Free healthcare leads to less inequality

The argument

The case that healthcare should be free begins with an observation about who gets sick. Poorer segments of the population tend to be more prone to illness and disease, and the reasons are economic rather than incidental. They have less money to spend on healthy, organic food. They have less time to exercise. They have less access to health education, so preventable conditions go unrecognised until they require treatment. And they are more likely to work in jobs that carry a high risk of illness or injury. Each of these follows from having less money, which means the need for medical care is concentrated precisely among the people least able to pay for it. A system that charges citizens for the services they use then compounds that mismatch instead of correcting it. In a for-profit arrangement the price of treatment is set by the treatment, not by the income of the person receiving it, so an identical bill is a trivial expense to a high earner and a ruinous one to a low earner. Because lower economic classes both need more care and earn less, they end up spending a much higher percentage of their salary on healthcare costs. They are also less likely to hold the health insurance that would lighten that financial burden, so they meet the largest bills with the fewest defences. The result, proponents argue, is that paid healthcare works as a transfer running the wrong way. Money leaves the lowest economic classes at a far higher rate than it leaves the highest, and it leaves them for something they did not choose and often could not have avoided. Poverty produces illness, illness produces cost, and cost deepens poverty. Removing the charge breaks that loop at the one point where it can be broken, which is why free healthcare is said to lead to less inequality between the lowest and the highest economic classes.

Context

Financial inequality poses a threat to political and social stability. In vastly unequal societies, there is a greater likelihood of violence and political upheaval. Forcing citizens to pay for their own healthcare costs fuels financial inequality, which in turn, makes a society less stable.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There's no denying that poorer people tend to have more health problems, but this is not due to a lack of free healthcare; it has to do with lifestyle choices. Poor people claim to have no access to healthy food, but eating healthy is actually cheaper than buying unhealthy pre-made meals and snacks. Poor people make the excuse that it is cheaper to eat healthy because it's faster and more filling to grab a quick cheeseburger than it is to prepare a healthy meal. People also tend to waste money on harmful substances, like tobacco or drugs, citing things such as stress or pain as an excuse to take part in unhealthy habits, which causes financial strain. There's also the fact that there are actually a lot of ways that poorer populations can receive free or low-cost healthcare. If they don't qualify, then that means they make too much to be considered "poor", which means that they can afford healthcare if they learn to budget their money more responsibly.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Poorer populations have more health complications because they lead unhealthy lifestyles. [Rejecting P2] Poor people do not have to spend more to be healthy; it is actually cheaper to eat healthy, and exercise is free. It is also cheaper not to waste money on harmful substances like tobacco and drugs. [Rejecting P3] There is no financial inequality when it comes to healthcare because there are options for poor people to receive free or low-cost healthcare.