Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A general perception is emerging that social health insurance is not reasonable and people with excellent health should not pay for sick counterparts. I completely disagree with this statement and shall discuss in the following paragraphs.

To start with, a lobby hypothesizes that one should not bear the  brunt of extending treatment for the ailing since the responsibility lies on the shoulders of governments. They have the means and resources to dispense available medical interventions for the betterment of those afflicted by health issues. Moreover, this system can make many, especially youngsters, bereft from saving for their autumn years, or emergencies; consequently, making their future bleak. For example, in Japan, a recent survey revealed that many are unable to accumulate enough for their retirement since most of the income is being directed towards universal insurance.

Having said that, a group strongly asserts that ‘as you sow so shall you reap’. If one starts funding for those suffering from ill-health today, in the future someone will do the same for them too. This kindness will precipitate an ever-lasting loop of support for each other. Similarly, the world is facing unprecedented incidence of disease, and their treatments are exorbitantly priced, mainly for the destitute populace. This arrangement will aid many in alleviating the monetary burden and afford treatments. To corroborate, many in France pay a substantial amount for the healthcare on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, helping a number of destitute ill to avail suitable medical treatments.

To conclude, disputes aside, everyone should pay for unified national health insurance since it will enable creation of a socially assuring   network and  allow many to afford treatments - rather than abandoning them - and such gestures will surely have reciprocal results for the payers.

Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. 

Why do people say so 

• The sick are in such a condition because of their unhealthy lifestyles, so others should be made to bear the brunt 

• Everyone is paying taxes, so governments should pay for this, instead of making citizens part with their earnings 

Why this insurance is not bad  

• This can help everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic background 

• This buttresses against unexpected medical conditions 

• Afford preventative health checkup and precautions 

• A bulwark in conditions when one is struck by joblessness or losses 

• An assurance for twilight years 

• This can also help mitigate the cost of health services 

• This an insurance against spread of infectious disease 

While some are against the unified national health insurance policy because they feel it robs those with good health and supports the ailing, there is strong dissent on this notion; it is felt this system affords numerous mutual benefits to inhabitants of a country.

It  is generally perceived that this arrangement is quite unfair as it tends to penalize individuals enjoying robust health for the sake of others who through their unhealthy ways of life have been afflicted by illness. A growing number of people are suffering from diseases that are primarily caused by unsustainable lifestyle and harmful habits, and thus, the burden of treating them should not be transferred to others.

However, this allegation lacks substance, for it completely overlooks the advantages social insurance can bring: apart from making health services affordable for everyone-ensuring equitable distribution of resources, this can also act as a buffer for medical emergencies during crisis, and twilight years  when disorders are common and monetary  resources are scarce. To exemplify, In the UK, everyone willingly subscribes to this scheme as they feel it renders them unprecedented security.

Similarly, this kind of program acts as an insurance against the spread of infectious diseases;  availability of such settings allows early detection and treatment of the affected population, and halting proliferation of infection, thereby protecting everyone. To corroborate, only those countries suffered lesser loss of life during pandemic in 2020, which had brought their complete demographies under the ambit of integrated national insurance. 

In hindsight, social insurance extends a helping hand to every citizen when they are facing medical conditions, particularly to those in their autumn years, and also does a great service to society by curtailing the advancement of contagious illnesses. Therefore, I feel this should be applied in every country.   

Intro 1

A unified national health insurance policy mandating contributions from all citizens has been a standard in several countries for some years now, but the detractors of this system  deride it on the grounds that it robs those with good health, and supports the ailing. However, I consider this notion as a short-sighted notion since it disregards mutual benefits. 

Intro 2  

A school of thought claims that the unified national health insurance policy is unjust because it makes those with good health to support the ailing, but this view can be challenged on various grounds since this system affords numerous mutual benefits to inhabitants of a country