Healthcare as a Constitutional Right: Pathways, Implications, and Implementation Strategies in the United States

Toward Equity and Justice in American Healthcare Policy

The Current State of U.S. Healthcare

The United States operates the most expensive healthcare system in the world but fails to provide universal access. Unlike other high-income nations, the U.S. treats healthcare as a market commodity rather than a guaranteed right. As of 2023, over 27.6 million Americans remain uninsured, while millions more are underinsured and face the risk of financial ruin for seeking basic medical care (Blumenthal & Collins, 2020). Healthcare is often tied to employment, leaving people vulnerable during job loss or economic downturns.

This market-oriented commodification of healthcare perpetuates racial, geographic, and socioeconomic disparities. Minority groups, rural individuals, and low-income families suffer extreme impacts of discontinuous care. It does not prioritize human dignity or health equity most importantly.

Why Constitutionalize Healthcare?

Constitutionalizing healthcare with the U.S. Constitution would create a long-lasting framework making medical care accessibility independent of any politics or market trends. Constitutionalization would make healthcare regarded as a right of citizens instead of a privilege, putting the nation in accordance with worldwide human rights standards (World Health Organization, 2017). It would prevent healthcare policy deconstruction or underbudgetting in future administrations.

The aim of this research is to explore how healthcare can be a right under the constitution in America and what would be required in implementing it in terms of legal, policy, and economic measures.

Constitutional Mechanisms: How an Amendment Would Work

The Amendment Process

The U.S. Constitution outlines two methods for proposing amendments under Article V:

• Congressional Proposal: Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate must agree.
• Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds of state legislatures must call for a convention (an unprecedented method in U.S. history).

Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or state ratifying conventions.

Example Amendment Language

An example of a healthcare rights amendment could state:

“Every person has the right to healthcare. The government shall take necessary legislative and administrative actions to guarantee accessible, affordable, and comprehensive healthcare services for all residents of the United States.”

Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges

• Political Polarization: The current political divide makes constitutional reform difficult.
• Corporate Opposition: Insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, and private healthcare entities may resist change due to threats to profit margins (Starr, 2011).

Opportunities

• Public Support: There is growing support for healthcare reform among the American public.
• Historical Precedents: Civil rights amendments show that significant societal changes are possible when public momentum drives political action.

Comparative International Models

Germany: Social Health Insurance System: A Model of Universal Coverage Through Shared Responsibility

Germany operates one of the most comprehensive and inclusive healthcare systems in the world, grounded in the Social Health Insurance (SHI) model. Unlike single-payer systems where the government is the sole funder and provider of healthcare, Germany’s approach is a pluralistic system that combines statutory public insurance with private options, offering universal coverage while maintaining individual choice.

Under this model, all residents are legally required to have health insurance. About 90% of the population is covered by the statutory system, known as the Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung (GKV), while the remaining 10%—typically higher-income earners, civil servants, and the self-employed—may opt for private health insurance (Private Krankenversicherung, PKV). This dual structure preserves both universality and competition, ensuring that core services are accessible to all, while allowing supplementary services for those who choose private plans.

The structure is financed with a shared responsibility framework. Employers as well as workers contribute approximately 7.3% of gross wages (up to 2024), paying collectively some 14.6% contribution rate besides an income-dependent contribution translating into an average of 1.6% depending on the insurer. Unlike in most Western systems, it is not age-based or health status-based but proportionated with respect to income, thereby making it redistributive in nature. High-income earners pay towards low-income earners with those who have good health paying towards sicker people as well, in a display of sound solidaristic principle (Ruger, 2015). Germany’s is a decentralized system, managed by more than 100 non-profit “sickness funds,” each of which is controlled and supervised by the government but functions separately. These sickness funds bargain collectively with health-care providers in order to set uniform charges and contain costs while preserving quality of care. Patients enjoy freedom of choice in selecting sickness fund or health-care provider, motivating competition on the basis of quality of care rather than financial margins.

Government regulation provides fairness and value for money without central direction of healthcare provision. Overall standards are established at federal levels, with the surety of the legal framework of health coverage, but delegation of decision-making is with the states (Länder), health insurers, and professional associations of providers. This corporatist approach encourages mutual collaboration between public and private sectors, with a balance of market mechanisms with social insurance.

