It has been argued that it is the individual citizen who should be responsible for their own health and not the state and that therefore, a free system of healthcare available to all is not required and should be abolished. This essay will show that the main advantage of free healthcare is that everyone, whatever their income status, has access to a basic level of care, whereas a major disadvantage is that such a system inevitably finds itself being abused.
A free health system applies equally to rich and poor alike. Therefore, people on low incomes can have medical attention when it is needed without worrying about whether they can afford it or not. For example, before the NHS (National Health System) in the UK was created after WW2, it is estimated that over 100, 000 people died annually due to being unable to pay for treatments for some serious illnesses. As a result of the creation of such a free system, no one need suffers unnecessarily because of the lack of money.
However, as such a system depends upon free and open access, there is the possibility of it being abused. There have been many stories in recent years of "health tourists", foreigners having expensive treatment for which they are not entitled. For example, the NHS itself estimated in 2015 that over 50 million pounds per annum was going on ELPS these foreign visitors and not being repaid. The consequence of this is that funds which should be spent on UK patients is being diverted elsewhere and not to where it should be intended for.
In conclusion, although free healthcare, regardless of income, is undoubtedly a significant advantage to poor citizens, the potential for misuse of the system and its valuable resources by undeserving foreigners is possibly its biggest disadvantage.
It has
been argued
that it is the individual citizen who should be responsible for their
own
health
and not the state and that
therefore
, a
free
system
of healthcare available to all is not required and should
be abolished
. This essay will
show
that the main advantage of
free
healthcare is that everyone, whatever their income status, has access to a basic level of care, whereas a major disadvantage is that such a
system
inevitably
finds itself
being abused
.
A
free
health
system
applies
equally
to rich and poor alike.
Therefore
,
people
on low incomes can have medical attention when it
is needed
without worrying about whether they can afford it or not.
For example
,
before
the NHS (National
Health
System)
in the UK
was created
after WW2, it
is estimated
that over 100, 000
people
died
annually
due to being unable to pay for treatments for
some
serious illnesses.
As a result
of the creation of such a
free
system
, no one need suffers
unnecessarily
because
of the lack of money.
However
, as such a
system
depends upon
free
and open access, there is the possibility of it
being abused
. There have been
many
stories in recent years of
"
health tourists
"
, foreigners having expensive treatment for which they are not entitled.
For example
, the NHS itself estimated in 2015 that over 50 million pounds per annum was going on
ELPS
these foreign visitors and not being repaid. The consequence of this is that funds which should
be spent
on UK patients is
being diverted
elsewhere and not to where it should
be intended
for.
In conclusion
, although
free
healthcare, regardless of income, is
undoubtedly
a significant advantage to poor citizens, the potential for misuse of the
system
and its valuable resources by undeserving foreigners is
possibly
its biggest disadvantage.