IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer (band score 8-9)
IELTS Essay # 1464 - Health care should not be provided for free
- Details
- Last Updated: Wednesday, 16 April 2025 18:05
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 8421
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Health care should not be provided for free regardless of a person’s income. The health of citizens is in their own hands and they should, therefore, be held accountable for that.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Model Answer:
Healthcare is a fundamental aspect of societal well-being and is often a subject of debate concerning its universal accessibility for all citizens. While some argue that citizens should bear the responsibility for their health and that healthcare should not be universally free, I vehemently disagree with this notion. I believe that access to healthcare is a basic human right and should not be made an individual accountability.
One pivotal reason for my opinion is that health is influenced by a myriad of factors beyond an individual's control. Genetic predispositions, environmental factors, and unforeseen accidents can significantly impact one's health status irrespective of personal lifestyle choices. For instance, a person born with a genetic illness or someone exposed to environmental toxins due to their location cannot be held solely accountable for their health conditions.
Furthermore, making healthcare contingent on financial status exacerbates societal inequality. In a system where healthcare is only accessible to those who can afford it, the less affluent are disproportionately affected. This leads to a stark contrast in the level of healthcare received between the wealthy and the less privileged, perpetuating social disparities and hindering equitable access to essential medical services. For instance, in countries without universal healthcare, such as the United States, low-income families often delay or avoid medical treatment due to high costs, resulting in poorer health outcomes compared to wealthier individuals.
In conclusion, healthcare is a fundamental human right that should be universally accessible, irrespective of an individual's financial standing. Health outcomes are influenced by multifaceted factors that go beyond personal responsibility, and denying healthcare based on income exacerbates societal inequalities. A system that guarantees equal access to healthcare promotes social justice and ensures that citizens, regardless of their financial situation, have the opportunity to lead healthy lives.
Idea Generation for this IELTS Essay:
Essay question:
Health care should not be provided for free regardless of a person’s income. The health of citizens is in their own hands and they should, therefore, be held accountable for that.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Essay type:
Opinion Essay (Agree/Disagree).
The main question of this essay:
To what extent do you agree or disagree that people should be held accountable for their health and not receive free healthcare?
Arguments in favour of providing free healthcare to everyone:
1. Healthcare is a basic human right:
Access to healthcare should not be determined by income or lifestyle choices. Every citizen deserves medical treatment when ill, regardless of personal decisions. For example, people living in poverty may have limited access to healthy food or environments but still need medical care.
2. Economic disparity limits access:
Not everyone has the same opportunities to lead a healthy life. Low-income individuals may lack education, nutritious food, and clean living conditions, making them more vulnerable. For instance, people in underdeveloped areas suffer from preventable diseases simply because they cannot afford treatment.
3. Preventive care benefits society:
Free healthcare systems often include preventive care, which helps identify and treat conditions early, saving long-term costs and improving public health. For example, regular screenings and vaccinations in universal healthcare systems have reduced rates of infectious diseases significantly.
4. Reduces long-term national costs:
Treating diseases in early stages through accessible healthcare is more cost-effective than dealing with advanced complications later. Free access encourages early intervention. For instance, catching diabetes early through routine check-ups costs far less than treating organ damage later on.
5. Promotes a healthier workforce:
When citizens are healthy, they are more productive and contribute more actively to the economy. Universal healthcare ensures that illnesses do not prevent individuals from working. For example, Scandinavian countries with free healthcare report high workplace productivity and general well-being.
Arguments in favour of NOT providing free healthcare to everyone:
1. Personal responsibility for health choices:
People who lead unhealthy lifestyles despite having the knowledge and means to stay healthy should be held accountable for the consequences. If individuals are aware of the harms of smoking, alcohol, and junk food yet continue such behaviours, it becomes unfair to expect others to cover the cost. For example, lifelong smokers developing chronic respiratory diseases place a preventable burden on healthcare systems.
2. Strain on public resources:
Offering free healthcare to all, regardless of personal choices or income, can overwhelm public systems and reduce the quality of services for those in genuine need. A blanket approach may encourage overuse or misuse of medical facilities. For example, patients with minor illnesses may crowd hospitals, diverting resources from critical cases.
3. Encourages complacency and neglect:
When people know their medical expenses are covered, they might be less inclined to adopt preventive health measures. This culture of dependence weakens personal accountability. For instance, individuals may avoid regular exercise or health check-ups, assuming medical intervention is always freely available when needed.
4. Potential for resource abuse:
When healthcare is completely free, some individuals may exploit the system by visiting doctors unnecessarily or requesting tests and treatments without genuine need. This overuse burdens medical professionals and drains limited public healthcare resources.
5. Disincentivises private insurance and innovation:
Universal free healthcare might reduce the demand for private healthcare and insurance, potentially slowing medical innovation and competition. With fewer private sector investments, advancements in treatments and technology may be delayed, affecting the overall quality of healthcare services.
It is widely acknowledged that health care is of essential significance to ensure the health of the whole nation, which ought to be free in certain cases, instead of totally being against it. To be specific, there exist crowds of people struggling to work heart and soul to earn a living, while what they gain is absolutely not worthy of what they have contributed, one of the results is that those lovely and diligent could not afford the medical fees. In addition, these individuals are the ones who inject endless vitality into the global economy, making the world a better world, both materially and mentally. Furthermore, it is sensible and reasonable that free health care is provided for those who can not afford it, considering that it is part of humanity, presenting the theme of peace and development.
Admittedly, it makes sense to one extent to limit health care. On the one hand, it is likely to spoil the giant babies, who will be too easy and satisfied to go to work themselves, and thus the policy would lose what it holds originally, leading to stressful financial finances. On the other hand, it is encouraging to arouse individuals’ motivations, rendering them earn the fee themselves. However, it can not be done completely in one go, especially in this era, when technologies advance by leaps and bounds. For most people, what they have paid is far more than what they have devoted. Thus, it is too ideal to conceive like that.
In conclusion, though it is reasonable at some point to restrict health care, it should still be free for the public, especially for those who have difficulty paying the fee.
Report