Should everyone be entitled to free healthcare?

Across the world there are varying perceptions of healthcare and who should be able to access it
for free. The argument that 'everyone' should be entitled to free healthcare is one that is optimistic
and benevolent but not necessarily realistic from an economic perspective. Instead, governments,
such as that of the UK, are more reserved and only offer free healthcare to citizens of their country
- preventing asylum seekers and immigrants from benefitting from a system whose funding they
do not necessarily contribute to. Whilst in a normative world everyone would be entitled to free
healthcare, this realistically is not possible. Consequently, in this essay I will argue that whilst
everyone should be entitled to free healthcare, in reality this is not possible due to economic
restrictions and instead countries should provide healthcare only for citizens.

As a result of the different governmental approaches to the issue, the dilemma of free healthcare
has been extrapolated to become an issue of human rights and class division. In the UK, the
government take a quite utilitarian approach - providing free healthcare via the NHS for all
citizens regardless of age, location or social class. However, in America there is a drastically
different approach - all citizens instead being expected to either pay for their healthcare or
purchase healthcare. Whilst on the surface this way be viewed as a form of equality - all citizens
being expected to pay - such expectations help to enforce class divisions and inequality within
society. Healthcare and health insurance are notoriously expensive and only certain social classes
are able to afford them; this means the rich, higher class, are able to access healthcare and the poor
are left in debt or without treatment. From such a perspective it is blatantly clear that free
healthcare should be provided to all.

However, it is crucial to analyse how free healthcare for everyone would work economically. In
the UK, the NHS is funded by the taxes collected from citizens; however, is still notoriously in
debt equivalent to a large proportion of the country's GDP. If governments were suddenly to begin
offering free healthcare to everyone - regardless of if they contribute, through taxes, or not - such a
strain on the government purse would only worsen and country's economic condition worsen.
Although revolutionary, free healthcare schemes (such as the NHS) have this key fault and are at
risk of being overwhelmed in times of great demand - such as the Coronavirus pandemic.
Following this, it appears illogical, in a purely economic sense, for governments to begin offering
free healthcare to everyone. Instead, it is a necessity for governments to expect a contribution in
return - whether this be through taxes, health insurance or the payment of outstanding debt.

Nevertheless, it is in the interest of governments to keep their population in good health. Without a
fit and strong population, a country's position in the global economy will weaken and public
dissatisfaction increase. If the population is so sick they are unable to work, this will not only
reduce the number of workers but the pressure placed upon the government by the public - most
likely in the form of an increased budget for benefits. Whilst on the surface it may seem cruel to
only offer free healthcare to some, and not everyone, doing such (rather than not offering at all)
appears far more logical and prevents the negative consequences associated with a country who is
unable to work and dependent upon the government to live.

In conclusion, despite the altruistic motivation behind providing everyone with free healthcare,
doing such holds little intrinsic value to governments who have to be extremely careful with
spending. Whilst providing no free healthcare at all to the population can be seen to have negative
effects regarding social divisions and debt, providing free healthcare for everyone is equally as
troublesome - resulting in the government being overwhelmed with debt instead. As a result, the
conclusion can be drawn that logical governments would provide free healthcare to citizens who
contribute to the funding of such healthcare schemes and work to ensure that themselves nor the
public become endebted by the provision of healthcare.