First of all, when it comes to free health care, its about easy accessibility and financial independence. Supporters of this perspective believe that it will enhance the access of people to health care, consequently and potentially leading to better health and immune in society. For example, countries like, the UK, and Canada , which have systems where healthcare is largely or entirely free at the point of service, have higher global health index than USA with the most expensive healthcare system. So, universal healthcare improves human to wellness care access, reduces financial burdens and makes the public health better.
On the other hand, it is believed that free health care creates financial troubles and chaos for government. Moreover, expenditures for staff payment, infrastructure and technologies may be problematic for government, which doesn’t get the money from people directly. For example, the UK and Canada themselves facing these problems. They have chronic underfunding, staff shortages, long waiting times with political debates arguing about solutions. In addition, free healthcare could even damage the quality of services. Overburdened healthcare systems, with high patient loads and potentially underpaid staff, may struggle to maintain the same level of quality as private systems
From my point of view, I think it is better to establish and use the hybrid system, where basic healthcare is free, and others are required to pay, with the price depending on the service itself. It ensures both quality and equality.
In conclusion, both free and paid medicine have benefits and drawbacks, which all can seem even in a single country like UK. Thus, I believe it is better to choose hybrid system, with quality, accessibility and low-cost.