Germany’s system emphasizes preventative care, early intervention, and long-term sustainability, resulting in excellent health outcomes relative to cost. Administrative expenses are significantly lower than in the United States, and citizens enjoy short wait times, high-quality care, and virtually universal coverage. Importantly, the system maintains the principle that healthcare is a social right, not a market commodity, while preserving individual choice and provider autonomy.

Germany’s experience demonstrates that universal healthcare can be successfully implemented in a mixed economy, using shared financial responsibility and a decentralized but regulated administrative structure. For the United States, Germany’s model offers valuable lessons on how to blend public and private roles, foster competition without compromising equity, and create a system where no resident is left without care due to cost or circumstance.

Canada’s Single-Payer Healthcare System: Universal Access Through Federal-Provincial Partnership

Canada’s healthcare system, often referred to as Medicare (not to be confused with the U.S. Medicare program), is a single-payer, publicly funded model that provides universal health coverage to all Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Although healthcare is not explicitly recognized as a constitutional right in Canada, it is deeply embedded in national identity and protected through robust federal legislation—most notably, the Canada Health Act of 1984.

Under this system, the government is the primary insurer, not the provider of healthcare services. Physicians and hospitals operate independently, but their payments come almost entirely from public funds. Healthcare is free at the point of service, meaning patients do not pay out-of-pocket for medically necessary hospital or physician services. There are no co-pays, deductibles, or premiums for core services, removing financial barriers that often prevent access to care in market-based systems.

Funding for Canada’s healthcare system comes primarily from general taxation, including federal and provincial income taxes. Healthcare spending is a joint responsibility between federal and provincial/territorial governments. The federal government provides block transfers to the provinces through the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), while provinces administer and deliver healthcare services tailored to their populations. This partnership allows for regional flexibility while maintaining national standards.

The Canada Health Act (CHA) sets out five foundational principles to ensure equitable healthcare delivery across the country:

1. Public Administration – Provincial health insurance plans must be administered by a public authority on a non-profit basis.
2. Comprehensiveness – All medically necessary hospital and physician services must be covered.
3. Universality – All residents are entitled to the same level of healthcare services.
4. Portability – Residents moving between provinces or traveling within Canada retain their healthcare coverage.
5. Accessibility – No user fees or financial barriers may limit access to insured services.

Despite its strengths, the Canadian system has certain limitations and challenges. Dental care, vision care, outpatient prescriptions, and long-term care services are typically not covered under the universal system, though provinces may offer supplementary programs for specific populations such as seniors, children, or low-income residents. Many Canadians purchase private insurance to cover these additional health needs, creating a two-tiered system for non-core services.

Canada’s single-payer model has successfully controlled healthcare costs while maintaining quality. Administrative overhead is low compared to multi-payer systems like that of the United States, primarily because billing is streamlined through a single government payer, eliminating complex negotiations with multiple insurers (Oberlander, 2019). On average, Canada spends about 10.8% of its GDP on healthcare, significantly less than the U.S., which spends over 17%, yet Canadian life expectancy and health outcomes often surpass those of Americans (Blumenthal & Collins, 2020).

Wait times for elective procedures and specialist consultations are a common criticism of the Canadian system, reflecting capacity challenges rather than systemic failures of access. Nevertheless, no Canadian faces financial ruin due to medical bills, and the population enjoys a strong sense of healthcare security.

Canada’s healthcare model demonstrates that universal access to care is achievable without constitutional amendments when protected by strong legislative frameworks and public consensus. The Canada Health Act serves as a moral and legal contract between the government and its citizens, ensuring that healthcare remains a public good rather than a market commodity. For the United States, Canada’s experience underscores the potential of a federalized single-payer system to achieve both equity and cost control, while highlighting the importance of political will and public commitment to health justice.

South Africa’s Constitutional Right to Healthcare: A Commitment to Social Justice and Equity

South Africa stands out as one of the few nations in the world that explicitly guarantees the right to healthcare in its Constitution. Adopted in 1996, following the end of apartheid, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is a landmark document in the global human rights movement. Section 27 of the Constitution declares that:

“Everyone has the right to have access to healthcare services, including reproductive healthcare; sufficient food and water; and social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependents, appropriate social assistance.”

