Some countries have free health services. However, some people claim that those who live unhealthy lives should not receive free health services. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
In many countries, health services are funded collectively so that basic medical care reaches every resident regardless of income. However, some people claim that those who live unhealthy lives should be excluded from free treatment and free health services. In my view, I strongly disagree, because denying free healthcare undermines public health and violates the fundamental principle of equal medical care.
Firstly, linking a right to free healthcare with personal behaviour is unrealistic and ethically harmful for vulnerable people. Indeed, our lifestyle choices are shaped by education, income, stress, and working conditions rather than pure will, so blaming unhealthy people is unfair. For instance, people in low-paid work often rely on cheap food and lack time for exercise, and punishing them with reduced medical care would be deeply unjust. Therefore, restricting free health services to the healthy alone ignores why unhealthy habits actually arise.
Moreover, free health services work best when they place prevention above blame, because accessible care encourages early treatment. When people can reach a doctor freely, professionals manage risk and offer medical guidance before an illness worsens into a chronic condition. However, if unhealthy patients feared exclusion from free care, they would delay treatment, and this delay lets health deteriorate while imposing heavier costs on hospitals and public medicine.
In conclusion, refusing free healthcare to people with unhealthy habits is neither fair nor effective for any country. Instead, health systems should tackle unhealthy behaviour through education, support, and timely medical treatment, and I would advocate equal free care because it protects public health and preserves these services.
- Fully addresses the prompt in depth, showing full command of the argument by reformulating the issue in the writer's own words and expanding important points with specificity.
- The argument is supported convincingly with subsidiary points and relevant examples throughout the response.
- Has an effective logical structure, flows smoothly, and can be followed with ease.
- The argument is clear and cohesive and developed systematically at length; a well-developed introduction and conclusion are present, and ideas are organised cohesively into clear, logically sequenced paragraphs.
- Uses a variety of connective devices effectively and consistently to convey relationships between ideas.
- A variety of expressions and vocabulary are used appropriately to formulate ideas with ease and precision throughout the response.
- No signs of limitations restricting what can be communicated.
- Errors in language use, if present, are rare and minor, and meaning is completely clear.
- Shows consistent grammatical control of complex language. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.
- Good command of a broad lexical repertoire, idiomatic expressions and collocations.
- Correct spelling.
- Length is within the required 200 to 300 words.