Healthcare has become a topic that ignites sharp debates, with some advocating for its free provision for all. Personally, I disagree with this view as it not only poses a threat to biodiversity but also hampers the country’s economic progress.
Detrimental impact on the biodiversity is one of the reasons why I believe that health services should not be offered freely. In other words, when people are provided with medical care at no cost, rarely do they experience diseases that make them sick. Unpaid healthcare, as a result, can facilitate individuals with prolonged length of life, thereby resulting in overpopulation. This, unfortunately, will increase the demand for resources such as food, land, medicals and many more, potentially causing lack of natural sources. In response to this shortage, responsible organizations might be forced to apply harmful chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides in order to boost crop yield which otherwise would not be required. Excessive application of such chemicals, however, can lead to nutrient imbalances, harming beneficial soil organisms and reducing soil fertility in long term. A prime example can be seen in Sri Lanka, where free healthcare resulted in overpopulation. Consequently, authorities and commercial organizations providing food for local people faced a need to implement chemical DDT, one of the most harmful pesticides used to enhance crop productivity, which eventually affected local nature adversely.
In addition to its devastating effect on the environment, such tendency can result in economic stagnation because people start taking advantage of free healthcare provided by the government. That is because of the medical resources offered at no cost, thereby encouraging people to approach health organizations over minor issues as trivial as scratches or little wounds. Consequently, such demeanor have the potential to deplete the sources available for public health. Lack of medical resources and workforce subsequently necessitates government and other healthcare organizations to allocate more of their budget for this sector, potentially causing economic strain. A real-life example can be seen in the National Health Service in the UK. The NHS provides healthcare services to the public, largely funded by taxation, making healthcare largely free at the point of use. However, the overwhelming demand for services, driven by both urgent and minor health concerns, has led to significant strain on resources. This shortage of supplies has caused economic strain, as the government and healthcare institutions are forced to allocate more funds to address the backlog of patients, often diverting funds from other sectors. Moreover, worrying about such resource depletion, healthcare institutions may prioritize people with serious health problems over those who have non-emergent yet attention-requiring ones. As a result, those who are neglected can experience worsened health conditions which could result in more serious issues over a long time when they are on the waitlist. While awaiting their treatment, those people may be unable to work, thus creating tension in workplaces which indirectly affects the economy negatively.
In conclusion, it is argued by some that medical care should not be charged at all. I do not support this idea on account of economic stagnation and negative effects on the environment such tendency might entail.