Some people think that good health is very important to every person, so medical services should not be run by profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private health care outweigh the disadvantages?

Sample 1:

The significance of good health is undeniable and universally acknowledged. With this in mind, the debate about whether medical services should be in the hands of profit-making entities remains a contentious issue. In this essay, I will delve into the advantages and disadvantages of private health care.

On the one hand, private health care institutions tend to offer higher quality services compared to public ones. They frequently invest in state-of-the-art equipment and advanced technologies to provide the most updated treatments. Furthermore, with a customer-oriented approach, patients in private clinics often experience shorter waiting times and receive more personalized care.

However, these benefits come with certain drawbacks. One of the most glaring disadvantages of private health care is its exorbitant costs. Not everyone can afford these premium services, potentially creating a divide in healthcare accessibility between the affluent and the less fortunate. Moreover, because they operate for profit, there is a risk that some essential but less lucrative services might be excluded from their offerings. Finally, the drive for profit could, in some cases, compromise the quality of care, as clinics might prioritize revenue over patients’ well-being.

In conclusion, while private health care services present numerous advantages like superior facilities and quicker service, the inherent drawbacks, primarily stemming from their profit-driven nature, cannot be ignored. It is imperative that a balance is struck between making healthcare accessible to all and maintaining high service standards.

Sample 2:

In recent decades, it can be noticed that private healthcare has been increasingly essential in our society. However, some people believe that good health and well-being are crucial for all people and therefore healthcare services should not be managed by privately-owned companies whose primary goal is profit. Despite some obvious disadvantages of this statement, I would agree that they are outweighed by the advantages.

On the one hand, there are two major drawbacks when medical services are offered by private companies. The first one is that private healthcare services might be costly, and many people simply can not afford them. For example, the poor who have low income could not access the services of private healthcare because they need to pay high fees due to the cost of high-tech equipment with quick service. Another one is that private health insurance does not cover 100% of the cost. At some specific private hospitals and clinics, private health insurance only covers about 70-80% of medical expenses, so the patient needs to pay the remaining amount. Moreover, if patients sign up for a health insurance plan that does not fit their needs, they might have to pay or waste money whether they use the system or not.

On the other hand, I would argue that these disadvantages are outweighed by some main benefits. Firstly, private healthcare hospitals or clinics could reduce the workload of public medical centers. For instance, during epidemics like COVID-19 or SARS 2003 - when the number of patients being hospitalized increased daily, using private healthcare services would help doctors at state-owned hospitals to take better care of their patients as well as reduce the burden on the public system. Secondly, patients could benefit from short waiting times and modern systems. Private healthcare services provide personalized consultants or doctors so that patients could save their time for appointments and have a specialized treatment process. In addition, patients could enjoy the systems with the most modern facilities which bring customers the most comfortable and safe experience when using services. 

In conclusion, it seems to me that the advantages of using medical services run by profit-making companies are more profound than the drawbacks of their contributions to citizens. 

Sample 3:

Good health is undeniably a cornerstone of a fulfilling life, and many argue that it should be safeguarded from profit-driven interests. While there might be some valid concerns about the morality of this business model, I firmly believe that the advantages are far more significant.

Critics of private healthcare often express ethical concerns related to the profit-driven nature of these institutions. They may argue that profit motives in private healthcare can sometimes give rise to overmedicalization and unnecessary procedures. In a competitive market, there may be incentives to recommend additional tests or treatments, potentially exposing patients to risks and financial burdens. These concerns, however, are often limited to the very most extreme situations, and not applicable to the vast majority of private healthcare facilities which still successfully maintain high ethical standards, prioritizing patient welfare over profit margins, and delivering quality care without unnecessary intervention.

In my opinion, private healthcare can be more beneficial in terms of a higher quality of services and individualized experiences. Private institutions often compete for patients, driving them to invest in state-of-the-art facilities, employ skilled professionals, and adopt cutting-edge treatments, resulting in quicker access to care, reduced waiting times, and a broader range of treatment options. Additionally, private healthcare can offer a level of personalized attention and comfort that may be lacking in public facilities. With a lower patient-to-staff ratio, medical practitioners can devote more time to individual cases, enabling tailored treatment plans for patient well-being.

In conclusion, although there might be some instances where profit motives may lead to overmedicalization, these cases represent the exception rather than the rule. The potential for higher quality services and personalized care makes private healthcare a valuable complement to public services.

