CRW 2 Mon/Wed 4:30 Class (Unit 3 Medicine)
September 9, 2020
Hello everyone. This homework is from Wednesday, Sept. 9 and it is due by Sunday, Sept. 13th at 5:00 PM.
Please write your opinion on the following topic: Should everyone have access to free healthcare? Explain. (approx 150 words)
30 Comments
leave one →
English Language Pages 
I believe that healthcare should be provided to everyone regardless of one’s economic level or social status. My thought has been much more firm after observing how the Korean government reacted to current pandemic issues. We are currently living in the world, which is a so-called super-connected society, and in this society, an infectious disease not only places a burden on a certain country but also on many other countries. It is evident that medical privatization promotes the development of medical technology, however, it is very disadvantageous in certain circumstances such as the current pandemic situation. infected people who cannot pay for medical care have no choice but to die or spread the virus to others unconsciously since they have no access to proper treatments. Moreover, in terms of fairness, a country has to provide proper medical services to all of its residents. In order to maintain our planet clean and peaceful, I believe each nation is responsible for the appropriate healthcare system of its citizens.
Everyone should not have a chance to get free healthcare. There are three reasons that governments do not have to pay for all citizens’ healthcare. First of all, it can be lower-quality medical care that patients get for free. People have different backgrounds such as age, wealth, employment, or disability. Patients who have enough money to pay for any treatment, want to get higher-quality care regardless of cost. In addition, if anyone can get free medical services, some people might abuse the system like overusing medicines and surgeries. Also, it is the individual’s responsibility to care for health. Each person has responsible for the consumption that occurs in medical treatments. Then, low-income, and poor people can hesitate to go to the hospital because of high medical expenses, even if they are sick. In this case, governments may pay for the treatment to a certain extent. However, there is no need to give healthcare to everyone in society for free.
I don’t think that everyone should have access to a free healthcare system. Is it ‘Free’ to everyone always occur positive benefits? It is evident that the 21st century is circulated by Capitalism. So, it is inevitable that the distribution of wealth is uneven. Wealthy people might want to receive the medical system in more high quality. But it is not sure that public or free health care always guarantees the best service of high quality. If it is not possible to provide a free health care system at a certain level that can satisfy everyone, it is desirable to leave it up to the individual’s choice. Moreover, we should reconsider the economic problems caused by the free healthcare system. Free healthcare will cost a lot of budgets to provide medical services to every people. The main policy always required financial burdens on government, and these are also related to our taxes. However, I also agree that people who cannot afford expensive healthcare should receive appropriate medical services. Therefore, in my opinion, the government should adopt a mixed system based on different factors like economics, politics, or cultures. A mixed system can give solutions to the problems arising from free healthcare.
I don’t think everyone should have access to free healthcare. Because free medical system can place a financial burden on the government and people. If free medical system is provided, hospitals and various healthcare will be run by the government. However, exceeding the limit of the government’s cost can lead to an increase in mandatory insurance fee. And lack of finance can cause poor quality of healthcare. For example, the UK has a public health system called the National Health Service. However, the problem of a serious shortage of medical personnel and equipment is being raised due to limited financial resources in the current period of COVID-19. This free medical system may increase the financial burden and reduce the quality of medical services. But it may not guarantee the citizens’ right to be healthy, resulting in a problem of equality. As a solution to this, I think it is a good way to provide medical support to people who are unable to use medical services well due to cost according to the government’s financial situation.
I think that healthcare should be easy for everyone to use. Regardless of age or gender, we all have the right to be treated fairly. The easier access to treatment is, after all, improving the quality of our lives. Let’s think about the current situation. Regardless of the country, all over the world, we are all suffering from a highly contagious disease. In order to prevent this infection quickly, the government is implementing a free treatment policy. As a result, we can prevent the spread of a wider epidemic. If we didn’t have easy access to free treatment, people who couldn’t afford it would not be able to get it, and then the epidemic wouldn’t easily subside. And citizens can ease the burden of money for healthcare. Eventually this will improve the quality of life for us and our neighbors. And we paid taxes, we should be treated fairly accordingly. I think it’s right to provide equal service to everyone but pay extra for high quality treatment because there may be problems such as abuse and lack of manpower.
