There is a belief that it is the government’s duty to offer free healthcare to its citizens, while others argue that it is solely individuals’ responsibility to cover medical bills. Whereas both views are reasonable to a certain extent, a more efficient approach would be accomplished by combining elements of both perspectives to guarantee a better public health system.
People have to be provided with basic health services because healthcare is a human right, and it is the government’s obligation to provide equitable access to medical services. Governments are in charge of maintaining public health, as it is one of the duties of ruling systems. The Swedish government allocates the largest amount of resources to fund healthcare systems in the world, and perhaps its residents are the most satisfied.
In many cases, patients visit hospitals repeatedly due to their headless actions, which create a strain on the public system. Usually, medical coverage insurance makes people arrogant about consequences of their actions, and as a result tightens governmental budget. In Nigeria almost half of the budget is spent on public healthcare, for this reason it is now experiencing crisis in sphere of education and having difficulties with food scarcity.
I, however, advocate for a reduced healthcare cost politics in which the government partially covers one’s medical payments. In my perspective, it is essential to lower the economic pressure on both citizens and government because either former or latter have other spendings.
In conclusion, if government cover all medical expenses, other fields, including education, defense, and agriculture, would suffer from shortened fundings. And if individuals will be totally in charge of their medical debts, they would be out of pocket to meet their basic needs. However, there is a balanced solution to solve this issue, and it Is a lowering costs of health services.