, United States), only 35 of which (not including Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Switzerland) accepted Part II of the convention calling for medical care coverage of 50% of their residents, was/is/will be significant in the history of universal health care.
Apatens (
talk)
14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No. Apatens ( talk) 14:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
For the reasons given above. To repeat:
There is no evidence in reliable sources that the:
were/are/will be significant to the history of universal health care and thus merit inclusion in this encyclopedia article.
In addition, to juxtapose them with—and therefore imply that they led to—the adoption of universal health care systems in various countries, is not supported by reliable sources and would be
WP:SYNTHESIS.
Apatens (
talk)
14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Peru is missing from the Map, the andean nation has universal healthcare, here you can find information about and also links to all the government websites with detailed information:
http://aus-peru.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.144.88 ( talk) 16:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I am very certain that Poland has centralized healthcare. I work in clinical research and am aware of the relationship between physician/patient and physician/insurance in Poland. The map should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.162.13 ( talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This might be a minor point, but the criteria the map at the top of the page uses to define UHC is a mandate for UHC, 90% health coverage, and 90% skilled birth attendance. It also says within the article that an individual mandate to buy private health insurance is a valid strategy that can produce a universal health care system. According to a new Forbes article, the United States now covers 90.8% of the public. Whether the article is correct or not is debatable, but once the United States does cover 90% of its people doesn't this make its system a universal one by the article's definition? Once this happens, will we add the United States to the list? If not, I think the article needs to clarify why the United States's system isn't sufficient, such as the mandate not being a guarantee of universal coverage. Many other countries on the list have over 90% coverage but less than, say, 98%, so what's the specific difference of the United States?
24.148.66.175 ( talk) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Derek
That map is wildly inaccurate and outdated. Countries pictured as not having UHC (like Mexico and Brazil) have it, and I think we should also have a separate color for countries working on implementing it, such as China and Indonesia.-- RM ( Be my friend) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Similarly, Poland has UHC, the right to which is guaranteed in Polish Constitution.
China has universal healthcare coverage, which has more coverage of the population as well as a cost percentage more subsidized then Australia, yet it is not green on the obsolete map above
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015001864 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed some statements from United States block because it was not neutral and did not cite the sources using reference links to original documents (rather general like "Under PPAC it is estimated..." Estimated by whom?). Statements like ones listed below are highly controversial and not neutral:
"it is hard to include the US on a list of countries having universal health care based on the PPAC" "this system encourages use of the emergency facilities for primary care and not just for emergency purposes" "PPAC answered none of these questions" "since the head of the CBO inappropriately visited the White House to be lobbied by the President in July 2009, many Americans have little faith in the CBO estimates"
Also someones personal blog is not a reliable source of information, unless person is an expert in the field. In this case put note this in the text like "According to XXX,..."
Dear editors, please remember, this is not a newspaper article, but an encyclopedia article. Please put back information that you think is needed, but do not violate wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innab ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 March 2010
Editing the History section:
1. A 2012 study is mentioned in the last sentence of the section but barely explains anything about it. The paraphrasing is pretty similar to the original article. The study's name or authors are not at all stated. This sentence should either be deleted since it doesn't play a big role in adding to the section, or the study needs to be cited and further explained to the reader. Additions can be made such as; A groundbreaking result of 2/3 of the population of both the Philippines and Rwanda are now enrolled in health insurance.
Compulsory Insurance section:
2. Stated in the 3rd paragraph, "at one time" is used to explain the community rating system of The republic of Ireland. An actual date should be mentioned to strengthen the point.
Compulsory Insurance section
3. Also stated in that section is a narrative on "sickness funds" where the words "no advantage" is used. This terminology makes the statement sound somewhat opinionated and no real evidence on the explanation is given. I believe the writer was trying to explain further on what the sentence previous was trying to say, however the explanation became wordy and unneeded. The whole further explanation can really be deleted or if anything, redone.
Link/cite 28 is broken and does not go to an actual webpage.
Amcgraw24 (
talk)
05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)AshleyMcGrawUCSD
The following sentence is aerospace-grade desiccated sustenance:
Thus, in the development of universal health systems, it is appropriate to recognize "healthy public policy" (Health in All Policies) as the overarching policy framework, with public health, primary health care, and community services as the cross-cutting framework for all health and health-related services operating across the spectrum from primary prevention to long term care and end-stage conditions.
It's capped off by a sentence containing a worrisome phrase:
Although that perspective is both logical and well grounded in the social ecological model, the reality is different in most settings, and there is room for improvement everywhere.
I don't think a steady diet of aerospace-grade Belgian Lembas bread is appropriate during the article's lead, when you've just stepped out your front door into the leafy Shire. — MaxEnt 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the following text from the "Americas" section:
????? Mexico has Universal Health care for the children who were born since January 5th, 2007...please do not delete this information, just edit it. read the info here http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/593939.html
The tone is non-encyclopedic, and since the source isn't in English, it's impossible for a non-Spanish speaker to verify. If this information is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is not), we need someone who can verify it and (ideally) find an English-language source, and then we need to rework the text to make it more encyclopedic. Depending on how much information is available, it may be appropriate to create a new subsection for Mexico.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EastTN (
talk •
contribs) 17:04, August 8, 2008
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/mexico-universal-health/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.245.192.19 (
talk)
17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Some reliable sources:
Seguro Popular: Health Coverage For All in Mexico - World Bank
Mexico achieves universal health coverage, enrolls 52.6 million people in less than a decade - Harvard School of Public Health
An overview report detailing the growth and finance of Seguro Popular during its first years:
The democratization of health in Mexico: financial innovations for universal coverage - World Health Organization
Economist2020 ( talk) 19:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The map source is List of countries with universa health care from mid-2018 which has since been edited multiple times, INCLUDING removing the practical table. On the talk page there is instructions on how to generate a new map. Mirarkitty ( talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
the map is not accurate as Singapore does not have universal heath care.