Sample 4:

Private healthcare services have become increasingly prevalent in many parts of the world, and whether their advantages outweigh the disadvantages is a subject of ongoing debate. In my view, the advantages of private healthcare do indeed outweigh the disadvantages.

On the one hand, private healthcare systems often tout several advantages. Firstly, proponents argue that competition in the private sector can drive innovation and efficiency. Profit-driven companies may invest in cutting-edge technologies, attract top medical professionals, and provide quicker access to specialized care. Patients under private healthcare systems might experience shorter wait times for elective procedures and have more control over their choice of doctors and treatments. Additionally, private healthcare systems can offer greater amenities and personalized services, which some individuals may find appealing. Luxurious hospitals, shorter waiting times, and the ability to choose one's physician are all seen as benefits of private healthcare.

However, these advantages come with their own set of disadvantages. Private healthcare can be expensive, leading to disparities in access to care. Those with the financial means receive top-tier treatment, while those without face barriers to essential services. This can result in unequal health outcomes and exacerbate existing social inequalities. Furthermore, the profit motive inherent in private healthcare can lead to practices that prioritize financial gain over patient well-being. In some cases, there have been allegations of unnecessary procedures and overprescription of medications to maximize profits. This can undermine the trust between patients and healthcare providers.

In conclusion, while it's true that private healthcare can have its drawbacks, the benefits it brings make it a valuable component of the healthcare landscape.

Sample 5:

Good health is perceived by some as a primary human necessity, which leads to the argument that medical services should not be operated by profit-oriented companies. However, I am convinced that private healthcare, despite being associated with certain drawbacks, brings about more significant benefits for people.

It is true that privatizing the medical sector comes with certain disadvantages, with accessibility being a chief concern. Private healthcare entities often operate with a strong profit motive, necessitating substantial investments in cutting-edge medical equipment, hiring top-tier medical professionals, and conducting extensive marketing campaigns to stay competitive. While these investments are aimed at delivering high-quality services, they can inadvertently make these services inaccessible to a significant portion of the population. A stark example of this issue can be observed in the United States, where the predominantly private healthcare system has led to exorbitant costs, such as an average ambulance ride without insurance costing around $1300, rendering it unaffordable for many low-income families.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the advantages of private healthcare are more pronounced. Private hospitals play a crucial role in alleviating the strain on state-owned healthcare facilities during periods of high demand. For instance, during the 2019 COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam, private hospitals played a pivotal role in helping state-run facilities cope with the surging number of patients. Furthermore, competition among privately-owned healthcare institutions can act as a catalyst for improvement in state-run hospitals. The desire to retain their customer base and market position motivates state hospitals to enhance their medical services and technology, ultimately resulting in higher-quality care for patients. This can translate into shorter waiting times for examinations and surgeries, as well as improved access to modern healthcare amenities.

In conclusion, while private healthcare has its downsides, notably high costs, I contend that its merits, including reducing pressure on state-owned healthcare institutions and driving improvements in their services, carry more weight in the overall assessment of its impact.

Sample 6:

Some people hold the belief that health is a basic necessity for everyone, thus medical services should not be privatised and operated on a for-profit basis. In my opinion, the perks of private healthcare overshadow the downsides as long as patients' well-being remains the top concern.

Among the numerous benefits of private clinics, the most significant one would be continuity with doctors. Instead of having to recount their existing conditions every single visitation due to being attended to by different physicians, patients can request for consultation with their regular attendants at private healthcare providers who possess not only extensive knowledge about their medical history but also their utmost confidence. This continuous doctor-patient relationship is likely to result in higher success rate in treatment. Another advantage worth mentioning is access to private rooms and unrestricted visiting hours made possible by a smaller clientele and larger funds. As opposed to the cramped and stress-inducing environment at public hospitals, these services by private clinics could help boost patients' morale and accelerate their recovery.

Nevertheless, these perks come at an exorbitant price, so only a select few could afford such a service. Profit also dictates private healthcare facilities to give priority to those who have money to pay, unlike public hospitals which offer equal treatment regardless of one's financial status. Some would argue this inequality drives a bigger division between the rich and the poor, but perhaps they have failed to consider how private hospitals' for-profit operations make paying staff sufficient income possible. This means private clinicians could enjoy financial stability along with better spirits to serve their patients compared to their public counterparts. Extra funds also help private institutions in procuring the latest facilities and procedures to maximise the efficiency of their treatments.

All things considered, although private healthcare providers' money-based services exclude many members of the general populace, I still maintain that their existence is necessary to provide patients with more options so long as their budget and personal needs allow.