“The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of each of these rights.” (Constitution of South Africa, 1996)

This constitutional guarantee establishes healthcare not just as a social good but as a legal obligation for the state. The South African government is required to develop policies and allocate resources to progressively realize this right, ensuring that all citizens have access to healthcare regardless of income, race, or geographic location.

South Africa operates a public healthcare system that provides free or low-cost services at the point of delivery, particularly to the poor and uninsured. This system includes primary care clinics, district hospitals, regional hospitals, and tertiary referral centers. The public system covers about 84% of the population, predominantly serving low-income and rural communities (Ruger, 2015).

Public healthcare in South Africa is funded through general taxation, with services delivered by provincial health departments. However, despite the constitutional mandate, the public system faces significant resource constraints, including:

• Shortages of healthcare workers
• Underfunded facilities
• Inadequate medical equipment and supplies

These challenges reflect the legacy of apartheid, where healthcare services were historically segregated and unequal. The post-apartheid government inherited a deeply divided system that continues to struggle with structural inequities.

Alongside the public system, South Africa has a private healthcare sector that serves about 16% of the population, mostly higher-income individuals who can afford private medical insurance. The private sector is well-resourced, with state-of-the-art hospitals and specialist services, but it creates a two-tiered system where wealth determines the quality and speed of care. This parallel system exacerbates health disparities despite the constitutional commitment to equity (Daniels, 2008).

In response to ongoing disparities, South Africa is in the process of implementing a National Health Insurance (NHI) system aimed at creating universal health coverage. The NHI will pool funds from the entire population to provide equitable access to quality healthcare services. This plan seeks to:

• Reduce dependence on private health insurance.
• Standardize the quality of care across public and private providers.
• Create a single fund that pays for all health services, much like a single-payer system.

However, the NHI faces political and logistical hurdles, including debates over funding, concerns about corruption, and resistance from private healthcare stakeholders (National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, 2021).

South Africa’s constitutional approach illustrates the potential for embedding healthcare as a human right at the highest legal level. However, it also highlights the challenges of translating legal rights into practical realities, especially in countries with historical inequities, limited resources, or fragmented healthcare systems.

For the United States, South Africa’s experience offers critical insights:

• Legal recognition of healthcare as a right is a powerful tool, but it must be accompanied by concrete policy action and sustained investment.
• Progressive realization can be a pragmatic framework, allowing for incremental implementation while holding the government accountable.
• Addressing systemic inequities and parallel healthcare structures is essential to achieving true universality and fairness.

Brazil’s Constitutional Right to Health: The Unified Health System (SUS) and the Pursuit of Universal Care

Brazil represents one of the most ambitious examples of a constitutional commitment to universal healthcare in the modern world. Unlike systems where healthcare access is primarily a legislative decision, Brazil’s 1988 Constitution explicitly enshrines health as a fundamental social right and a state responsibility. Article 196 of the Brazilian Constitution declares:

“Health is a right of all and a duty of the State, guaranteed through social and economic policies aimed at reducing the risk of illness and other hazards and at the universal and equal access to actions and services for its promotion, protection, and recovery.” (Constitution of Brazil, 1988)

This constitutional mandate led to the creation of the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), or Unified Health System, which is one of the world’s largest public health systems. SUS provides free, comprehensive, and universal healthcare services to all residents of Brazil, regardless of citizenship, employment status, or ability to pay. It embodies a rights-based approach to health, treating healthcare as a public good rather than a market commodity (Ruger, 2015).

SUS operates under the principles of:

• Universality – Healthcare is a guaranteed right for all people.
• Comprehensiveness – Services cover the full continuum of care: from preventative services and primary care to complex surgeries and chronic disease management.
• Equity – Priority is given to those with the greatest health needs to reduce social and regional disparities.

The system is managed at federal, state, and municipal levels, with responsibilities decentralized to local governments. The federal government establishes general guidelines and provides funding, but states and municipalities administer and deliver services. This structure allows for tailored health responses that reflect local needs while maintaining national health policy goals (Paim et al., 2011).