The map you’ve joined is wrong, particularly regarding Indonesia. In the past it is indicated that Indonesia has no free or universal healthcare, which is wrong. Indeed Indonesia has a public single payer healthcare system named BPJS. As of November 2018, almost 80% of the population was enrolled in BPJS. Healthcare in public hospital are free of charge. Id62 ( talk) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The map also has French Guiana different than the rest of France. 72.168.160.47 ( talk) 18:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The map distinguishes between "Free and Universal Health Care", and just "Universal Health Care", with only one country offering the latter, while the former is abundant. The text of the article doesn't distinguish between the two. Also, in several European countries, the funding model is by mandatory insurance coverage (which isn't free), yet those countries are marked as having "Free and Universal Health Care". So, what kind of Free is meant here? 82.161.255.208 ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Since this article was initiated, graphics have been added and removed. One very helpful graphic is the WHO's UHC cube - the universal healthcare cube, which shows how the variables in the possible benefits packages are related dynamically with one another. MaynardClark ( talk) 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles typically start with something alone the lines of "Article title is..." followed by a definition of the article title in the opening sentence then a summery of the articles main points. The article currently starts with a statement of what it is not, which is not how Wikipedia article should atart. To fix this, we need to find a sourced definition of what it is and add that as the opening sentence in the lead. If there are differing or multiples definitions then we can explain how the term has multiple meanings. As I currently understand the term it most commonly means the following: A system of Healthcare where the government guarantees everyone has access to at least basic healthcare , no matter how poor. This is accomplished by one of the following: 1) Paying the total cost of the healthcare of the poorest citizen and in some countries also subsidizing the cost of the healthcare of some or all middle class citizens. or 2) Paying for basic healthcare for all citizens regardless of income (note: some single-payer countries allow for wealthier citizens to buy alternate or supplementary private insurance or pay out of pocket for all healthcare privately).
Now I seem to recall some people free-market/anti-government funded healthcare advocates defining "universal healthcare" as only guaranteeing theoretical access, provide one can pay. So if this definition can be sourced to a reliable source then it too can be added. I will try see what sort of sources I can find definitions the term and then maybe I will try and fix it myself, if someone else does not beat me too it. -- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 04:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The map's categories do not correspond to the content of the article. - Frankie1969 ( talk) 23:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest adding a table to the article. The following table may provide some ideas. I am not the author of the list below. And I don't have the time right now to develop this further. I haven't checked out the references, and don't understand what some of the starting dates represent.
I did some minor link correction of Timeline of universal healthcare by Sebastian. Bottom of the timeline page says: "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) unless otherwise noted."
Brief explanation of healthcare system type:
Year | Event type | Details | Present time system type (when aplicable) | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|
1883 | The world's first national social health insurance system originates in Germany with Otto Von Bismarck's Sickness Insurance Law, starting to implement compulsory sickness insurance program for workers. [2] [3] [4] | Germany | ||
1891 | Healthcare begins taking effect in Sweden as a form of labor subsidized mutual benefit. [2] | Sweden | ||
1892 | Healthcare begins taking effect in Denmark. [2] | Denmark | ||
1910 | Healthcare begins taking effect in France. [2] | France | ||
1912 | Healthcare begins taking effect in Switzerland. [2] | Switzerland | ||
1912 | Policy | Norway becomes the first country to adopt a universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Norway |
1938 | Policy | Japan achieves universal healthcare. The National Health Insurance act is enacted, widening the coverage of public health insurance not only to farmers, but also to the general public not covered by the Health Insurance Law. [7] [6] | Single payer [1] | Japan |
1938 | Policy | New Zealand establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Two Tier [1] | New Zealand |
1941 | Policy | The Third Reich institutes a universal healthcare system. Free for widows and orphans, the benefits are enjoyed only by "racial comrades". [8] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Germany |
1945 | Policy | Belgium adopts universal healthcare policy, after introducing compulsory insurance. [9] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Belgium |
1945 | United States President Harry S. Truman proposes a national health insurance program. The Congress would not approve it. [10] | United States | ||
1948 (July 5) | The National Health Service Act 1946 is launched in England, creating the National Health Service (NHS) that would provide the majority of healthcare in the country. [11] [12] [6] | Single Payer [1] | United Kingdom | |
1950 | Policy | Kuwait starts implementing free comprehensive healthcare to its citizens. [13] [6] [14] | Single Payer [1] | Kuwait |
1954 | Policy | The government of North Vietnam establishes universal healthcare. [6] [15] | Vietnam | |
1955 | Policy | Sweden implements a universal healthcare system, nine year after the legislation was passed in 1946. [16] [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Sweden |
1955 | Policy | North Korea establishes universal healthcare. [6] | North Korea | |
1957 | Policy | Bahrain adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Bahrain |
1958 | Policy | Brunei achieves universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Brunei |
1966 | Policy | Andorra adopts universal healthcare. [5] | Andorra | |
1966 | Policy | Universal healthcare is achieved in Canada, after the Parliament approves a publicly-funded healthcare system under the principle that access to healthcare shouldn’t depend on location, income, or wealth. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Canada |
1966 | Policy | The Dutch Sickness Fund Act (Ziekenfondswet, ZFW) enters into force in the Netherlands, adding compulsory insurance for the whole population to cover severe medical risks. [17] This is the year the Netherlands is considered having adopted universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Netherlands |