Absolutely yes. As you know, the importance of health care which makes our feelings better is becoming more important in these days. In the situation of covid-19, we’ve already seen a variety of serious problems, especially health care system. According to living standards, people who lives high level of life can treat their illness and the other person who do not have enough money to treat their disease has died. Is it really fair or unfair? We are living on this same planet and it is not an individual problem, but the universal matter which solves for all of us, even though there are financial problems. We should have avoided being selfish and pursue a sense of community. Workers pay according to how much they earn, and employers also make a contribution. The easy access to treat their illness is to ensure that everyone can use healthcare services without financial burden. This makes society more productive, also raise work force, economic growth.
This is the reason why we should health care be free.
Some people think healthcare should be free for public health improvement. But there are no need and even it’s better not to implement public medical care.
It would be good if we don’t have to pay for our discomfort of body, but is it right? The lower the charge when we get to doctor, the lower the quality we take. Doctors will treat more patients than before and it could make them skim their sufferers.
Also, free healthcare service is related to the equality of payment. If it becomes free, who pays for it? The people who break the rules of health like smokers, heavy drinkers and the people who really pay attention for their health will pay equally.
Actually, there are some cases that the government should intervene in individual disease or injury like pandemic or in emergency. However, in general situation, considering many points about clinical service, it’s absolutely right not to be free.
I disagree that free healthcare should be accessible to all citizens. Free healthcare requires a certain amount of budget for its foundation and maintenance. This can cause taxes to fly up high. Also, some people may abuse or overuse free healthcare, which can lead to the waste of the healthcare budget and an unnecessary tax increase. On the other hand, as healthcare-related companies do not have to compete over customers, the quality of the overall healthcare may decrease. These are the reasons why I believe free healthcare for all citizens would be inefficient.
On the other hand, free healthcare proponents may claim that systems other than free healthcare can cause a financial burden for those who do not have a lot of money and that free healthcare could complement this problem. However, I believe this can be settled with the help of governmental welfare. Hence, I believe free healthcare should only be permitted to certain people who need financial help.
Providing free healthcare to everyone has a few limits(economic etc). So I disagree with that. But I think each country has an obligation to help its people minimize their concerns about health. In case of Korea, medical service is good and hospital bills are very cheap compared to other countries. So when Koreans are not feeling well, they can go to the hospital without the burden of paying. On the contrary, in case of U.S., medical services are not developed well and hospital bills are super expensive so even if Americans are sick, they can’t easily go to the hospital. I heard that they are vulnerable to infectious diseases because they don’t even get shots.
I think it’s irresponsible for the state to make its people pay such huge amounts of money to hospitals. It means the state is not interested in the health of its people. If country lower their medical bills and develop medical services more instead of providing free healthcare to everyone, it is believed that almost everyone including people in need will also be able to take good care of their health.
I disagree that everyone should have access to free healthcare.
Because the first, There is possibility of abusing medical resources. If people can access healthcare for free, People who have illnesses which are able to cure themselves are going to the hospital easily. That means increasing number of patients. So, It is essential to supply sufficient hospital facilities and laborers as much as to increase patients. But, medical resources are limited in reality. As a result, This situation can lead to abuse limited medical resources and eventually patients who need treatment desperately can’t take medical service on time.
The second, There is possibility of stagnating healthcare. I think that motivation makes competition and competition leads development in every parts of human life. However, if healthcare is get free for everyone, That can make to lose motivation for enterprises and employees who work in this part. Because I think profits and salaries can be one of the most important part of motivation for people. So losing motivation can make disappearance of competition in service, facilities, technologies and workers. As a result, That can show us low quality of facilities and services, stagnation of technologies and unskilled workers.
In conclusion, I don’t think that everyone should have access to free healthcare.
I think all people don’t have to have public healthcare.
First, there would be a lower quality of medical service. For example, if there is no incentive for doctors who achieve results, in a public healthcare case, we would receive lower-quality medical treatment. Furthermore, it can occur the remarkably slower speed of medical care’s development.
Second, there also would be an imbalance problem between hospitals or doctors. Doctors’ ability to give treatment to patients is all different and they want to get it for a doctor who has a better capacity. At this point, the problem, imbalance of the medical system, happen. In the health professional aspect, it is the problem that their work is concentrated on one side.
Third, there can happen about cost, a budget of the government. Public healthcare needs more costs and there will be more unnecessary treatments than private healthcare. So, it will appear the government’s budget deficit of medical attention. Also, this problem can have a negative effect on not only medical service but also other welfare systems.
