The debate on state-sponsored health care for all citizens mostly revolves around the concepts of government duties, equality and individual rights. While some people argue that health service is a fundemental right and, thus, should be equally accessible to everyone; opponents of that view more focus on inefficiency of government regulations and concerns on taxation.
Defenders of free healthcare base their argument on equality, proposing that economically disadvantaged people should be able to benefit from health services and, in the absence of it, they will have difficulty due to high expanses. Government should provide citizens with basic needs and health is the most important need for a human. Otherwise, the poor may even face deadly consequences for their financial inability to have medical help.
On the other side of the debate, those who oppose free healthcare mostly question the efficiency of govenment services in general. They think the government is not able to regulate health system professionally and may even hamper it even more. Private institutions, they claim, will be much more beneficial in providing health services to people. Also, in a free market of medical services, some companies will be urged to provide their service with more affordable prices. Furthermore, the government uses taxation to fund public services and the morality of taxation is controversial. Opponents may argue that taking people’s money without consent to spend on others’ needs is not ethically defensible, even when used for good intentions.
Overall, I agree that taxation is ethically problematic and noone should be forced to pay for others’ expanses. The government is not good at controlling complex systems and often fail to be successful. I believe a private institutions would be a better option. Thus, I am against free healthcare.