1967 | Policy | Austria adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Austria |
1970 | Policy | Comprehensive healthcare begins in Oman. [13] | Oman | |
1971 | Policy | The United Arab Emirates adopt universal healthcare. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | United Arab Emirates |
1972 | Policy | Finland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Finland |
1972 | Policy | Slovenia establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Single Payer [1] | Slovenia |
1973 | Policy | Denmark adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier | Denmark |
1973 | Policy | Luxemburg adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Luxembourg |
1974 | Policy | France adopts universal healthcare policy after law proclaims that the French National Health Insurance should be universal. [18] [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | France |
1975 | Policy | Australia adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Australia |
1975 | Policy | Algeria establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Algeria | |
1976 | Policy | After reunification of Vietnam, the universal healthcare system is extended to the South. [15] | Vietnam | |
1977 | Policy | Ireland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Ireland |
1977 | Policy | South Korea passes law mandating health insurance for industrial workers. [14] | South Korea | |
1978 | Policy | Italy adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Italy |
1979 | Policy | Portugal's National Healthcare Service, known nationally as Serviço Nacional de Saúde (SNS) starts providing universal free healthcare nationwide. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Portugal |
1980 | Policy | Cyprus adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Cyprus |
1983 | Policy | Greece adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Greece |
1986 | Policy | Spain adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Spain |
1988 | Policy | South Korea adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate | South Korea |
1988 | Policy | Brazil establishes the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde), an approach to having free healthcare for all, a constitutional right. [6] [14] [19] | Brazil | |
1990 | Policy | Iceland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Iceland |
1991 | Policy | Colombia establishes the right to healthcare within its constitution. [20] | Colombia | |
1993 | Policy | Hong Kong adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Hong Kong |
1993 | Policy | Colombia establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Colombia | |
1993 | Policy | Singapore adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Singapore |
1994 | Policy | Switzerland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Switzerland |
1994 | Policy | Moldova begins a mandatory health insurance program with the aim of providing the entire population with basic healthcare. Today, people who are unemployed or not working are insured by the government, while employed Moldovans chip in a portion of their income through a payroll tax or a flat-rate contribution. [21] | Moldova | |
1995 | Policy | Israel passes National Health Insurance Law, setting out a system of universal healthcare. [6] | Two Tier [1] | Israel |
1995 | Policy | Taiwan institutes its National Health Insurance (NHI). | Taiwan | |
1999 | Program launch | Rwanda establishes a national health plan. Since then, healthcare insurance would extend to reach about 91% of the population, a greater percentage than the United States. [21] [14] | Rwanda | |
1999 | Policy | Venezuela establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Venezuela | |
2000 | Recognition | The French healthcare system is ranked N° 1 by the World Health Organization. [18] | France | |
2002 | Policy | Thailand introduces the "30-bhat scheme" (Less than US$ 1 at the time), a plan aimed at extending health coverage to all citizens. About 14 million previously uninsured people are added to the Thai system with this plan. According to a WHO report, prescription drugs, hospitalizations and services like chemotherapy, surgery and emergency care are free to patients. [21] [6] [14] | Thailand | |
2005 | Policy | Chile establishes access aimed at all its citizens to a basic package guaranteeing treatments for up to 80 health problems, setting upper limits to waiting times and out-of-pocket payment for treatments. [20] | Chile | |
2009 (April 10) | Policy | The Government of Peru publishes the Law on Health Insurance to enable all citizens access to quality health services. [22] | Peru | |
2011 | Policy | China achieves universal health insurance with more than 95% of its population insured. This represents the largest expansion of insurance coverage in human history. [21] | China | |
2012 | Policy | Mexico establishes universal healthcare. [6] [23] | Mexico | |
2014 | Policy | With the House of Representatives’s passage of the Democrats’ reform bill, the United States approaches universal health care, using an insurance mandate system. [24] | Insurance Mandate [24] | United States |
2015 | Policy | All Qatari citizens and expatriates are expected to be covered by national health insurance. [13] | Qatar | |
2016 | Policy | Argentina establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Argentina |
References
The Sickness Insurance Law (1883). Eligibility. The Sickness Insurance Law came into effect in December 1884. It provided for compulsory participation by all industrial wage earners (i.e., manual laborers) in factories, ironworks, mines, shipbuilding yards, and similar workplaces.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
If you aren’t the author, who is? We can only post things that the author has agreed to contribute. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Timeline of universal healthcare by Sebastian. Bottom of the timeline page says: "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) unless otherwise noted." |
The "History" section currently reads:
I've added "clarification needed" after the reference to Bismarck. What was named after him? The statute is referred to as the "Sickness Insurance Law", without mentioning Bismarck. Is that a mistake? Is the name of the statute given in this paragraph inaccurate and it should include a reference to Bismarck? Or, does the German health programme have a formal name that includes a reference to Bismarck? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gurshawnstuteja.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michellet82801. Peer reviewers: Michellet82801.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I removed poorly sourced, NPOV-violating, contentious, disputed maps and the confusing, contentious, disputed usage of the term "social health protection." The repeated readdition of contentious, disputed NPOV-violating material without consensus by Obiwankenobi ( talk | contribs) is unacceptable. Contentious, disputed material stays OUT of Wikipedia until an editor obtains consensus for its inclusion. Apatens ( talk) 21:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Your understanding of how Wikipedia works is ass-backwards.
