Should Citizens Be Solely Responsible for Their Own Healthcare Costs or Government Should Provide Free Health Services for All - IELTS Sample Essay

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

The rapid rise in healthcare expenditure has placed severe pressure on public finances, leading to debate over who should bear medical costs. While some argue that individuals should rely entirely on private health insurance, others believe governments must ensure free healthcare for all citizens. I firmly support the latter view, as universal public healthcare promotes social equity and long-term economic stability, despite acknowledging the efficiency arguments behind private systems.

Advocates of private health insurance contend that making individuals fully responsible for their healthcare costs encourages efficiency and personal accountability. When citizens pay directly or through private insurers, they are more likely to avoid unnecessary treatments, reducing waste within the system. In countries such as the United States, private healthcare providers often offer faster access to advanced technology and specialist care, driven by market competition. Supporters argue that this competition incentivizes innovation and relieves governments of an unsustainable financial burden. However, this model assumes that all citizens have sufficient income and health literacy to choose appropriate insurance plans, which is rarely the case in reality.

In contrast, government-funded free healthcare is essential for protecting vulnerable populations and maintaining social cohesion. Universal systems, as seen in countries like the United Kingdom or Canada, ensure that access to medical treatment is based on need rather than financial capacity. This prevents minor illnesses from escalating into severe conditions due to delayed treatment, ultimately reducing overall healthcare costs. Moreover, a healthy population contributes more effectively to the workforce, increasing productivity and tax revenue. While public systems may face inefficiencies, these can be addressed through better management and preventive care, rather than shifting the burden entirely onto individuals.

In conclusion, although private health insurance can improve efficiency and reduce immediate government spending, it risks deepening inequality and excluding the most vulnerable. A publicly funded healthcare system, supported by effective reforms, remains the most ethical and economically sound approach, ensuring that healthcare is treated as a fundamental right rather than a privilege.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

The escalating cost of healthcare has forced governments worldwide to reconsider how medical services should be funded. Some argue that citizens ought to pay for their own treatment through private insurance, while others insist that governments must provide free healthcare for everyone. Although both approaches aim to address financial strain, I strongly believe that state-funded healthcare is the more sustainable and just solution, as it safeguards public welfare and prevents long-term societal costs.

Those who favour a fully private healthcare model argue that shifting responsibility to individuals reduces fiscal pressure on governments and limits misuse of medical services. The core idea is that when people pay for care themselves, they behave as rational consumers, comparing prices, questioning unnecessary tests, and maintaining healthier lifestyles to keep insurance premiums low. For example, private insurance systems often reward non-smokers or physically active clients with reduced fees, theoretically encouraging preventive behaviour. Furthermore, governments can redirect saved funds towards infrastructure or education. However, this logic is fundamentally flawed because healthcare decisions are rarely optional or predictable. Illness and accidents are not market choices, and treating healthcare as a consumer product risks excluding low-income earners, informal workers, and those with chronic conditions, ultimately creating a fragmented and unstable system.

In contrast, I support government-provided free healthcare because it functions as a form of collective risk-sharing that benefits society as a whole. When healthcare is publicly funded, costs are distributed across the population through taxation, ensuring that no individual is financially ruined by illness. This approach also strengthens national resilience: during public health crises such as pandemics, universal systems enable faster coordination, mass treatment, and disease control. Moreover, free access to primary care encourages early diagnosis, which is far cheaper than emergency intervention. Countries that invest in public healthcare often spend less per capita in the long run because they prioritise prevention over profit. From this perspective, healthcare is not merely an expense but a strategic investment in human capital.

In conclusion, while private health insurance may appear to reduce government spending and promote personal responsibility, it overlooks the unpredictable and unequal nature of health risks. Publicly funded healthcare, by contrast, spreads risk fairly, supports early treatment, and protects social stability. Therefore, despite budgetary challenges, governments should remain responsible for providing free healthcare, treating it as a shared social obligation rather than an individual burden.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!