For several years, there has been debate over whether or not it is wise to have people responsible for any or more of their medical services. The challenge of saving individuals from the risk of medical bills while simultaneously trying to provide doctors, hospitals, and other medical services with resources for product development is at the heart of the issue. Free medical care offers the best cost security, but it also provides the smallest motivation for efficient production. Various innovations, such as indemnity insurance, can increase hospital incentives to produce efficiently. However, such instruments may be inefficient since they are not commonly used.
The Right to Free Health care
The free health care demand is based on the assumption that health care is a humanitarian right that we should not deny to anyone. Since it is a right, just like life, liberty, and happiness, the government should support it.
This right to free health cover, however, is a self-defeating argument. This is because everyone has the right to keep the fruits of their labor. As a result, no one has the right to free food, clothes, or health care. This is because someone must produce these goods. As a result, giving them away for free is an infringement on the rights of those who produce them. Physicians and surgeons have human rights in the same way as patients do. Suppose the government asked them to offer services for free. Then it would is an infringement on their right to earn a living.
Similarly, when governments begin taxing one person to support the health care of the other, they are simply transferring the fruits of one man’s labor to another. People may voluntarily contribute to their countrymen’s illness. Forcing people to sacrifice a percentage of their income is morally wrong.
As a result, no one has a valid right to free health care. Politicians made these are simply statements to expand the scope of government to gather more tax dollars. Once they have these tax dollars, they invest some of them in hospitals while embezzling some of them to create private wealth. Nationalized health care is a scam that we must avoid at all costs.
Advantages of Free Health care
According to Galambos (2018), universal health care plans are critical for countries to reduce health care costs. They give the government power over the medication process as well as negotiations. There are no administrative costs associated with dealing with private health insurers. So a single centralized government department may easily deal with physicians for quick solutions.
The public can receive standardized care to ensure equal treatment from the available institutions. The government’s plan will provide all people who need it with access to available resources. Most importantly, unless the government approves, medication prices would stay low and unchanged. Other competitive conditions, such as the United States plan, focus on the most recent technologies to attract coincidence in patients.
Children who receive adequate health care are more likely to avoid future social costs. As a result, the government will save money in the long run. Thus, they can raise a healthy generation of children. Because proper health care benefited the young generation, the risk of some diseases may be minimized or reduced (Glassman, 2017).
Governments with control over health care administration can enact policies that guide patients to the best options. For example, it may control access to appropriate drugs while eliminating alternative options. This may include illegal options. They can also increase a sin tax to reduce the chances of a smoking population. Raising the prices of cigarettes and alcohol would prevent people from participating in activities. This will directly improve their health.
Disadvantages of Free Health care
Free health care is not only morally incorrect. It also causes significant economic damage. The free health care system distorts the economy.
Health care systems are monopolized in countries such as Canada. This means that the government is now involved in all patient-doctor interactions.
As a result, a monopolistic bureaucracy delivers health care services rather than a free and open market. Customers’ demands are inherently sensitive in free markets. Companies that pay attention to consumer needs survive, whereas those that do not fail. Bureaucracies, on the other hand, have no reason to be customer-friendly. Monopolies exclude all competitive service providers and can survive by offering mediocre service. As a result, the government’s monopoly is lowering health-related quality in these countries.
2. Excess Demand
When something is free, consumers do not value it. The same is true for health care. When patients have to pay for their own treatment, they are more careful when seeking medical advice. This is why countries with free health care systems find themselves with an excess of demand. Patients flock to physicians for even the most minor of illnesses. As a result, those countries require more doctors and hospitals. To meet this unreasonable demand, they must extend the entire medical system.
Also, according to a study, users in public hospitals, as opposed to commercial healthcare, had unsatisfactory service results.
Health care is expected to be treated the same as any other service. People who really need it should be able to purchase it. Citizens have to wait in line to receive their services due to the government’s monopolistic system. This is different from food, clothes, or any other good or service. Shortages and long wait times are unavoidable consequences of free health care systems. These situations are common in countries such as Canada. In countries where patients have to pay for these services, on the other hand, they can receive immediate medical attention. Government-provided free health service worsens the situation for everyone.
4. Tax Dollars
By nature, a free-for-all health system would be inefficient. However, governments in these countries claim that they would reduce inefficiency. They create elaborate plans which necessitate the spending of ever-increasing amounts of tax money. In the end, the system becomes so wasteful that society pays several times the amount it would have otherwise paid for its health care needs. Health care costs significantly increase the fiscal deficit in countries where a free health system has been implemented.
The fear of universal health care governments derives from their tendency to avoid the high costs associated with it. Moreover, administration logistics and management complexity are considered expensive and have a high failure rate.
Since the general income is derived from taxes, which increases the prices of goods across the board, healthier people may bear the cost of a few sickly citizens. As many European countries have shown, the problems posed by universal health care are manageable. Well-managed states can successfully manage universal health care in their respective countries. The benefits of having access to free health care outweigh the disadvantages. The word “universal health care” does not mean that everyone will be covered for all expenses. Instead, it focuses on easy accessibility for all citizens, making it an effective choice. The plan’s long-term benefits show that the argument for free health care is a better option to consider.