While receiving health services is a fundamental right for humans, a large number of individuals fail to receive private care due to its high price. In my opinion, there are more benefits than disadvantages in regard to non-public health institutions.
There is no doubt that private companies cost much more than governmental hospitals, yet they provide a better quality of service. The excess money these entrepreneurs have gained can be used to upgrade their facilities, such as brain-scanning machines and surgery equipment, so patients can receive a higher standard of care. Some individuals therefore refuse to go to public sectors because they feel more reassured in clinics that do not belong to the same category.
In addition, the waiting queue is much shorter in private institutions. As a result, visitors can receive their diagnosis and treatments rapidly, which stops the disease from further deterioration. This is particularly crucial for young children and elders who have a weaker immune system, as any delay in medication may lead to irreversible consequences.
It must be understood, however, that the practice of private companies are unfair to some people in the community, especially those who are underprivileged. Since these people cannot afford the expensive cost, they must consult at freely accessible organisations. This means that they cannot decide which kind of service they would like to receive, and have to wait for a long time before seeing a doctor. Ultimately, the social disparity between individuals are widened to a greater extent.
In conclusion, the practice of non-governmental companies is both beneficial but discouraging at the same time, but the advantages apparently outweigh the opposite. Still, the writer believes that the government should provide compensatory support for people in need so that they can receive an affordable but securing healthcare service.