I agree that healthcare should be free to all citizens. First of all, everyone has the right of equal opportunity. Almost individuals become sick regardless of their economic condition or social status. Then there are responsibility for the government to give a financial help for their right to equality. In addition, with current situation ‘Covid-19’., if someone who are not afford to take a test for this strong infectious disease live on without any free medical services, we cannot avoid a huge pandemic. So the government has to serve free tests or healthcare system to every nationals. Lastly,
Providing free healthcare to everyone has a few limits. So I disagree with that, but I think each country has an obligation to help its people minimize their concerns about health. In case of Korea, medical service is good and hospital bills are very cheap compared to other countries. So, when Koreans are not feeling well, they can go to the hospital without the burden of paying. On the contrary, in case of U.S., hospital bills are super expensive so even if they are sick, they can’t easily go to hospital. I heard that they are vulnerable to infectious diseases because they don’t even get shots. I think it is irresponsible for the state to make its people pay such huge amounts of money to hospitals. It means the state is not interested in the health of its people.
If country lower their medical bills and develop medical services more instead of providing free healthcare to everyone, almost everyone including people in need will also be able to take good care of their health.
I disagree with that everyone should have access to free healthcare. South Korea currently adopts a medical insurance system in which the state pays most of the medical expenses. People pay for their health insurance depended on their income levels. Therefore, the healthcare system in South Korea is mostly run on the taxes paid by wealthy people. Therefore, providing free healthcare for everyone results in low-quality medical service. Furthermore, this underfunding can cause a reduction in wages for medical workers, which leads to a reduction in the essential workforces. Also, this underfunding makes it difficult to cope with epidemic diseases such as Covid-19. Low quality medical services and lack of workforce can’t deal with the simultaneous medical burden such as a lot of medical expenses from a number of patients. In conclusion, I think a mixed system is better than free healthcare system because of these reasons.
Lastly, if medical services requires money, the gap between the poor and the rich will getting bigger in terms of health. People who are afford to require expensive treatments use them and can keep healthy life otherwise people who cannot pay for this must be vulnerable to disease.
Theses are supporting details why I agree with free health system for everyone.
I agree that healthcare should be free to all citizens. First of all, everyone has the right of equal opportunity. Almost individuals become sick regardless of their economic condition or social status. Then there are responsibility for the government to give a financial help for their right to equality. In addition, with current situation ‘Covid-19’., if someone who are not afford to take a test for this strong infectious disease live on without any free medical services, we cannot avoid a huge pandemic. So the government has to serve free tests or healthcare system to every nationals. Lastly, if medical services requires money, the gap between the poor and the rich will getting bigger in terms of health. People who are afford to require expensive treatments use them and can keep healthy life otherwise people who cannot pay for this must be vulnerable to disease.
Theses are supporting details why I agree with free health system for everyone.
I agree that healthcare should be free to all citizens. First of all, everyone has the right of equal opportunity. Almost individuals become sick regardless of their economic condition or social status. Then there are responsibility for the government to give a financial help for their right to equality. In addition, with current situation ‘Covid-19’., if someone who are not afford to take a test for this strong infectious disease live on without any free medical services, we cannot avoid a huge pandemic. So the government has to serve free tests or healthcare system to every nationals. Lastly, if medical services requires money, the gap between the poor and the rich will getting bigger in terms of health. People who are afford to require expensive treatments use them and can keep healthy life otherwise people who cannot pay for this must be vulnerable to disease.
Theses are supporting details why I agree with free health system for everyone.
I disagree with that everyone should have access to free healthcare. South Korea currently adopts a medical insurance system in which the state pays most of the medical expenses. People pay for their health insurance depended on their income levels. Therefore, the healthcare system in South Korea is mostly run on the taxes paid by wealthy people. Therefore, providing free healthcare for everyone results in low-quality medical service. Furthermore, this underfunding can cause a reduction in wages for medical workers, which leads to a reduction in the essential workforces. Also, this underfunding makes it difficult to cope with epidemic diseases such as Covid-19. Low quality medical services and lack of workforce can’t deal with the simultaneous medical burden such as a lot of medical expenses from a number of patients. In conclusion, I think a mixed system is better than free healthcare system because of these reasons.
I would say that healthcare should be easily accessible to everyone in a country. There are two reasons for this opinion.
