Health and Wellness
Over the past 50 years, people have become used to the idea that they will probably live longer than their grandparents did. However a longer life is only desirable if you can look after yourself and be independent, otherwise there can he disadvantages for everyone.
If you walk into a hospital in my country, you are likely to see a lot more elderly people than you did in the past. In fact, this is causing significant problems as there is a shortage of beds. Medical treatment is keeping the elderly alive, but at what cost to others?
On top of this, one of the biggest medical problems these days is dementia. Even if old people are still fit, they may not be able to look after themselves. They may have to live with their children or be cared for in a home, which can be expensive. Elderly people do not like to be a burden, but their children can feel obliged to care for them.
Obviously not all old people become ill. Those who remain healthy can enjoy a happy old age as long as they have saved enough money. People are much more active in their sixties and seventies than they used to be and this can only be a good thing. They have time to enjoy their retirement and do a range of activities that they could not do when they were at work. They can also help look after their grandchildren, which is a great benefit for working parents.
To sum up, I believe that we should aim to keep people as healthy as possible so that they can enjoy their old age without having to rely on others. A longer life expectancy is obviously advantageous, but no one wants to live to be 100 if they only cause problems for their family and society.
The growth of the fast food industry has, without doubt, impacted on the eating habits and the health of many societies around the world. Diabetes, high cholesterol, heart and respiratory problems are all on the rise due to fatty and sugar-rich food. However, the question is whether higher tax would improve this situation or not.
From an economic point of view, higher tax might seem sensible. In countries such as the USA, Australia and Britain, the healthcare system spends a large part of its budget on people with diet-related health problems. It could be argued that these people have caused their own illness because of their choice of food. In this case, why should they expect the state to pay for their treatment? The tax should help fund the healthcare system.
However, we also need to consider which socio-economic group consumes fast food as the main part of their diet. Statistics indicate that lower Income groups eat more of this food than wealthier people. One possible reason for this is that fast food is far cheaper than fresh produce. This is because many governments offer large subsidies so farmers who provide products for the fast fond industry, such as corn, wheat and beef. Fruit and vegetables, on the other hand, are not subsidised. Research suggests that many families simply cannot afford to buy healthy food or pay higher taxes on fast food. For them, fast food is not a choice but a necessity.
In conclusion, imposing a higher tax on fast food does not seem to be the answer. If the government chose to do this, it would only lead to greater poverty and families facing further hardship.
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.