Every country
should have a free health service, even if this means that the medical
treatment may not be available through the service because they are too
expensive. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Write in at least 250 words.
Many governments are mulling rendering free medical care to natives.
This, although has invited a lot of controversies, a majority vouches for such
a provision, even if the policy does not include extending advanced and costly
diagnostic and treatment system to public. But would this be practical enough?
Laying costless medical care at the disposal of the natives
of a country is a very feasible option, despite keeping too expensive
facilities out of the premise of the policy. This would be highly beneficial
for the society as a whole since a major part of population, including aged
people, of every country lives in miserable conditions, and are in no position
to afford even the basic medical assistance. Making available such assistance
would enable to the people to access medical support in times of need and get
adequate treatment at the right time.
On the top of that, the medical assistance categories, to be
kept out of the purview of the policy, are used to dispense treatment for some
major diseases and ailments. Most of the disease are primarily lifestyle
related and affect the elite class, and elite class can afford availing such
treatment. Furthermore, treatments needing expensive procedures could be
subsidized by the government and costs could be shared with the taxpayers and
other NGOs.
However, this proposal has serious flaws since the cost of
carrying out research to find new alternatives for new strains of even common
disease and disorders are rising. This would raise the cost of diagnose,
treatment and medicines, which eventually lead to exclusion of almost diseases
at some point of time. This would make free health support irrelevant and
useless.
To conclude, free services should include everything or
should be abolished altogether.