First, public healthcare can guarantee fairness to people. The government is an institution that works for the citizen of the whole country and is obliged to consider people who may go through many changes such as unemployment or sudden accidents in their lives. Free healthcare system can be a great way to protect the safety of the people in various situations where nobody knows the future. In countries without free healthcare, health insurance policies are mostly used as an alternative. However, these policies cannot sufficiently meet the human rights standards (Article 25 of the UHDR) which is about health-protected, because they might make public access hard.
In addition, many proponents of medical privatization say that a free system leads to low quality, but it’s clear that medical technology is evolving day by day around the world. So, what the world needs to do is to fund more actively in the medical industry. But more important thing is to ensure everyone’s health care to improve the quality of people’s lives, ranging from poor to rich and young to old. While choosing public healthcare, the government should try to create a better medical environment, accumulating costs with taxes.
I strongly disagree with the statement that everyone should be able to access free healthcare. There are two supporting reasons :
To begin with, individuals paying for medical expenses increases self-consciousness about health. If medical care becomes free for all citizens, everyone might go to the hospital even if they do not have serious diseases. Once a person pays the exorbitant prescription and treatment charges, he becomes wary of the expenses involved in the process. As a result, he makes conscious efforts to keep himself fit and healthy.
Secondly, free medical service will put a heavy burden on the government’s funds. In order to assure a good quality of life to its citizen, the government should invest a lot of money in medical infrastructures. However, in fact, it is impossible to afford all the expenses of healthcare. Because of these problems, there is also a risk that taxes collected from the people will be used disproportionately.
For these supporting reasons, I think free medical healthcare should not be free for everyone.
I disagree with everyone getting free healthcare. It seems like just a good medical system, but we have to keep in mind that nothing in the world is for free. What I want to emphasize most is the quality of medical treatment. Many medical personnel in countries that enforce free healthcare usually do not receive high salaries or benefits. So many of them often go abroad or work without any responsibility or sense of duty for their jobs. The more this phenomenon continues, the lower the quality of medical care which people will receive. Free health service also comes with financial problems. In the United Kingdom, famous for its free medical services, as the population is gradually increasing and aging, there is a shortage of medical funds annually. This causes long waiting time for treatment or consultation, which often creates many patients dying without any treatment. For these two reasons, I believe letting everyone get free healthcare is not quite ideal.
Everyone should have access to free healthcare for a number of reasons. It is an absolute fact the human life and dignity are the foremost values that must be protected and respected. And in order to live that protected life, a healthy and safe condition is the chief factor to be guaranteed. This is not only the country’s obligation, but also is our duty as the members of the society to help our neighbors. Therefore, to fulfill the obligations, healthcare should be open for anyone in need. In addition, public healthcare ensures the equality of opportunity. The environment and condition every human being are born and live in vary. In other words, some are born poor, some are born with disabilities, or some are stricken with a severe disease overnight. Like so, taking account of unfavorable conditions, to pace along while competing with others within a society, every citizen’s starting lines need to be constantly attempted to be lined as one. This then leads to idea that free healthcare provides safety nets. Medical treatments without insurance could leave one flounder with heavy financial burdens, even if one’s not in poverty. Moreover, if that patient carries a chronic disease or needs a regular check up, it would be impossible for him to escape the hardships of paying medical bills. The safety net from free healthcare therefore allows freedom from financial sufferings, which would eventually increase the overall quality of life.
Lastly, free access to healthcare provides more benefits from a boarder and future-orientated perspective. Some might argue that public healthcare would decrease the quality in medical services due to less competence between hospitals. However, the doctors and hospitals top priority is to cure the sick, and that means human life is not a consumable commodity. With that objective satisfied and with giving the access of healthcare to the ones in need, in fact, it would naturally result in the demand of medical businesses to grow. And this, also leads to the medical industries to develop and vitalize, which would eventually increase the quality in healthcare system. For these reasons, free healthcare must be accessible for everyone.
Lastly, free access to healthcare provides more benefits from a boarder and future-orientated perspective. Some might argue that public healthcare would decrease the quality in medical services due to less competence between hospitals. However, the doctors and hospitals top priority is to cure the sick, and that means human life is not a consumable commodity. With that objective satisfied and with giving the access of healthcare to the ones in need, in fact, it would naturally result in the demand of medical businesses to grow. And this, also leads to the medical industries to develop and vitalize, which would eventually increase the quality in healthcare system. For these reasons, free healthcare must be accessible for everyone.