Sample 7:

These days many people feel that good health and well-being is essential to all people and therefore healthcare services should not be run by privately owned companies, whose main objective is to make profit. Personally, while I do agree with this statement, I also believe that private healthcare services do have many advantages.

Firstly, public hospitals in most countries are usually overcrowded and underfunded which can put a lot of pressure on doctors, nursing staff and patients to recover quickly so that more people can be treated. When people choose private healthcare services it can help to reduce the burden on the public system, and as a result can also help to reduce the amount of money required by the government for funding. In addition to this, those who choose to pay for private healthcare services will experience many benefits, such as the quality and speed of treatments, short waiting times for appointments and operations, and more private and comfortable facilities.

However, while there are a number of benefits to private healthcare, there are also a number of drawbacks. To begin with, private healthcare insurance is very costly, and many people simply cannot afford it. In addition, private healthcare insurance is usually paid on a monthly basis, whether you use the system or not, and therefore many people pay thousands of dollars each year for private healthcare but never need to use the facilities or services. Many people consider this to be a waste of money. Furthermore, some people also argue that private healthcare services create inequality between citizens of a nation as only the wealthy can afford the best and quickest treatment available.

In conclusion, I believe that as long as governments do their best to provide a good standard of healthcare facilities and services for the general public, then private healthcare services can also exist and provide many advantages that will outweigh the disadvantages.

Sample 8:

Good health is universally valued, leading some to argue that medical services should not be driven by profit-making motives. In my opinion, despite reservations regarding profit-driven healthcare, the benefits of private medical services in distributing public healthcare responsibilities and offering advanced treatment options surpass any potential disadvantages.

One compelling reason why private healthcare can be advantageous is its ability to share the burden with state-run healthcare systems. By alleviating pressure on public hospitals in terms of patient overload and financial strain, private facilities complement state efforts to deliver quality healthcare. For instance, Singapore's Medisave scheme, jointly funded by workers and employers, has reduced reliance on state hospitals, thereby enhancing healthcare quality through investments in primary services.

Furthermore, private healthcare offers significant benefits to those who can afford it. Patients often enjoy greater access to advanced treatments and modern technology, unhindered by national budget constraints. This results in superior treatment quality and efficiency, evidenced by shorter waiting times and more comfortable facilities. In the United States, private healthcare dominates, providing diverse medical services across hospitals, clinics, and private practices.

In conclusion, despite concerns about profit-driven healthcare, the advantages of private medical services in sharing public healthcare responsibilities and providing superior treatment options outweigh the potential drawbacks. Governments should consider leveraging private sector efficiency to enhance overall healthcare accessibility and quality.

Sample 9:

Few topics are more important than a nation’s healthcare, and the issue of whether or not medical treatment should be provided by private companies will probably always be controversial. It is therefore worthwhile to investigate this issue from different aspects.

On the one hand, there are a number of obvious merits. The most apparent advantage is that private health providers can help share the onerous financial burden imposed by the medical care of the elder recipients. To be specific, in countries with aging populations, tax burden on working citizens has become intolerably high, and can even stifle economic growth. As a matter of fact, the balance of cost sharing will inevitably shift dramatically toward the young taxpayers, as the government will definitely resort to tax revenue. These painful lessons, shown by states such as France, seem to demonstrate that funding of medical care solely by the government is economically unsustainable.

On the other hand, despite the fact that this practice is beneficial to some extent, it also brings about some drawbacks. The most significant issue relates to the cost to accommodate treatment. For private organizations which are money-oriented, professional ethics will be discarded in the pursuit of money. In particular, many patients have to pay exorbitant medical bills when the latest, and often most expensive drugs are deliberately prescribed. Since the governments do not have any measures to control over the misconducts of these private treatment facilities, it gradually drives up the cost of the overall healthcare system of a country.

To summarise, I agree with those who argue that an exclusive health provision by the government is a worthy ambition for a country to have. However, this aspiration suffers significantly when confronted with demographics and financial reality, and therefore this needs to be supplemented by other methods, in particular private healthcare. In this case, the government should ensure that standards and services will not be sacrificed for higher profits at these private heal facilities.

Sample 10:

In contemporary society, the provision of medical services plays a pivotal role in addressing the fundamental human need for good health. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the involvement of profit-making companies in running medical services. This essay will discuss the perspective that good health is a basic human need, and therefore, medical services should not be driven by profit-making motives.