SUS offers a wide range of free healthcare services, including:

• Primary care clinics (family health teams, vaccinations, check-ups)
• Specialized outpatient services
• Emergency services
• Hospitalization (public hospitals)
• Surgeries and advanced treatments
• Access to prescription medications through public pharmacies
• Maternal and child healthcare
• Mental health services
• HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention

In addition to curative care, SUS plays a major role in public health initiatives, such as immunization programs, disease prevention campaigns, and responses to epidemics like Zika, Dengue, and COVID-19.

SUS is funded through a mix of federal, state, and municipal taxes, supplemented by social contributions. The principle of universality means there are no direct charges to individuals at the point of service, making access equitable regardless of personal income. However, despite its breadth, the system often operates under resource constraints, leading to funding gaps, long wait times, and service delays in some regions.

Parallel to SUS, Brazil has a large private healthcare sector, which serves wealthier individuals who can afford private insurance or out-of-pocket payments. About 25% of Brazilians have private health insurance, primarily for quicker access to elective procedures, specialist consultations, and private hospital amenities (Paim et al., 2011). While the private sector complements SUS, it has also contributed to healthcare inequalities, creating a dual system where quality and speed of care can depend on personal wealth.

Brazil’s SUS has been praised globally for its successes in expanding access to care and improving public health outcomes. Major achievements include:

• Universal access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV/AIDS, making Brazil a pioneer in public treatment programs.
• National immunization campaigns that have drastically reduced rates of vaccine-preventable diseases.
• Expansion of primary care services, particularly in rural and underserved areas through the Family Health Strategy (Estratégia Saúde da Família).

Despite these accomplishments, Brazil faces ongoing challenges:

• Underfunding and budget cuts, especially during periods of political instability and economic crisis.
• Regional disparities in the availability of specialized services.
• Long wait times for non-urgent procedures.
• Infrastructure shortages in public hospitals.
• The tension between public services and an expanding private sector.

Brazil’s constitutional right to health has empowered citizens to hold the government accountable through the courts, a phenomenon known as judicialization of healthcare. Brazilians frequently file lawsuits to demand access to medications, surgeries, or treatments not promptly provided by SUS. While this judicial mechanism protects individual rights, it has also strained health budgets and raised concerns about resource allocation fairness (Ferraz, 2009).

Brazil’s experience highlights the transformative potential of constitutional healthcare rights, but also underscores the importance of sustainable funding, political stability, and systemic efficiency. The U.S. can learn from Brazil’s commitment to universality and equity while being mindful of the operational risks associated with decentralized administration and dual public-private systems.

Key takeaways include:

• A constitutional mandate creates a legal and moral obligation for the state to prioritize healthcare.
• Progressive implementation is essential, especially in federal systems with diverse regional capacities.
• Equity must remain at the forefront to prevent the growth of parallel systems that undermine universal access.
• Public health measures and preventative care are as important as curative services in achieving long-term outcomes.

Economic and Social Implications

Cost Analysis
Transitioning to a universal healthcare system in the United States would undoubtedly require significant upfront investment. The initial costs would stem from expanding healthcare infrastructure, enrolling millions of uninsured individuals, standardizing care delivery, and overhauling administrative systems to support a unified framework. These expenses include training additional healthcare workers, upgrading technology for integrated patient records, and building or expanding facilities to meet increased demand. Additionally, transitioning from a predominantly private, employer-based insurance model to a publicly guaranteed system would necessitate complex logistical and financial restructuring, including adjustments to tax policy and reimbursement mechanisms for providers.

However, while the short-term financial outlay is considerable, long-term projections suggest that universal healthcare could produce substantial savings for both the government and the public. A core driver of these savings is the shift from reactive to proactive care. Universal coverage encourages regular check-ups, screenings, and early interventions, reducing the reliance on emergency room visits and costly hospitalizations for conditions that could have been managed or prevented. For instance, when individuals have consistent access to primary care, chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease can be controlled before reaching crisis levels, thereby lowering treatment costs over time.

Administrative efficiency is another major area of potential savings. The current U.S. healthcare system is burdened by fragmented billing processes, redundant paperwork, and complex insurance negotiations, all of which inflate operational costs. A universal system would streamline administration, reducing overhead by standardizing billing and payment systems and eliminating much of the bureaucracy associated with private insurance. Oberlander (2019) notes that these efficiencies, combined with the cost controls typically found in universal healthcare models—such as negotiated drug prices and standardized service rates—can lead to a more sustainable and affordable healthcare economy in the long run. Thus, while the transition may be financially and politically challenging at the outset, the long-term fiscal and societal benefits could far outweigh the initial investment.

