A school of thought holds that the officials should subsidize money in improving health care and schooling systems, while the other proponents contend that the public should be in charge of this aspect. In this following essay, I will outline both of the opinions as well as state my own perspective which approves the former.
On the one hand, there are various reasons stated to support that the government do not have to provide free health care and education. One of them is that the government budget is limited. If the officials place too much emphasis on the two mentioned domains, the government fund deficit may arise. In addition, it is obvious that governments have a wide range of concerns to deal with, namely infrastructure and military, besides public health and schooling. Therefore, sometimes the government is not able to expend money on those two areas. For example, in order to enhance citizens’ living standards, in several developing nations, the economy is their top priority.
Nevertheless, the opponents of this matter assert that as learning and receiving health public system are human rights it is unjustifiable for the citizens to pay extra money for those. Moreover, a nation with a well-educated and healthy population significantly contributes to its prosperity. When people have access to a quality education system, they are likely to commit fewer crimes, resulting in a greater enhancement in their living standards. Due to their ensured well-being, people have a tendency to dedicate more to their country. This proves that providing those services without any additional cost profits both the citizens and the government.
To recapitulate, whereas the officials have their own rationales not to offer people free schooling and health care, I firmly believe that it is the authorities who should subsidize expenditure on those fields. By doing this, the country as well as the living standards of citizens is considerably increased.