Contentious, disputed
WP:NPOV-violating material stays OUT of Wikipedia articles until there is consensus for its inclusion.
You have to prove to other editors that material is accurate and unbiased and obtain consensus for:
• Why should this Wikipedia article include a map that makes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that 90% health insurance coverage = universal health insurance coverage, instead of the common use and everyday understanding that 100% health insurance coverage = universal health insurance coverage?
• Why should this Wikipedia article use a non-standard definition of universal health insurance based on a definition used in one obscure conference paper?
• Furthermore, why should this Wikipedia article contain a WP:OR map that has been altered from the source map in that one obscure conference paper which misrepresents that conference paper?
• Why should this Wikipedia article include a map that makes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim based on erroneous International Labour Organization statistics that U.S. health insurance coverage = 100%?
• 2011 U.S. health insurance coverage = 84.2%, 84.3%, or 84.9% according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, [2] US Census Bureau, [3] and OECD, [4] respectively.
• Is "social health protection" a synonym for "universal health coverage" or "health coverage" or some different, unquantifiable concept?
• Why is the following unintelligible caption used for a map of health insurance coverage percentages based on the error-laden "Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection" on pages 83–90 of the 2008 ILO paper " Social health protection: An ILO strategy towards universal access to health care. Social security policy briefings, Paper 1"?Note: The Social health protection figures from ILO used in this graph are one of three inputs to the indicator used in the map in the lead for determining which countries have Universal Health Coverage; as such, some countries may be shown with high levels of coverage here that nonetheless don't meet the legislative or service delivery thresholds for Universal Health Coverage.
Your answer several months ago was that the ILO was infallible and that unless I proved to your satisfaction that they were not, your maps MUST stay in your article, and that the discussion should be moved to a Wikimedia Commons talk page that no one would read.
Your Google Scholar search proves absolutely nothing. It does not say that other reliable sources back up wacky
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that "90% = universal" or that the U.S. has 100% health insurance coverage.
The onus is on the editor repeatedly reintroducing–without consensus–poorly sourced, NPOV-violating, contentious, disputed material making
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, to provide multiple, independent high quality sources for their
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims.
It is not MY responsibility to find sources discussing, analyzing, and contradicting the details of how a map in an obscure 2010 conference paper was constructed, or how erroneous data was concocted in a table of an obscure 2008 ILO paper, and carried over into a map and a table buried in a lengthy 2010 ILO publication. Non-standard definitions and erroneous data abound in little-read "scholarly" publications and are usually passed over and ignored by their miniscule audience of readers.
Non-standard definitions and erroneous data in little-read publications only become an issue when the editor who
WP:OWNs the "Universal health care" article insists that the maps they created MUST remain no matter how asinine and ridiculous their
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, because
WP:BRD.
Contentious, disputed material should not be repeatedly reintroduced into this article without talk page consensus.
Apatens (
talk)
01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If you prefer a difference source, we could cite this paper, which has some of the same authors, but was published in 2012 in a peer reviewed journal: http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ds450/details/P630%20Universal%20health%20coverage.pdf . This is also a useful background http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/02/index.html%3FcontentType%3D%26itemId%3D/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-53-en%26containerItemId%3D/index.html - note how they say 'nearly universal coverage' which means they accept that not all costs are covered, even in countries which they agree have UHC (like Austria) -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The second source you listed here [5] states, "Four OECD countries do not have universal health coverage," then goes on to list Chile, Mexico, Turkey, and the United States.
This source [6] entitled, Universal Health Coverage: A Quest for All Countries But under Threat in Some, shows that the United States doesn't have Universal health care (see page 4).
See this source [7] which states, "The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people."
See this source [8] which states, "This is not just an academic question; to understand how to move effectively toward universal health care in the United States, it is essential to understand how we got to where we are."
See this source [9] which states, "Combined public and private spending on health care in the U.S. came to $8,233 per person in 2010, more than twice as much as relatively rich European countries such as France, Sweden and Britain that provide universal health care."
Obi-Wan Kenobi, please keep your response concise. When you flood the talk page (as you have a tendency to do), you make constructive debate overly tedious. Please just quote sources without theorizing. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have highlighted the ILO's erroneous data in red for your convenience.Formal coverage in social health protection
Formal coverage
Total (%) = State (%)2 + SHI (social health insurance) (%) + PHI (private health insurance) (%) + Other (%) + Company based/trade union (%) + MHI (mutual health insurance) (%)
Country: United States
Formal coverage, Total (%): 100
Formal coverage, State (%): 32.488
Formal coverage, PHI (private health insurance) (%): 71.99 66.489
2 All data regarding OECD countries from OECD (2006). OECD Health Data 2006, Paris: OECD-IRDES, and for Latin America from Mesa-Lago (2005). Las reformas de salud en América Latina y el Caribe: su impacto en los principios de la seguridad social. CEPAL/GTZ, Santiago: United Nations, and Mesa-Lago (2007). " The extension of healthcare coverage and protection in relation to the labour market: Problems and policies in Latin America." International Social Security Review 60 (1): 3–31, except other sources are indicated.
9 OECD (2006). OECD Health Data 2006, Paris: OECD-IRDES; except for Germany and the Netherlands, PHI is supplementary (1st number) or complementary (2nd number) to either tax-financed or SHI-borne social protection in health.
88 In 2003, 41.2 million US citizens were enrolled in Medicare and 54 million in Medicaid (US Census Bureau (2007). The 2007 Statistical Abstract, Health & Nutrition: Medicare, Medicaid, National Data Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/health_nutrition/medicare_medicaid/))
89 Hoffman et al. (2005). Health insurance coverage in America. 2004 Data Update, p. 10, Washington, D.C.: Kaiser Family Foundation ( http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Health-Coverage-in-America-2004-Data-Update-Report.pdf)
Apatens ( talk) 02:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)How mindlessly adding assorted invalid statistics produces nonsense: [19]
ILO 2003 U.S state health insurance coverage: 32.4% (41.2 million Medicare enrollees + 54 million Medicaid enrollees) / 293 million U.S. population
• It is invalid to add "point-in-time" administrative data to "ever during the year" administrative data:
41.2 million Medicare enrollees at a point-in-time in 2003 (includes 35.0 million aged + 6.2 million non-aged disabled) [20]
53.7 million Medicaid enrollees ever during the year 2003 (includes 4.7 million aged + 8.3 million blind/disabled; does not include 5.8 million SCHIP) [21]
Obewankenobi's KFF FY2010 65,989,147 Medicaid enrollees is an ever during the year number and also double counts aged and disabled Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. [22]
• It is invalid to add and double-count aged and disabled Medicare and Medicaid enrollees using administrative data
(this is why survey data is used instead of mixing and matching survey data and administrative data to determine the percentage of insured/uninsured):
41.2 million Medicare enrollees at a point-in-time in 2003 (includes 35.0 million aged + 6.2 million non-aged disabled) [23]
42.0 million Medicaid enrollees at a point-in-time in 2003 (includes 4.1 million aged + 7.5 million blind/disabled; does not include 3.1 million SCHIP) [24]
• It is invalid to pull statistics out of thin air (that are not in the cited OECD Health Data 2006 source):
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. primary private health insurance coverage 60.2% + government/social health insurance coverage 25.2%
= total public and primary private health insurance coverage = 85.4% [25]
Primary private health insurance (PHI): private health insurance that represents the only available access to health coverage because
(i) there is no government/social coverage or individuals are not eligible to coverage under government/social programs (principal);
(ii) individuals are entitled to government/social coverage but have chosen to opt out of such coverage (substitute).
note:
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. primary private health insurance coverage 60.2% ≠ ILO 2003 U.S. private health insurance coverage 71.9%
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. government/social health insurance coverage 25.2% ≠ ILO 2003 U.S. state health insurance coverage 32.4%
OECD (NHIS) 2003 U.S. total public and primary private health insurance coverage 85.4% ≠ ILO 2003 U.S. total health insurance coverage 100%
• It is invalid to add "point-in-time" NHIS survey statistics (and/or administrative statistics) for all of the population to "entire year" CPS survey statistics for part of the population (< age 65):
OECD (NHIS) 2004 U.S. primary private health insurance coverage at a point in time for all of the population 60.1% [26]
≠ KFF (CPS) 2004 U.S. private health insurance coverage for the entire year for the part of the population < age 65: 66.4% [27]
The Harvard University link below discusses the 10 years, from 2002 to 2012, that the United States of Mexico used to achieve Universal Health Care coverage and the enrollment of 52.6 million citizens that were previously uninsured.
-- 108.214.145.96 ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the WP:OR additions:
History
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate healthcare reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.
which were then expanded by:
History
Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of health care reform, intended to make health care available to all in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Following the Declaration,international standards concerning social health protection continued to develop. The International Labour Organization’s Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention 102 (1952) Article 7 established a minimum for the provision of social health protection which would include curative and preventative care, Article 34 of this same convention goes on to define this medical care as including general practitioner care, dental care, nursing home care, hospitalization, convalescent care, and medical and surgical supplies. Article 12 of the The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) recognized the right of to the “highest attainable” states of mental and physical health.
Most recently, the ILO issued Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202). This recommendation advocates for the establishment of National Social Protection Floors (SPFs), including, among other social security guarantees, provision of essential health care and basic income security (R202).
Throughout this period various countries have established formal legislation promoting universal access to health care.
The removed text was WP:SYNTHESIS because the cited sources did not say that any UN resolution, UN covenant, or ILO recommendation inspired or led to the countries mentioned in the "History" section implementing their universal healthcare systems. Apatens ( talk) 03:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following addition to the "History" section:
History
In 2012, recognizing the importance in universality of health care, the International Labour Organization issued the Social Protection Floors Recommendation (R202). The recommendation advocates for provision of "access to a nationally defined set of goods and services, constituting essential health care, including maternity care, that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality." The criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality reflect the multidimensional nature of providing universal health care. The Recommendation expands upon ILO Convention C102, Social Security (Minimum Standards) adopted in 1952. C102 outlined minimum medical benefits as general practitioner care, specialist care at hospitals, essential pharmaceutical supplies, hospitalisation, and pre-natal care.
There is no evidence that a 2012 non-binding recommendation of the International Labour Organization was/is/will be significant to the history of universal health care.
There is no evidence that a 1952 convention of the International Labour Organization ratified by only 49 countries (not ratified by 136 countries—including Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, United States), only 35 of which (not including Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Switzerland) accepted Part II of the convention calling for medical care coverage of 50% of their residents, was/is/will be significant in the history of universal health care.