I do think that everyone should have access to free healthcare. It is the reason why everyone should have access to free healthcare. There are lots of people living in this country. Few people are super rich, and some people are so poor. There is a saying “The world is consist of 2 percent of rich people and 98 percent of poor or normal people.” Naturally, rich people can go get private healthcare service of high quality. But, think about poor people. Do you really think they have enough money to get private healthcare service? I don’t think so. They would think that suffering from a disease is better than paying money for healthcare service. So. When government pay all the money to people, every one can get free healthcare service. And if rich people want to get high quality private healthcare service, then they can go pay more money and get it. I think when people have free healthcare, it would be ideal country to live in.
Everyone should have access to free healthcare for a number of reasons. It is an absolute fact the human life and dignity are the foremost values that must be protected and respected. And in order to live that protected life, a healthy and safe condition is the chief factor to be guaranteed. This is not only the country’s obligation, but also is our duty as the members of the society to help our neighbors. Therefore, to fulfill the obligations, healthcare should be open for anyone in need. In addition, public healthcare ensures the equality of opportunity. The environment and condition every human being are born and live in vary. In other words, some are born poor, some are born with disabilities, or some are stricken with a severe disease overnight. Like so, taking account of unfavorable conditions, to pace along while competing with others within a society, every citizen’s starting lines need to be constantly attempted to be lined as one. This then leads to idea that free healthcare provides safety nets. Medical treatments without insurance could leave one flounder with heavy financial burdens, even if one’s not in poverty. Moreover, if that patient carries a chronic disease or needs a regular check up, it would be impossible for him to escape the hardships of paying medical bills. The safety net from free healthcare therefore allows freedom from financial sufferings, which would eventually increase the overall quality of life. Lastly, free access to healthcare provides more benefits from a boarder and future-orientated perspective. Some might argue that public healthcare would decrease the quality in medical services due to less competence between hospitals. However, the doctors and hospitals top priority is to cure the sick, and that means human life is not a consumable commodity. With that objective satisfied and with giving the access of healthcare to the ones in need, in fact, it would naturally result in the demand of medical businesses to grow. And this, also leads to the medical industries to develop and vitalize, which would eventually increase the quality in healthcare system. For these reasons, free healthcare must be accessible for everyone.
I agree that everyone should have access to free healthcare, but we should need to talk about light and darkness of free healthcare. The free healthcare seems like pretty good. Everyone can be guarantee healthcare, regardless of money, position, honor or situation you’re in. Some people have inborn options of health care, but the others doensn’t have. Whoever they are may have the access to free healthcare, and it’s the light of free healthcare. But we have to keep in mind that freedom can depreciate. If access to free healthcare is guaranteed, the value of healthcare among people can be reduced and the quality of healthcare would have lower quilities. This can be a waste of too much money, and it’s the darkness of free healthcare. We must weigh these two things well. So I think this is compromise that at least ‘access’ to healthcare should be guaranteed for free by everyone.
II disagree that everyone should be able to access free healthcare. There are three reasons to support my opinion. First of all, if the government runs healthcare for free for everyone, the quality of healthcare must be lower. Not every citizen has the same background such as employment, age, health condition, wealth, disability. Patients who get higher income and be affordable to pay the cost of healthcare want to take a higher quality of healthcare. It is their rights. Secondly, if anyone gets free medical services, some people might abuse the systems like overusing treatments and surgeries. Then the number of patients in the hospital may increase every day even if their illnesses are quite a simple thing. Because all kinds of these systems are for free for everyone. But it is the reality that medical resources are limited. Eventually, people who have to need urgent treatment can’t take it properly on time. Lastly, each person has to take responsibility for their health. It could be related to abusing medical care. Individuals might not manage their health cautiously due to the free medical system. It is a very expensive system and as life expectancy and costs rise, many countries are facing either an unsustainable financial burden. I strongly argue that the government does not run a free healthcare system.
I suggest that everyone can access their to free healthcare. Because everyone has the right to live like a human being. I think the government should also provide medical assistance to ensure the rights. Many people think that applying for free health care is a waste of money and less professional than private hospitals, but in fact, it’s meaningful to allow individuals to choose their own healthy options. No matter how unprofessional they are, I think they should give them a chance to be treated for their health. Therefore, I think people who are so poor that they cannot go to the hospital by collecting more taxes in the country should be guaranteed free healthcare. it is the government’s role to help the people live in a stable condition in the country.