One compelling reason to support the notion that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies is the importance of ensuring equitable access to healthcare. When profit becomes the driving force, there is a risk of compromising the accessibility of medical services, especially for vulnerable populations with limited financial resources. For example, in countries where profit-making companies dominate the healthcare sector, individuals from low-income backgrounds may face substantial financial barriers to receiving essential treatments or accessing preventive care. This disparity can exacerbate existing health inequalities and lead to a society where only those who can afford premium healthcare services receive the necessary treatment.

Another significant argument against profit-making companies running medical services is the potential shift in focus from patient well-being to financial gains. In a profit-oriented system, there is a risk of treatments and services being driven by profitability rather than patient needs. For instance, pharmaceutical companies may prioritize the development and marketing of drugs that are more profitable but not necessarily the most effective or beneficial for patients. This profit-driven approach can undermine the quality of care and compromise patient outcomes.

In conclusion, the argument that good health is a basic human need and should not be driven by profit-making companies in the provision of medical services holds substantial merit. Ensuring equitable access to healthcare and maintaining a patient-centred approach are crucial considerations in healthcare delivery. By prioritizing the well-being of individuals over financial gains, healthcare systems can strive for a more equitable and compassionate approach.

Sample 11:

Good healthcare service is a fundamental need for every citizen in a country. But when this sector is run by money-making private organisations, they become too expensive for the poor and the middle class. This is why, I agree with the notion that medical services should not be run by for-profit private organizations.

First, when health service is run and controlled by money-making private companies, the healthcare sector then turns into a profitable business sector. Those private organisations’ main objective is to make money, and thus only rich citizens can pay for their treatment. Since the government does not have any control over the treatment facilities of these hospitals and healthcare centres, they charge people as much as they like. Thus, they make the overall healthcare system expensive in a country.

Second, private healthcare centres are often accused of overcharging and wrong treatment, and yet they are not punished for the misdeed they conduct. Many people opine that private healthcare centres and hospitals are far neater and clean and have more qualified doctors. However, those doctors should be serving in public hospitals instead of making money somewhere else. Thus the professional ethics of doctors are ruined by their practice in private hospitals. Furthermore, the government collects a huge amount of tax from its citizens and should be obliged to provide health care services to people for free rather than letting private hospitals loot people.

In conclusion, the amount the private healthcare service providers charge for treatment is outrageous, and mass people cannot afford that. The government should ensure proper healthcare facilities for all of its citizens and quality public healthcare service is a better solution than allowing private companies to control this important sector whose sole objective is to make profits.

Sample 12:

A human can not live if his/her health condition is critical, that's why we say health is wealth. So the basic human need is good health. If medical services are run by profit-making companies, there is an absolute possibility of medical service rejection for poor & underprivileged people. So I do agree that good health is very important to every person and I also support the statement that says medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Firstly, in this fast-moving society, we must agree that almost everyone has lost patience and wants to find a quick solution for everything. Profit-making medical service companies use modern medicine to find quick solutions for any health illness. But at the same time, we can not ignore that modern medicine treats the disease and not the patient. Whereas the traditional treatment takes time to cure a person but certainly there won’t be any side effects.

Furthermore, when a medical company is said to be profit-making then it’s pure business, and the term “medical service” becomes non-existing because a service can never be monetized. But on the contrary, people offering medical services also need a source of income to meet their daily essentials. So the best possible solution is for the state authority to take control as the sole medical service provider, which would eliminate the private profit-making companies and eventually every individual will get access to every treatment.

To conclude, Health is a priority for all. It is the duty of the state governments to provide best-in-class medical services. When it fails to render such services, profit-making companies will come into existence. People must understand and start to adapt to a natural way of life that will keep them far away from this macro-level politics. So yes, I do agree with the statement that good health is very important to every person, so medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Sample 13:

It is a fact that for a person to survive he/she needs good health, and it is a basic human need. But witnessing the present public health sector, we must consider private medical service providers. For best and better treatment inclusive of modern facilities, private health service providers are on the top. I do agree that good health is very important to every person, I partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Firstly, the public health service sector manages its financial requirements from the taxpayer’s funds. But the only source of income for private medical service providers is the people who come for treatment. People who are working in the private health service sector also need revenue to meet their everyday essentials. Due to the lack of proper facilities and treatment methods followed by public health services, people are left with no other option but to choose private medical services.

