‘Healthcare should always be funded by governments, and it should always be free for people to use.’ To what extent do you agree or disagree with this idea?

Few topics are more important than a nation’s health care, and the issue of payment will probably always be controversial. It seems to me that the sheer cost of universal, free health care 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 medical care 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 well-being services are economically unsustainable. The

next

issue relates to the cost of modern medicines, which can be extremely high if the latest drugs are used by fitness providers.

This

means that the cost of providing treatment rises almost without limits, making the permanent supply of free treatments not affordable. 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 medical insurance of users from many other nations,

this

is surely a

further

significant factor which clearly makes a universal strength service impractical. Admittedly, I agree with those who argue that free a medical 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 well-being.

However

, due to demographics and costs,

this

needs to be supplemented by other methods,

such

as private insurance.