Apatens (
talk)
14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No. Apatens ( talk) 14:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
For the reasons given above. To repeat:
There is no evidence in reliable sources that the:
were/are/will be significant to the history of universal health care and thus merit inclusion in this encyclopedia article.
In addition, to juxtapose them with—and therefore imply that they led to—the adoption of universal health care systems in various countries, is not supported by reliable sources and would be
WP:SYNTHESIS.
Apatens (
talk)
14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Peru is missing from the Map, the andean nation has universal healthcare, here you can find information about and also links to all the government websites with detailed information:
http://aus-peru.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.144.88 ( talk) 16:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I am very certain that Poland has centralized healthcare. I work in clinical research and am aware of the relationship between physician/patient and physician/insurance in Poland. The map should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.162.13 ( talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This might be a minor point, but the criteria the map at the top of the page uses to define UHC is a mandate for UHC, 90% health coverage, and 90% skilled birth attendance. It also says within the article that an individual mandate to buy private health insurance is a valid strategy that can produce a universal health care system. According to a new Forbes article, the United States now covers 90.8% of the public. Whether the article is correct or not is debatable, but once the United States does cover 90% of its people doesn't this make its system a universal one by the article's definition? Once this happens, will we add the United States to the list? If not, I think the article needs to clarify why the United States's system isn't sufficient, such as the mandate not being a guarantee of universal coverage. Many other countries on the list have over 90% coverage but less than, say, 98%, so what's the specific difference of the United States?
24.148.66.175 ( talk) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Derek
That map is wildly inaccurate and outdated. Countries pictured as not having UHC (like Mexico and Brazil) have it, and I think we should also have a separate color for countries working on implementing it, such as China and Indonesia.-- RM ( Be my friend) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Similarly, Poland has UHC, the right to which is guaranteed in Polish Constitution.
China has universal healthcare coverage, which has more coverage of the population as well as a cost percentage more subsidized then Australia, yet it is not green on the obsolete map above
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015001864 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed some statements from United States block because it was not neutral and did not cite the sources using reference links to original documents (rather general like "Under PPAC it is estimated..." Estimated by whom?). Statements like ones listed below are highly controversial and not neutral:
"it is hard to include the US on a list of countries having universal health care based on the PPAC" "this system encourages use of the emergency facilities for primary care and not just for emergency purposes" "PPAC answered none of these questions" "since the head of the CBO inappropriately visited the White House to be lobbied by the President in July 2009, many Americans have little faith in the CBO estimates"
Also someones personal blog is not a reliable source of information, unless person is an expert in the field. In this case put note this in the text like "According to XXX,..."
Dear editors, please remember, this is not a newspaper article, but an encyclopedia article. Please put back information that you think is needed, but do not violate wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innab ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 March 2010
Editing the History section:
1. A 2012 study is mentioned in the last sentence of the section but barely explains anything about it. The paraphrasing is pretty similar to the original article. The study's name or authors are not at all stated. This sentence should either be deleted since it doesn't play a big role in adding to the section, or the study needs to be cited and further explained to the reader. Additions can be made such as; A groundbreaking result of 2/3 of the population of both the Philippines and Rwanda are now enrolled in health insurance.
Compulsory Insurance section:
2. Stated in the 3rd paragraph, "at one time" is used to explain the community rating system of The republic of Ireland. An actual date should be mentioned to strengthen the point.
Compulsory Insurance section
3. Also stated in that section is a narrative on "sickness funds" where the words "no advantage" is used. This terminology makes the statement sound somewhat opinionated and no real evidence on the explanation is given. I believe the writer was trying to explain further on what the sentence previous was trying to say, however the explanation became wordy and unneeded. The whole further explanation can really be deleted or if anything, redone.
Link/cite 28 is broken and does not go to an actual webpage.
Amcgraw24 (
talk)
05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)AshleyMcGrawUCSD
The following sentence is aerospace-grade desiccated sustenance:
Thus, in the development of universal health systems, it is appropriate to recognize "healthy public policy" (Health in All Policies) as the overarching policy framework, with public health, primary health care, and community services as the cross-cutting framework for all health and health-related services operating across the spectrum from primary prevention to long term care and end-stage conditions.
It's capped off by a sentence containing a worrisome phrase:
Although that perspective is both logical and well grounded in the social ecological model, the reality is different in most settings, and there is room for improvement everywhere.
I don't think a steady diet of aerospace-grade Belgian Lembas bread is appropriate during the article's lead, when you've just stepped out your front door into the leafy Shire. — MaxEnt 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the following text from the "Americas" section:
????? Mexico has Universal Health care for the children who were born since January 5th, 2007...please do not delete this information, just edit it. read the info here http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/593939.html
The tone is non-encyclopedic, and since the source isn't in English, it's impossible for a non-Spanish speaker to verify. If this information is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is not), we need someone who can verify it and (ideally) find an English-language source, and then we need to rework the text to make it more encyclopedic. Depending on how much information is available, it may be appropriate to create a new subsection for Mexico.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EastTN (
talk •
contribs) 17:04, August 8, 2008
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/mexico-universal-health/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.245.192.19 (
talk)
17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Some reliable sources:
Seguro Popular: Health Coverage For All in Mexico - World Bank
Mexico achieves universal health coverage, enrolls 52.6 million people in less than a decade - Harvard School of Public Health
An overview report detailing the growth and finance of Seguro Popular during its first years:
The democratization of health in Mexico: financial innovations for universal coverage - World Health Organization
Economist2020 ( talk) 19:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The map source is List of countries with universa health care from mid-2018 which has since been edited multiple times, INCLUDING removing the practical table. On the talk page there is instructions on how to generate a new map. Mirarkitty ( talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
the map is not accurate as Singapore does not have universal heath care.