Furthermore, not all Private medical service providers are profit-making companies. There are exceptions but few in number. Only in private-run medical services, we can see advanced high-tech equipment, Faster service, modern facilities, and many more. Still, there are private health service providers whom people trust because of his/her dedication, service, and affordability. It is people’s mindset that if they get treated in a hospital that takes high charges, they will get 100% cured. Due to this thought process, they get easily trapped by profit-making medical service companies.

To Conclude, lack of awareness among the people is the prime investment for profit-making medical service companies as they make use of a person’s fear of death. People must start living a healthy lifestyle to avoid using promoted chemical products and unhygienic food habits. Though I do agree with half of the statement that good health is very important to every person, I partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Sample 14:

In today’s world, people choose advanced technology and modern facilities. Health is wealth so a person tends to be double precautious. The public health sector lacks in many major areas when compared to private medical service providers. Just because of weak systems and public health sector failures, the people will eventually choose to take treatment in a private-run medical service unit. We all must agree to the factual ground reality that good health is a basic human need. But I would argue and partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Firstly, the most common misconception about private medical service providers is that they are entirely into profit-making. This is partially true, but not all Private medical service providers are profit-making companies. There are exceptions but few in number. Only in private-run medical services, we can see ample in-patient areas where a large number of patients can be attended to without any delay, treatment for almost any kind of disease, and even medical specialists are called from other regions for exceptional cases, the center is equipped with high-end technology and modern facilities. The most important reason for people to opt for private medical services is that they get individual attention for treatment. All these options can not be seen at public health service units. There may be numerous reasons but that’s the ground reality.

Furthermore, Due to budget constraints, the government is unable to provide proper health services in many rural regions and we can find private medical facilities extending their service support. Most private medical service providers use modern medicine which tends to treat and cure patients quickly. But at the same time, we can not ignore that modern medicine treats the disease and not the patient. Whereas the traditional treatments like Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani take time to cure a person but certainly there won’t be any side effects. Both types of treatment are offered by private health service providers.

To conclude, it is purely based on a person’s belief & awareness that leads him/her to choose between modern or traditional medical treatment. The majority of private medical providers do not use traditional methodology. Modern treatment tends to charge high because of the huge investment in equipment and facilities offered. When compared with the medical service rendered by the government of a state, the advantages of private health care units certainly outshine their very own drawbacks. Without any doubt, I certainly agree that good health is very important to every person, But I have given many supportive points and partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Sample 15:

The issue of healthcare provision is a polarizing topic, with some advocating for public control due to the essential nature of good health. However, private healthcare centers have gained prominence, leading to a nuanced discussion about their pros and cons.

One of the primary advantages of private healthcare centers is the potential for higher efficiency and better quality of care. These centers often invest significantly in state-of-the-art equipment, employ skilled professionals, and offer personalized services, leading to quicker diagnoses and advanced treatments. Moreover, the competitive nature of the private sector can drive innovation and improve overall healthcare standards.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of private healthcare are equally significant. One major concern is the affordability of services. Private healthcare, often catering to the affluent population, can be prohibitively expensive for many individuals. This economic barrier limits access to essential medical services, exacerbating societal health disparities. Additionally, the profit-oriented approach might lead to unnecessary medical procedures and over-prescription of medications to increase revenue, potentially compromising patient well-being.

Furthermore, the privatization of healthcare can divert resources away from public health systems, diminishing their quality and accessibility. In countries where private healthcare is prominent, the public sector often struggles, leaving those without the means to afford private services at a significant disadvantage.

In conclusion, while private healthcare centers offer advanced and efficient services, their disadvantages, including affordability issues and strain on public healthcare systems, cannot be ignored. Striking a balance between the advantages of private healthcare and ensuring equitable, affordable, and high-quality healthcare for all remains a challenge that societies must address to safeguard the health and well-being of their citizens.

Sample 16:

Private health care institutions and government hospitals are at present two major sources of medical service for the public. However, some people suggest that medical services should not be operated by profit-oriented private companies. Personally, I don’t agree with them because the advantages of private health care far outweigh the disadvantages.

Undoubtedly, private health care services can bring a lot of benefits to people. For example, when you have a medical emergency, you get instant treatment. You don’t have to wait for long hours as in a government hospital. Moreover, private health care institutions, generally, specialize in particular health care services like nursing, midwifery or dental service. These places provide friendly and personalized service and high-quality professional medical treatment.