Healthcare System Reorganization

Options include:

• Expanding Medicare into a universal program.
• Establishing a new federal healthcare agency.
• Introducing a public option alongside private insurance to gradually transition.

Addressing Health Equity

Constitutional healthcare could reduce disparities by:

• Ensuring consistent access to care across race, geography, and income.
• Closing gaps in chronic disease management and preventative services (Daniels, 2008).

Legal Precedents and Judicial Interpretation

In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing authority but confirmed that healthcare is not currently a constitutional right.

If a healthcare rights amendment is passed, courts would:

• Define the scope of “adequate care.”
• Oversee the government’s compliance with healthcare delivery obligations.

A constitutional right to healthcare represents a positive right, obligating government action to provide services. This contrasts with negative rights, such as free speech, which prevent government interference.

Policy Implementation Strategies

Universal Healthcare Models

• Single-Payer System: Government covers all healthcare costs.
• Multi-Payer System with Public Option: Citizens choose between government and private insurance plans.

Administrative Needs

• Build national health data systems.
• Expand the healthcare workforce through training and recruitment.
• Simplify billing processes to reduce administrative costs.

Funding Strategies

• Implement progressive taxation, where higher-income individuals contribute more.
• Reallocate existing healthcare spending, shifting funds from private insurance subsidies to public systems.

Political Feasibility and Public Opinion

Healthcare as a right has deep roots in American political history:

• Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights (1944) included healthcare.
• Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All campaigns have reignited interest in universal coverage.

Polling shows that a majority of Americans support universal healthcare, although opinions vary on whether it should be single-payer or a public option.

• 57% say government should ensure health coverage for all in U.S.
• 53% favor health system based on private insurance; 43%, a government-run one
• 72% of Democrats, 13% of Republicans support government-run system

To succeed, reform advocates must unite:

• Labor unions.
• Faith-based social justice groups.
• Healthcare workers.
• Patient advocacy organizations.

Potential Risks and Criticisms

Fiscal Concerns

Opponents fear that universal healthcare could:

• Increase taxes, especially for middle-income earners.
• Add to the national debt.

Implementation Challenges

Risks include:

• Disruption during the healthcare system transition.
• Service delivery bottlenecks as infrastructure catches up to demand.

Over-Medicalization Risks

Reform must balance clinical care with addressing social determinants of health, such as housing, education, and nutrition (Ruger, 2015).

Final Thought: Constitutionalizing Healthcare in the United States—A Vision for Structural Change and Social Justice

The movement to make healthcare a constitutional right in the United States is not merely a policy proposal—it is a profound shift in the nation’s moral and legal framework. Healthcare in the U.S. remains largely commodified, tied to employment and private markets, leaving millions uninsured or underinsured. As this paper has demonstrated, embedding healthcare into the Constitution would represent a systemic transformation, elevating health from a market service to a guaranteed human right.

The pathways to such reform are legally feasible but politically arduous. The Article V amendment process is intentionally difficult, designed to ensure that only issues of deep national consensus reshape the nation’s foundational document. Yet history shows that constitutional amendments have been pivotal in expanding civil rights, from the abolition of slavery to women’s suffrage and equal protection under the law. Adding healthcare to this lineage of social progress would solidify the nation’s commitment to dignity, equity, and public welfare.

Comparative case studies illustrate both the promise and the complexity of constitutional healthcare rights. Germany’s social health insurance model highlights how shared public-private responsibility can sustain universal coverage while preserving provider and patient choice. Canada’s single-payer system demonstrates that universality can be achieved through federal legislation without constitutional mandates, though political commitment is critical. South Africa’s explicit constitutional right to health underscores the power of legal guarantees but also reveals the challenges of implementation in resource-constrained settings. Brazil’s SUS system shows the potential of a constitutionally protected public health network but warns of the tensions between legal promises and practical delivery, especially in nations with deep social inequities.

