argument top image

< Back to question Should healthcare be free? Show more Show less

Access to healthcare is essential for our quality of life and longevity. But healthcare doesn't come cheap. Should individuals be forced to pay their own healthcare costs? Is healthcare an inalienable human right? What are the pros and cons of free healthcare?

Yes, healthcare should be free Show more Show less

Healthcare systems that are free for the public at the point of use reduce financial inequality, improves economic productivity, and save human lives.
< (2 of 3) Next position >

Free healthcare is better prepared to deal with pandemics

The full coverage provided by free health care is essential to reduce the propagation rate of viral diseases
< (7 of 8) Next argument >


Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓


Herd immunity and globalized viral tests help prevent the propagation of pandemics

The Argument

Viral propagation in a population is an exponential process. Therefore, relatively small changes in the number of people involved in the chain of propagation can have a very large effect on the speed at which it spreads. In a private healthcare system, access to vaccination and viral load tests is restricted to people who can afford them, leaving a significant part of the population as a vector of uncontrolled spread. On the contrary, in a health system where everyone potentially has free access to these resources, there is no such risk population group. Limited resources can be prioritized to people at risk of infection regardless of their income level, thus following medical rather than financial criteria. This therefore increases the number of protected persons among those at risk of exposure to the disease, and provides the authorities with greater control of infected persons for quarantine purposes.

Counter arguments


Rejecting the premises


    This page was last edited on Thursday, 26 Mar 2020 at 12:20 UTC

    Explore related arguments