Introduction Health care is one of the most debated issues in modern society. Some people argue that medical services should not be free for everyone because individuals are responsible for their own health through...
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-09-07
This guide provides a deep analysis of the arguments surrounding free health care, expanding a standard student essay into a comprehensive resource that demonstrates how to build a nuanced, evidence-based discussion for top grades.
Health care is one of the most debated issues in modern society. Some people argue that medical services should not be free for everyone because individuals are responsible for their own health through their lifestyle choices. Others believe that access to health care is a basic human right that should be provided by the government regardless of income. This essay will argue that while personal responsibility is important, free or affordable health care should still be available to ensure equality and social stability.
To explore this complex issue, this analysis will first deconstruct the argument for personal responsibility, linking it to concepts of moral hazard and individual liberty. It will then counter this by examining the compelling case for healthcare as a social responsibility, considering factors beyond an individual's control. Finally, it will weigh the economic and ethical dimensions before proposing a balanced model of shared responsibility, ultimately reinforcing the thesis that a robust society is built on a foundation of collective well-being.
In your English exam, you will frequently encounter tasks that require you to write an argumentative essay on a contentious social issue. A typical prompt might be: "Some people argue that individuals are solely responsible for their health, and therefore, state-funded healthcare is unjust. Discuss this view." This topic tests your ability to construct a logical argument, support your claims with evidence, engage with counterarguments, and use precise, persuasive language. Examiners are not looking for a simple "for or against" answer; they want to see your ability to navigate complexity, structure your thoughts coherently, and demonstrate a sophisticated command of English.
To write a high-level essay on this topic, you need to master the key terminology. Using these terms correctly and with understanding will elevate your analysis from a simple opinion piece to a structured academic argument.
| Concept | Definition | Example in an Essay |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Health Care | A system where all citizens (and often residents) have access to health care, regardless of their ability to pay. This does not necessarily mean it is "free" at the point of service; it can be funded through various models. | "Countries like Canada and the UK have adopted models of universal health care, asserting that medical treatment is a right, not a privilege." |
| Single-Payer System | A specific type of universal health care where the government, funded by taxes, is the primary financier of health services. Private provision of care can still exist. | "A single-payer system, as seen in Norway, streamlines administration and can control costs, but critics argue it may lead to longer waiting times for certain procedures." |
| Social Determinants of Health | The economic and social conditions that influence individual and group differences in health status. These include factors like income, education, physical environment, and social support networks. | "An argument against pure personal responsibility must acknowledge the social determinants of health; an individual's choices are constrained by their access to nutritious food and safe living conditions." |
| Moral Hazard | An economic concept where someone increases their exposure to risk when insured. In healthcare, it suggests that if people do not face the direct cost of medical care, they may engage in unhealthier behaviour. | "Opponents of fully subsidized healthcare often cite the principle of moral hazard, suggesting that it may inadvertently disincentivize healthy lifestyle choices." |
Supporters of private or paid health care often claim that individuals should take charge of their own well-being. Many illnesses today are linked to personal lifestyle decisions, such as poor diet, smoking, alcohol consumption, and lack of exercise. Therefore, people who neglect their health should not rely on taxpayers to pay for the consequences.
This perspective is rooted in libertarian philosophy, which prioritises individual liberty and minimal state intervention. The core idea is that forcing a citizen to pay taxes for another's self-inflicted illness is a form of coercion. For example, according to the World Health Organization, tobacco use is responsible for more than 8 million deaths per year. A proponent of this view would argue that a non-smoker should not be financially burdened with the high costs of treating a smoker's lung cancer or emphysema. This line of reasoning is a central part of the debate over whether public health is the government’s responsibility or the individual's.
For example, countries with high rates of obesity or smoking-related diseases often spend billions treating preventable conditions. Advocates of personal responsibility argue that if health care is entirely free, it may encourage unhealthy behavior because individuals feel no financial consequences for poor choices. This is the classic 'moral hazard' argument. If a person knows that an expensive bypass surgery will be covered by the state, the financial incentive to maintain a healthy diet and exercise regimen is weakened. This viewpoint suggests that a system with co-payments or private insurance creates a direct link between choices and consequences, fostering a more responsible populace.
However, health care is not just a personal matter — it is also a social responsibility . Many illnesses occur due to factors beyond individual control, such as genetics, pollution, or economic inequality. People living in poverty may not be able to afford nutritious food, safe housing, or regular medical check-ups. Denying them access to free medical care would worsen inequality and social injustice.
This argument hinges on the concept of social determinants of health. For instance, a child who develops asthma due to living near a heavily polluted industrial area has not made a "lifestyle choice". Similarly, an individual with a genetic predisposition to a certain type of cancer cannot be held responsible for their condition. A society that values fairness must provide a safety net for those who fall ill through no fault of their own. To deny care in these situations would be to punish people for their circumstances, not their choices.
Moreover, when health care is universally accessible, the entire society benefits. Healthy citizens contribute to productivity, innovation, and national progress. A worker suffering from an untreated chronic illness is less productive and more likely to be absent. A child who receives regular check-ups and vaccinations is more likely to succeed in school. Therefore, providing free or affordable health care is an investment in a country’s human capital and future economic strength, rather than a financial burden. This collective benefit is a powerful argument for state intervention.
From an ethical standpoint, access to health care should be considered a basic human right, similar to access to education or clean water. No one should be denied medical treatment because they cannot afford it. Universal health care systems in countries like Norway, the UK, and Canada demonstrate that free medical services can coexist with high standards of living and economic stability. This argument is often framed using the philosopher John Rawls's "veil of ignorance" thought experiment: if you did not know your social or financial position in a society you were about to enter, you would design a system that protects the most vulnerable—which would almost certainly include guaranteed healthcare. This principle is also why many argue that university education should be free for everyone, as it promotes equality of opportunity.
Economically, preventive and accessible health care reduces long-term costs by catching diseases early. When everyone has access to treatment, fewer people suffer from chronic conditions that require expensive hospital stays or emergency care later on. For example, providing free access to primary care physicians for managing diabetes is far cheaper for the state than paying for emergency amputations or kidney dialysis resulting from untreated conditions. A system that relies on emergency room care for the uninsured is both inefficient and extraordinarily expensive, as these are the costliest points of service in any healthcare system. …