The map you’ve joined is wrong, particularly regarding Indonesia. In the past it is indicated that Indonesia has no free or universal healthcare, which is wrong. Indeed Indonesia has a public single payer healthcare system named BPJS. As of November 2018, almost 80% of the population was enrolled in BPJS. Healthcare in public hospital are free of charge. Id62 ( talk) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The map also has French Guiana different than the rest of France. 72.168.160.47 ( talk) 18:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The map distinguishes between "Free and Universal Health Care", and just "Universal Health Care", with only one country offering the latter, while the former is abundant. The text of the article doesn't distinguish between the two. Also, in several European countries, the funding model is by mandatory insurance coverage (which isn't free), yet those countries are marked as having "Free and Universal Health Care". So, what kind of Free is meant here? 82.161.255.208 ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Since this article was initiated, graphics have been added and removed. One very helpful graphic is the WHO's UHC cube - the universal healthcare cube, which shows how the variables in the possible benefits packages are related dynamically with one another. MaynardClark ( talk) 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles typically start with something alone the lines of "Article title is..." followed by a definition of the article title in the opening sentence then a summery of the articles main points. The article currently starts with a statement of what it is not, which is not how Wikipedia article should atart. To fix this, we need to find a sourced definition of what it is and add that as the opening sentence in the lead. If there are differing or multiples definitions then we can explain how the term has multiple meanings. As I currently understand the term it most commonly means the following: A system of Healthcare where the government guarantees everyone has access to at least basic healthcare , no matter how poor. This is accomplished by one of the following: 1) Paying the total cost of the healthcare of the poorest citizen and in some countries also subsidizing the cost of the healthcare of some or all middle class citizens. or 2) Paying for basic healthcare for all citizens regardless of income (note: some single-payer countries allow for wealthier citizens to buy alternate or supplementary private insurance or pay out of pocket for all healthcare privately).
Now I seem to recall some people free-market/anti-government funded healthcare advocates defining "universal healthcare" as only guaranteeing theoretical access, provide one can pay. So if this definition can be sourced to a reliable source then it too can be added. I will try see what sort of sources I can find definitions the term and then maybe I will try and fix it myself, if someone else does not beat me too it. -- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 04:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The map's categories do not correspond to the content of the article. - Frankie1969 ( talk) 23:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest adding a table to the article. The following table may provide some ideas. I am not the author of the list below. And I don't have the time right now to develop this further. I haven't checked out the references, and don't understand what some of the starting dates represent.
I did some minor link correction of Timeline of universal healthcare by Sebastian. Bottom of the timeline page says: "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) unless otherwise noted."
Brief explanation of healthcare system type:
Year | Event type | Details | Present time system type (when aplicable) | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|
1883 | The world's first national social health insurance system originates in Germany with Otto Von Bismarck's Sickness Insurance Law, starting to implement compulsory sickness insurance program for workers. [2] [3] [4] | Germany | ||
1891 | Healthcare begins taking effect in Sweden as a form of labor subsidized mutual benefit. [2] | Sweden | ||
1892 | Healthcare begins taking effect in Denmark. [2] | Denmark | ||
1910 | Healthcare begins taking effect in France. [2] | France | ||
1912 | Healthcare begins taking effect in Switzerland. [2] | Switzerland | ||
1912 | Policy | Norway becomes the first country to adopt a universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Norway |
1938 | Policy | Japan achieves universal healthcare. The National Health Insurance act is enacted, widening the coverage of public health insurance not only to farmers, but also to the general public not covered by the Health Insurance Law. [7] [6] | Single payer [1] | Japan |
1938 | Policy | New Zealand establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Two Tier [1] | New Zealand |
1941 | Policy | The Third Reich institutes a universal healthcare system. Free for widows and orphans, the benefits are enjoyed only by "racial comrades". [8] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Germany |
1945 | Policy | Belgium adopts universal healthcare policy, after introducing compulsory insurance. [9] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Belgium |
1945 | United States President Harry S. Truman proposes a national health insurance program. The Congress would not approve it. [10] | United States | ||
1948 (July 5) | The National Health Service Act 1946 is launched in England, creating the National Health Service (NHS) that would provide the majority of healthcare in the country. [11] [12] [6] | Single Payer [1] | United Kingdom | |
1950 | Policy | Kuwait starts implementing free comprehensive healthcare to its citizens. [13] [6] [14] | Single Payer [1] | Kuwait |
1954 | Policy | The government of North Vietnam establishes universal healthcare. [6] [15] | Vietnam | |
1955 | Policy | Sweden implements a universal healthcare system, nine year after the legislation was passed in 1946. [16] [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Sweden |
1955 | Policy | North Korea establishes universal healthcare. [6] | North Korea | |
1957 | Policy | Bahrain adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Bahrain |
1958 | Policy | Brunei achieves universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Brunei |
1966 | Policy | Andorra adopts universal healthcare. [5] | Andorra | |
1966 | Policy | Universal healthcare is achieved in Canada, after the Parliament approves a publicly-funded healthcare system under the principle that access to healthcare shouldn’t depend on location, income, or wealth. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Canada |
