Few topics are more important than a nation’s healthcare, and the issue of payment will probably always be controversial. It seems to me that the sheer cost of universal, free healthcare 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 healthcare 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 healthcare is economically unsustainable. A further issue relates to the cost of modern medicines, which can be extremely high if the latest drugs are used by health providers. This means that the cost of providing treatment rises almost without limits, making the permanent supply of free treatments unaffordable. 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 healthcare of users from many other nations, this is surely a further significant factor which clearly makes a universal health service impractical.
Admittedly, I agree with those who argue that free a health service is a worthy ambition for a countryto have, and that we should all contribute something to the welfare of our fellow citizens. However, thisaspiration 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 healthcare.However, due to demographics and costs, this needs to be supplemented by other methods, such as private insurance.