Government should fund completely healthcare for everyone. Is this a positive or negative development?

It is argued that the Medical Care should be subsidized entirely by the authorities of each nation. Whatever considering from any sides, this development from the state has both merits and demerits. On the one hand, it’s a wise development because health care is the basic right of every individual. If the government provides free health care totally, then this will make an equal opportunity to approach full medical services for all cases of residents including low-income and homeless people. It is a matter of the fact that the cost of medical care is exorbitantly unaffordable to them. In other words, the citizens can receive health care fully and totally, follows that, the social diseases will be controlled closely, in which HIV is a case in point. Furthermore, the investment towards curing and preventing diseases enhances the health of the public. The healthier are people, the fewer are cases of treatments that are required in the future. Obviously, when this fund is in the progress, the government can save national budget. On the other hand, despite having numerous beneficial aspects, this development also gives some disadvantages relating directly to the fact happening in most countries at present. There are some residents who don’t have a sense of using service economically and reasonably. As a clear illustration, they abuse hospital-service instead of being independent of self-medicating at home without unnecessary fees. This leads to give rise to the wasteful use of equipment and services regarding doctor’s cure. Clearly it also means gaining financial burden on government’s limited resources. Hence, we can conclude by saying that funding the medical cares for everyone has both pros and cons, but it depends on the way the government effectuate.