Public or Private Healthcare
The costs of medical health care are increasing all the time. Governments are finding it difficult to balance the healthcare budget. Should citizens be totally responsible for their own health costs and take out private health insurance, or is it better to have a comprehensive healthcare system which provides free health services for all? Discuss both views.
Policymakers today are grappling with how to best balance allocations on healthcare as medical costs have been constantly on an increase. Some side with an all-encompassing, free-of-charge healthcare system while those who decry it herald premium health insurance. The purpose of this essay is to discuss both sides of this contentious argument and then explain why I agree with the former.
Opponents of universal healthcare point to a combination of reasons. First and foremost, it does not seem right for governments to cover all their citizens’ medical expenses given other areas might be in dire need of subsidies. If governments insist on providing free health services for the citizenry, there will likely be an imbalance in the way the state fund is allocated to other issues such as national security or education. Another compelling reason is that there are tangible benefits to owning private health insurance. To illustrate, the average person on a publicly-funded health program typically has to wait in line for check-ups, diagnoses, treatments, and surgeries, while a privately-funded patient can be quickly admitted and receive premium services.
Nonetheless, I am in favour of governments providing their citizens with free healthcare access. The primary reason is that less affluent members of society may find themselves unable to afford costly pharmaceuticals and operations in life-threatening conditions. To this end, healthcare coverage would help them avoid an economic burden, better recuperate, and later lead a more healthy life. Furthermore, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens’ well-being. With government subsidies, everyone can have equal access to quality treatments, irrespective of socioeconomic class, and, in the aggregate, this constitutes a healthier, better society.
In conclusion, despite the perceived conveniences of privately funded health insurance, I believe that free healthcare should be implemented for the collective good of all citizens. Governments, therefore, should invest more in maintaining and developing medical facilities and infrastructure to enhance public health.
Essay Breakdown
Structure
Introduction
[1] Policymakers today are grappling with how to best balance allocations on healthcare as medical costs have been constantly on an increase. [2] Some side with an all-encompassing, free-of-charge healthcare system while those who decry it herald premium health insurance. [3] The purpose of this essay is to discuss both sides of this contentious argument and then explain why I agree with the former.
1. Write a clear general statement to rephrase the first sentence of the given topic.
2. Write a clear general statement to rephrase the second sentence of the given topic.
3. Write a clear statement to answer the displayed topic question and then assert personal opinions
Body
Paragraph 1
[1] Opponents of universal healthcare point to a combination of reasons. [2] First and foremost, it does not seem right for governments to cover all their citizens’ medical expenses given other areas might be in dire need of subsidies. [3] If governments insist on providing free health services for the citizenry, there will likely be an imbalance in the way the state fund is allocated to other issues such as national security or education. [4] Another compelling reason is that there are tangible benefits to owning private health insurance. [5] To illustrate, the average person on a publicly-funded health program typically has to wait in line for check-ups, diagnoses, treatments, and surgeries, while a privately-funded patient can be quickly admitted and receive premium services.
1. Begin with a topic sentence displaying the main idea – reasons why people discourage universal healthcare.
2. Introduce the first supporting idea regarding the given topic – the disadvantage that governments might have to deal with.
3. Explain the mentioned drawback by giving possible consequences in a hypothetical circumstance citing the mentioned supporting idea.
4. Introduce the second supporting idea by giving some evident benefits of private health insurance.
5. Explain it by providing a specific example – the differences between publicly-funded health programs and privately-funded healthcare systems.
Paragraph 2
[1] Nonetheless, I am in favour of governments providing their citizens with free healthcare access. [2] The primary reason is that less affluent members of society may find themselves unable to afford costly pharmaceuticals and operations in life-threatening conditions. [3] To this end, healthcare coverage would help them avoid an economic burden, better recuperate, and later lead a more healthy life. [4] Furthermore, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens’ well-being. [5] With government subsidies, everyone can have equal access to quality treatments, irrespective of socioeconomic class, and, in the aggregate, this constitutes a healthier, better society.
1. Topic sentence with the main idea – reasons to support free healthcare access.
2. Introduce the first supporting idea.
3. Explain it by giving more detailed information.
4. Introduce the second supporting idea – governments are responsible for taking care of their citizens’ health.
5. Explain the second idea by giving possible benefits in terms of health and social aspect.
Conclusion
[1] In conclusion, despite the perceived conveniences of privately funded health insurance, I believe that free healthcare should be implemented for the collective good of all citizens. [2] Governments, therefore, should invest more in maintaining and developing medical facilities and infrastructure to enhance public health.
1. Restate my opinion.
2. Extend the viewpoint by stating a final thought.
Vocabulary
Policymakers today are grappling with how to best balance allocations on healthcare as medical costs have been constantly on an increase. Some side with an all-encompassing, free-of-charge healthcare system while those who decry it herald premium health insurance. The purpose of this essay is to discuss both sides of this contentious argument and then explain why I agree with the former.
Opponents of universal healthcare point to a combination of reasons. First and foremost, it does not seem right for governments to cover all their citizens’ medical expenses given other areas might be in dire need of subsidies. If governments insist on providing free health services for the citizenry, there will likely be an imbalance in the way the state fund is allocated to other issues such as national security or education. Another compelling reason is that there are tangible benefits to owning private health insurance. To illustrate, the average person on a publicly-funded health program typically has to wait in line for check-ups, diagnoses, treatments, and surgeries, while a privately-funded patient can be quickly admitted and receive premium services.
Nonetheless, I am in favour of governments providing their citizens with free healthcare access. The primary reason is that less affluent members of society may find themselves unable to afford costly pharmaceuticals and operations in life-threatening conditions. To this end, healthcare coverage would help them avoid an economic burden, better recuperate, and later lead a more healthy life. Furthermore, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens’ well-being. With government subsidies, everyone can have equal access to quality treatments, irrespective of socioeconomic class, and, in the aggregate, this constitutes a healthier, better society.
In conclusion, despite the perceived conveniences of privately funded health insurance, I believe that free healthcare should be implemented for the collective good of all citizens. Governments, therefore, should invest more in maintaining and developing medical facilities and infrastructure to enhance public health.
Vocabulary Highlight
- grapple with something (verb): to try hard to find a solution to a problem
- allocation (noun): an amount of money (space, etc.) that is given to somebody for a particular purpose
- on an increase: on the rise
- all-encompassing (free-of-charge) healthcare system: the healthcare service that includes everything without fees
- decry (verb): to strongly criticize somebody/something, especially publicly
- contentious argument: controversial argument
- medical expenses: medical costs
- in dire need of something: in serious need of
- subsidy (noun): money that is paid by a government or an organization to reduce the costs of services or of producing goods so that their prices can be kept low
- tangible benefits: outstanding benefits
- publicly-funded (# privately-funded) health programme : a healthcare system that is funded by the government (# the private business)
- diagnosis (noun): the act of discovering or identifying the exact cause of an illness or a problem
- be admitted to something: to take somebody to a hospital or other institution where they can receive special care
- affluent member: wealthy individual
- pharmaceutical(s) (noun) [usually plural]: a medical drug
- life-threatening conditions: a circumstance that could threaten one’s life
- recuperate (verb): to recover
- well-being: health
- irrespective of something: regardless of
- in the aggregate: added together as a total or single amount
- constitute (verb): to make up (to form something/ to create)
Reading
Further reading about this topic can be found here:
Listening
Further listening about this topic can be found here:
