The perennial debate between the primacy of government medical support and the importance of individuals’s payments is a pervasive one, often framed in stark, dichotomous terms. While traditional wisdom champions the pursuit of public and national health care as the cornerstone of personal and societal advancement, with which I generally agree, a burgeoning movement advocates for a more balanced approach, emphasizing the influence of population boom among the elderly on government costs. This essay will delve into both sides.
Proponents of the government investments argue that because of the economic crisis, most of the citizens are not able to pay for their medical services. In other words, government’s main job is to improve citizens’ quality of life, physical health, and mental health. Therefore, based on the bad economic climate, governments should inject money and allocate some budget to provide medical services, even though it costs a lot.
However, while government investment can undoubtedly contribute to increasing the average of health care services, there is a simple cause-and-effect negative correlation between quantity of clinical cares and their quality. Hence, because the population is rapidly aging, and this is leading to unsustainable increases in the cost of public health, if government wants to pay for this concept, it definitely decrease the quality of that treatments, which do not carry benefits.
In conclusion, this essay delved into the controversial debate between government investment on medical care and individual payments. However, because of the population boom among old citizens and the scarcity of financial sources for providing qualified treatment, it may seem better if the population of the country paid for their own medical care in the future, this casts doubt on the societal concept of medical justice. Therefore, I completely believe the government is in charge of paying for medical care in any situation.