For the United States, these international models offer critical lessons. First, constitutionalizing healthcare requires more than drafting legal text—it necessitates robust administrative infrastructure, sustainable funding, and political will. The U.S. would need to decide whether to adopt a single-payer model, a multi-payer system with public options, or an expansion of existing frameworks like Medicare. Each approach involves trade-offs, from funding mechanisms to impacts on private industry. Yet all options would need to prioritize equity, access, and quality of care.

Economically, universal healthcare could yield long-term benefits. Preventative care reduces reliance on emergency services, lowers chronic disease costs, and improves public health outcomes. Administrative simplification, such as reducing the complexity of billing systems, could save billions annually. However, the transition would not be without fiscal and operational challenges. Taxation structures would need restructuring, healthcare workers would require new training, and existing private healthcare entities would need to adapt to new roles within a reformed system.

Politically, the journey toward constitutional healthcare demands coalition building and grassroots mobilization. Labor unions, healthcare professionals, faith-based organizations, and social justice movements will need to align in pursuit of this goal. Public education campaigns must counter misinformation and build broad consensus around the idea that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Historical movements—such as the civil rights movement, the New Deal, and Medicare’s creation in 1965—show that sweeping reforms require public demand coupled with political leadership.

Yet advocates must also be cautious. Constitutionalizing healthcare without addressing the social determinants of health—such as poverty, housing, education, and environmental justice—risks medicalizing problems that are fundamentally social. A constitutional right to healthcare must be part of a broader vision of social welfare, one that addresses the root causes of health inequities rather than simply treating their symptoms.

In conclusion, making healthcare a constitutional right in the United States is both a legal possibility and a moral imperative. It represents a bold step toward a society where human dignity is prioritized over market interests and where the health of the nation is treated as a shared public responsibility. While the path forward is complex, it is navigable with careful policy design, learning from international models, and sustained democratic engagement. The stakes are high, but so is the potential for transformational change. If achieved, this reform would mark a new chapter in American democracy—one where justice is not only about legal protections but about ensuring that every person has the means to live a healthy, secure life.

Join the Conversation: We want to hear from you!!!

At the heart of healthcare reform is public dialogue. Constitutionalizing healthcare in the United States isn’t just a policy decision—it’s a moral, social, and democratic conversation. Your voice matters in shaping what healthcare justice looks like for future generations.

We invite you to reflect on the following questions and share your thoughts:

• Do you believe healthcare should be a constitutional right in the United States? Why or why not?
• What lessons do you think the U.S. can learn from countries like Germany, Canada, South Africa, or Brazil when it comes to healthcare reform?
• How would making healthcare a constitutional right affect your family, community, or profession?
• What fears or concerns do you have about transitioning to a universal healthcare system? How might they be addressed?
• Beyond healthcare access, what other social rights do you believe are essential for a just and equitable society?

Your insights can help move the conversation forward. Whether you’re a student, healthcare worker, policymaker, or concerned citizen, your perspective is valuable.

Send your responses, reflections, or additional questions to tobi@centerlinewoman.blog, or join the discussion on social media using #centerlinewomanblog

Together, we can imagine—and build—a healthier, more equitable future.

References

1. Blumenthal, D., & Collins, S. R. (2020). Health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act — A progress report. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(20), 1993–1996. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr2000082
2. Constitution of Brazil. (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
3. Constitution of South Africa. (1996). Section 27: Health care, food, water and social security. https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf
4. Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press.
5. Ferraz, O. L. M. (2009). The right to health in the courts of Brazil: Worsening health inequities? Health and Human Rights, 11(2), 33–45.
6. National Economic and Social Rights Initiative. (2021). Healthcare as a human right. https://www.nesri.org/programs/healthcare-as-a-human-right
7. Oberlander, J. (2019). The virtues and vices of single-payer health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(15), 1370–1372. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1901532
8. Paim, J., Travassos, C., Almeida, C., Bahia, L., & Macinko, J. (2011). The Brazilian health system: History, advances, and challenges. The Lancet, 377(9779), 1778–1797. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60054-8
9. Ruger, J. P. (2015). Health and social justice. Oxford University Press.
10. Starr, P. (2011). Remedy and reaction: The peculiar American struggle over health care reform. Yale University Press.
11. World Health Organization. (2017). Human rights and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health