Between universality and restriction

access to health care for non-resident foreigners in Brazil and Argentina

Abstract

Health is recognized as a human and fundamental right in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 and in international documents, but its effectiveness faces limitations arising from migration, sovereignty, and fiscal constraints. In Mercosur, these difficulties are amplified by divergent policies, such as the Brazilian universalist model and the Argentine rule that began to require insurance or payment for non-resident foreigners. Objective: to comparatively analyze the normative models of Brazil and Argentina, seeking to understand the legal, social, and political impacts of the Argentine measure on the process of regional integration. Method: a qualitative methodology was adopted, of exploratory and comparative character, based on documentary, normative, and jurisprudential analysis, with a deductive focus from the constitutional and international principles related to the right to health, human dignity, equality, and regional integration. Results: showed that Brazil guarantees comprehensive and free care to any person in national territory, while Argentina began to restrict access, preserving only emergency cases or permanent residents. This normative asymmetry reveals a clash of rationalities, in which universality contrasts with the restrictive logic guided by fiscal sustainability. The Argentine measure weakens the construction of regional citizenship in health and puts at risk the coherence of the integration project, by treating citizens of the bloc in the same way as extraregional tourists. Conclusion: the consolidation of Mercosur citizenship requires a minimum harmonization of health policies, especially in border areas, in order to balance the sustainability of national systems and the effective protection of fundamental rights, ensuring greater cohesion and regional solidarity.