Some people argue that citizens in countries with free health benefits who lead an unhealthy life by indulging in activities like smoking should not receive these free health services. I strongly disagree with this statement, because healthcare is a social right rather than a moral reward. Withdrawing free treatment from people with unhealthy habits would undermine both equity and effective public health.

First, linking free health benefits to personal behaviour conflicts with medical ethics and basic fairness. Illness rarely results from a single choice, since addiction, stress, poverty and limited education also shape smoking and poor diet. Therefore, denying free healthcare would punish vulnerable people and widen health inequalities. For instance, lower-income people already face higher disease risk, so excluding them from free services would entrench preventable suffering and raise long-term medical costs.

Admittedly, some critics claim that unconditional health services encourage irresponsibility and burden public budgets. However, restricting medical care for unhealthy people is impractical and counterproductive. Monitoring the activities and habits of every patient invites invasive surveillance, while untreated conditions become emergencies that are far more expensive to treat. Moreover, preventive care, counselling and taxation of harmful products reduce demand without breaching access to healthcare.

In conclusion, free healthcare should not be withdrawn from people who live an unhealthy life. Ethical duty, the social determinants of health, and economic efficiency all support universal free treatment for everyone. Consequently, countries should address risky activities like smoking through prevention and regulation, not by denying the free health services that citizens genuinely need.