“Health care in the United States should be free for all citizens, fully financed by the government.” Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the sta

This issue is relevant in the present age,and gives plenty of scope to both sides for presenting arguments. But I would like to begin by disagreeing with the statement. A situation where healthcare for any & every citizen is free, and completely finaced by the government,is simply not practical. As we all know,healthcare is not inexpensive these days; if the government has to finance the medical needs of every person in the country,even those that most definitely do not need it,it would find itself completely cleared out of funds - as a result of which,other sectors such as industry, defence, infrastructure would suffer - resulting in a widespread and definite drop in the general standards of living. Consider the fact that there are many citizens in the USA who are financially well-off & more than capable of paying for their own medical needs. Introducing such a system as described in the above statement would enable them to take advantage of the system. Not only would the ideal behind the policy and the government suffer,but it might result in people who are economically not well off,losing out on oppurtunities provided by the scheme. No government has unlimited funds and even if a fraction of its resources are lost to undeserving parties,there's always a chance that somewhere,someone who really needs financial help with his medical needs is losing out. Consider also the fact that the government,in order to support this scheme & make sure that enough funds are still available for other sectors, decides to increase taxes in all areas. While this sacrifice would be acceptable to the general population compared to the advantages that it is getting in the form of free healthcare,wouldn't it just bring us back to square one? The economically backward section of the population is getting its healthcare for free,but maybe its being forced to sacrifice on some other area of life due to insufficient funds - such as a proper education. Granted,a system could be devised to ensure that "rich people" are paying more taxes than "poor people",but who would decide the exact boundary between rich and poor? Also,it would undoubtedly be fought tooth & nail by the wealthy section of the population,and they would probably win too.

That being said,there is undoubtedly a large segment of the population who already suffer from a low standard of living & find it difficult to afford the expensive healthcare schemes in the country. In light of this,the scheme proposed by the above statement does have some merit. But instead of just blindly providing free healthcare for everyone,the government should devise a policy which would accurately determine whether a person requesting "free" healthcare really needs & deserves it. This is the area on which the focus should be,if such a scheme is ever brought to life - to ensure that government aid is going to someone who really needs it.

Thus,my final stand is that providing free healthcare to every and all citizens of the country is impractical & unfeasible. Instead a policy to determine whether a person requesting for free healthcare really needs it - would be more practical. Although,even this wouldn't be free from faults in the form of inefficient or corrupt bureaucracy,improper ways of delivering the aid,but compared to the problems associated with the alternative - it would be the lesser of two evils.