Positive and Negative Liberties
The idea of freedom or liberty can be broken up into two opposing categories: Positive liberty and negative liberty. Negative liberty is defined as having no boundaries or limitations to achieve one's ambitions. On the other hand, positive liberty includes the means of achieving these ambitions (2). In regard to healthcare, many understand the difference between public and private healthcare as complimenting either societal or individual freedoms. Public healthcare tends to favor the idea of positive liberty, in that it gives all people, even those who are unable to otherwise afford it, the means to access medical treatments and care. Private healthcare is more focused on individual freedom and negative liberty, stating that any individual is permitted to access their specific level of service they desire (17).
Those who favor public healthcare see it as a right opposed to a privilege. Instead of embodying a free market, where you are able to “shop” for the right doctor or program, it should be given as a necessity so that everyone could have the chance to some type of treatment (17). Those who would be unable to afford private healthcare would be burdened with extremely elevated medical bills by requiring immediate medical assistance. In Germany with all access healthcare, all citizens below the line of poverty are automatically covered by SHI (social healthcare insurance) and are able to seek necessary care (4). This offers freedoms to communities as a whole, giving them the capability live without risk of debt or financial crisis.
Private healthcare is favored by those who believe in their freedom to pay for their own specific necessities. Instead of a uniform healthcare system to govern an entire country, this healthcare relies on insurance through deciding between different providers. This allows the individual to freely decide how much they would like to be insured in respect to their own disabilities and/or disorders (10).
Those who favor public healthcare see it as a right opposed to a privilege. Instead of embodying a free market, where you are able to “shop” for the right doctor or program, it should be given as a necessity so that everyone could have the chance to some type of treatment (17). Those who would be unable to afford private healthcare would be burdened with extremely elevated medical bills by requiring immediate medical assistance. In Germany with all access healthcare, all citizens below the line of poverty are automatically covered by SHI (social healthcare insurance) and are able to seek necessary care (4). This offers freedoms to communities as a whole, giving them the capability live without risk of debt or financial crisis.
Private healthcare is favored by those who believe in their freedom to pay for their own specific necessities. Instead of a uniform healthcare system to govern an entire country, this healthcare relies on insurance through deciding between different providers. This allows the individual to freely decide how much they would like to be insured in respect to their own disabilities and/or disorders (10).
Civil and Political Rights
Political and civil rights are outlined in many modern-day countries including the United States. Within the U.S, some civil rights, or human rights, include the right to life, the right to liberty and security, and protection from discrimination. Many believe that the right to access healthcare should fall under the civil right to life. The Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s put an emphasis on the need for all access healthcare in the United States. This type of healthcare would not only allow the means to medical service to the poor but also to minority groups. After what should have been the end to segregation, private hospitals still denied access to people who did not have a personal physician, which disproportionately discriminated against people of minority background. This type of behavior did not disappear instantaneously with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but instead reformed in a different, more hidden fashion. Instead, private healthcare attacks those who cannot afford to pay for their insurance, specifically combating lower income communities, many of which have large populations of minorities. The idea of all-inclusive healthcare would grant these lower income neighborhoods some of their civil rights, being their right to life and security (3).
Freedom Score by Country
Figure 3: This map displays the 2018 data for freedom scores around the world (14). Hover over a country to view its freedom score. Countries with no data are shown in gray. For a narrated video of the map, visit the Information tab.
Freedom House is a U.S.-based organization that researches and advocates for democracy and freedom. In this assessment, Freedom House scored the countries of the world based on both political rights and civil liberties, ranking them from 1-100. Freedom House also categorizes countries as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free, though this is not reflected on the map. The map shows that countries in the Americas and Europe are generally free, though there are a few exceptions. Freedom scores in Africa and Asia vary, ranging from 3 to 83 and -1 to 96, respectively. These discrepancies in freedom score are huge, and seem to relate more to life expectancy than healthcare expenditure per capita when compared with Figures 1 and 2.
Freedom House is a U.S.-based organization that researches and advocates for democracy and freedom. In this assessment, Freedom House scored the countries of the world based on both political rights and civil liberties, ranking them from 1-100. Freedom House also categorizes countries as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free, though this is not reflected on the map. The map shows that countries in the Americas and Europe are generally free, though there are a few exceptions. Freedom scores in Africa and Asia vary, ranging from 3 to 83 and -1 to 96, respectively. These discrepancies in freedom score are huge, and seem to relate more to life expectancy than healthcare expenditure per capita when compared with Figures 1 and 2.