Furthermore, the competition provided by these institutes is the driving force for improvements. Because of private health care institutions, the government-owned ones are forced to take measures to better their management, which eventually benefits the public in the long run. What’s more, private health care institutions are playing a big role in remote areas and rural areas where also they provide services through mobile van hospitals.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages too. The cost of treatment in these is very high and is not within the pocket of many. Then, because these hospitals have the latest machines and employ the best doctors, the cost of running them is high and so sometimes an unnecessary battery of tests is performed which raises the cost of treatment.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that private health care is absolutely necessary. They provide the best services and so deserve to make profits. However, there should be some provision for keeping a check on unfair practices used in such hospitals.

Sample 17:

More and more people are opting for private healthcare facilities than the public despite the fact that the latter is more affordable. The primary reasons are that in public health care centers there’s poor infrastructure, non-availability of doctors, the absence of IPD and OPD, dissatisfaction with quality standards. You have to wait for a lot of time unless there is an emergency. You cannot choose your own doctor.

Whereas if you choose to go to a private health care center, you’ll get treated as soon as you and your doctor are ready. In most rural India, medical doctors are untrained. You must have read the news of a sweeper in a government hospital injecting patients. How can one expect to trust government hospitals after reading news like this? Even stretchers are not available at many public health care centers. The Indian government spends only 30% of the country’s total healthcare budget.

If public health care is really good in our country, then do the politicians never visit their government hospitals when they are sick? Because they know how they are run. They are aware of the fact that government hospitals don’t have proper infrastructure, and they might be wrongly diagnosed with a disease. There are a lot of loopholes in our public health care system. The issues need to be addressed and taken care of.

If the public healthcare systems are properly equipped and the doctors are properly trained, then people would have no problem shifting from private to the public healthcare system.

Sample 18:

Healthy people make a healthy society. Both government and private sectors are responsible for providing health care facilities. Although many people argue that medical facilities should be given to private companies to handle, I am not in favor that the drawbacks of privatization of medical departments outrank the benefits.

To begin with, the opponents of private hospitals may argue that these are money-oriented organizations, and their main motive is to earn money by all means. Certainly, health should not be taken care of by those people whose main motive is financial gain only. Secondly, these days modern private hospitals are not less than any four or five-star hotels. They cater to all the luxurious needs of well-off patients. These expensive hospitals and their high-class treatments are meant for the rich only. Moreover, private health centers charge a hefty amount that cannot be borne by the poor easily.

On the other side, all the governments have to rely on the private sector in all major domains such as education, banking and healthcare, etc. Considering the increasing number of people who need medical care, the privatization of the medical sector has become a social demand. First and foremost, private hospitals are providing services almost everywhere. This has been a boon to many people who live in remote areas. Private hospitals have emerged as a lifesaver for many valuable lives. Another reason is the treatment in private healthcare facilities is quicker than the public hospitals. Furthermore, it has also been seen that the hospitals run by the government lack many facilities. In comparison, private units are fully equipped, and efficient service is ensured.

To sum up, privatization of health care is necessary for the betterment of society. However, the government should implement some strict rules and regulations to control the unnecessary demands of private hospitals. 

Sample 19:

It is believed that the key to lead a happy life is to possess a good health, so healthcare services should be provided by private hospitals or clinics rather than public ones. Despite some positive impacts, I think that the domination of private medical services brings about more adverse effects.

On the one hand, patients themselves benefit much from the policy of running profit-making medical service. The initial point is that doctors and nurses in private ones cater for patients more carefully and meticulously. Patients do not have to pass a long waiting list before being medically examined and diagnosed. Also, private hospitals can offer more specialized care and treatment and an excellent doctor-to-patient ratio. Another argument is this trend can also lead to a higher-quality healthcare service. In order to compete with others to make more profit, those money-makers will employ well-qualified doctors and apply cutting-edge medical equipment, and therefore, patients can make a quicker recovery from ailments or severe diseases.

On the other hand, I would argue that the aforementioned advantages are overshadowed by disadvantages. There still exist some immoral private hospitals or clinics that are driven by the incentives to gain money rather than save people's life. The employment of unskilled doctors or careless nursesreduces their spending on salaries, but it may either put patients' health in danger or even deprive their lives. For example, the Today News program on TV informed many circumstances dying after minor operations due to over-dosed anesthesia in some clinics. In addition, the private healthcare centres are often accused of overcharging, so patients living in poverty are incapable of paying for this exorbitant fee. If medical care is all run by non-public companies, many people have to live with diseases.

In conclusion, albeit positive to some extent, the domination of private hospitals has more negative consequences.