Few topics are more important than a nation’s healthcare, and the issue of payment will probably
always be controversial. It seems to me that the sheer cost of universal, free healthcare makes this an impractical
aspiration, no matter how much we might admire the idea.
The main obstacle would appear to be the number of recipients of healthcare compared to the
taxpayers are who need to fund it. Especially in countries with ageing populations such as Europe, the tax
burden on workers becomes intolerably high, and can eventually stifle economic growth. These painful lessons,
shown by states such as France, seem to demonstrate that completely free healthcare is economically
unsustainable. A further issue relates to the cost of modern medicines, which can be extremely high if the latest
drugs are used by health providers. This means that the cost of providing treatment rises almost without
limits, making the permanent supply of free treatments unaffordable. One final point against this proposal is
the added issue of globalisation, by which people move increasingly freely between countries. If this means the
taxpayers of one nation are now obliged to fund the healthcare of users from many other nations, this is surely
a further significant factor which clearly makes a universal health service impractical.
Admittedly, I agree with those who argue that free a health service is a worthy ambition for a country
to have, and that we should all contribute something to the welfare of our fellow citizens. However, this
aspiration suffers significantly when confronted with financial reality.
To summarise, it seems reasonable for the state to fund as much as possible of the nation’s healthcare.
However, due to demographics and costs, this needs to be supplemented by other methods, such as private
insurance.
Few topics are more
important
than a
nation’s
healthcare, and the issue of payment will
probably
always
be controversial. It seems to me that the sheer
cost
of universal,
free
healthcare
makes
this an
impractical
aspiration
, no matter how much we might admire the
idea
.
The main obstacle would appear to be the number of recipients of healthcare compared to the
taxpayers
are who need to fund it.
Especially
in countries with
ageing
populations such as Europe, the
tax
burden
on workers becomes
intolerably
high, and can
eventually
stifle economic growth. These painful lessons,
shown by states such as France, seem to demonstrate that completely
free
healthcare is
economically
unsustainable
. A
further
issue relates to the
cost
of modern medicines, which can be
extremely
high if the
latest
drugs
are
used
by health providers. This means that the
cost
of providing treatment rises almost
without
limits
, making the permanent supply of
free
treatments unaffordable. One final point against this proposal
is
the
added
issue of
globalisation
, by which
people
move
increasingly
freely
between countries. If this means
the
taxpayers of one
nation
are
now
obliged to fund the healthcare of users from
many
other
nations
, this is
surely
a
further
significant factor which
clearly
makes
a universal health service impractical.
Admittedly
, I
agree
with those who argue that
free
a health service is a worthy ambition for a country
to
have, and that we should all contribute something to the welfare of our fellow citizens.
However
, this
aspiration
suffers
significantly
when confronted with financial reality.
To
summarise
, it seems reasonable for the state to fund as much as possible of the
nation’s
healthcare.
However
, due to demographics and
costs
, this needs to
be supplemented
by other methods, such as private
insurance
.