1966 | Policy | The Dutch Sickness Fund Act (Ziekenfondswet, ZFW) enters into force in the Netherlands, adding compulsory insurance for the whole population to cover severe medical risks. [17] This is the year the Netherlands is considered having adopted universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Netherlands |
1967 | Policy | Austria adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Austria |
1970 | Policy | Comprehensive healthcare begins in Oman. [13] | Oman | |
1971 | Policy | The United Arab Emirates adopt universal healthcare. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | United Arab Emirates |
1972 | Policy | Finland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Finland |
1972 | Policy | Slovenia establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Single Payer [1] | Slovenia |
1973 | Policy | Denmark adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier | Denmark |
1973 | Policy | Luxemburg adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Luxembourg |
1974 | Policy | France adopts universal healthcare policy after law proclaims that the French National Health Insurance should be universal. [18] [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | France |
1975 | Policy | Australia adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Australia |
1975 | Policy | Algeria establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Algeria | |
1976 | Policy | After reunification of Vietnam, the universal healthcare system is extended to the South. [15] | Vietnam | |
1977 | Policy | Ireland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Ireland |
1977 | Policy | South Korea passes law mandating health insurance for industrial workers. [14] | South Korea | |
1978 | Policy | Italy adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Italy |
1979 | Policy | Portugal's National Healthcare Service, known nationally as Serviço Nacional de Saúde (SNS) starts providing universal free healthcare nationwide. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Portugal |
1980 | Policy | Cyprus adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Cyprus |
1983 | Policy | Greece adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Greece |
1986 | Policy | Spain adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Spain |
1988 | Policy | South Korea adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate | South Korea |
1988 | Policy | Brazil establishes the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde), an approach to having free healthcare for all, a constitutional right. [6] [14] [19] | Brazil | |
1990 | Policy | Iceland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Single Payer [1] | Iceland |
1991 | Policy | Colombia establishes the right to healthcare within its constitution. [20] | Colombia | |
1993 | Policy | Hong Kong adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Hong Kong |
1993 | Policy | Colombia establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Colombia | |
1993 | Policy | Singapore adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Two Tier [1] | Singapore |
1994 | Policy | Switzerland adopts universal healthcare policy. [5] [6] | Insurance Mandate [1] | Switzerland |
1994 | Policy | Moldova begins a mandatory health insurance program with the aim of providing the entire population with basic healthcare. Today, people who are unemployed or not working are insured by the government, while employed Moldovans chip in a portion of their income through a payroll tax or a flat-rate contribution. [21] | Moldova | |
1995 | Policy | Israel passes National Health Insurance Law, setting out a system of universal healthcare. [6] | Two Tier [1] | Israel |
1995 | Policy | Taiwan institutes its National Health Insurance (NHI). | Taiwan | |
1999 | Program launch | Rwanda establishes a national health plan. Since then, healthcare insurance would extend to reach about 91% of the population, a greater percentage than the United States. [21] [14] | Rwanda | |
1999 | Policy | Venezuela establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Venezuela | |
2000 | Recognition | The French healthcare system is ranked N° 1 by the World Health Organization. [18] | France | |
2002 | Policy | Thailand introduces the "30-bhat scheme" (Less than US$ 1 at the time), a plan aimed at extending health coverage to all citizens. About 14 million previously uninsured people are added to the Thai system with this plan. According to a WHO report, prescription drugs, hospitalizations and services like chemotherapy, surgery and emergency care are free to patients. [21] [6] [14] | Thailand | |
2005 | Policy | Chile establishes access aimed at all its citizens to a basic package guaranteeing treatments for up to 80 health problems, setting upper limits to waiting times and out-of-pocket payment for treatments. [20] | Chile | |
2009 (April 10) | Policy | The Government of Peru publishes the Law on Health Insurance to enable all citizens access to quality health services. [22] | Peru | |
2011 | Policy | China achieves universal health insurance with more than 95% of its population insured. This represents the largest expansion of insurance coverage in human history. [21] | China | |
2012 | Policy | Mexico establishes universal healthcare. [6] [23] | Mexico | |
2014 | Policy | With the House of Representatives’s passage of the Democrats’ reform bill, the United States approaches universal health care, using an insurance mandate system. [24] | Insurance Mandate [24] | United States |
2015 | Policy | All Qatari citizens and expatriates are expected to be covered by national health insurance. [13] | Qatar | |
2016 | Policy | Argentina establishes universal healthcare. [6] | Argentina |
References
The Sickness Insurance Law (1883). Eligibility. The Sickness Insurance Law came into effect in December 1884. It provided for compulsory participation by all industrial wage earners (i.e., manual laborers) in factories, ironworks, mines, shipbuilding yards, and similar workplaces.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
If you aren’t the author, who is? We can only post things that the author has agreed to contribute. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Timeline of universal healthcare by Sebastian. Bottom of the timeline page says: "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) unless otherwise noted." |
The "History" section currently reads:
I've added "clarification needed" after the reference to Bismarck. What was named after him? The statute is referred to as the "Sickness Insurance Law", without mentioning Bismarck. Is that a mistake? Is the name of the statute given in this paragraph inaccurate and it should include a reference to Bismarck? Or, does the German health programme have a formal name that includes a reference to Bismarck? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gurshawnstuteja.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michellet82801. Peer reviewers: Michellet82801.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)