Private Healthcare services analysis
[Question] Some people think that good health is a basic human need, so the medical service should not be run by profit-making companies. Do you think the disadvantages of private health care outweighs the advantages ?
It is irrefutable that having a good health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. Therefore, the business on medical services should be banned. In my opinion, although there are some drawbacks of private heath care, I would argue that these are outweighed by the benefits.
On the one hand, private medical treatment has its own negative impacts in some aspects. The biggest drawback to private-owned hospitals is that the fee for their services which includes treatment cost and prescription charges is remarkably high in comparison with the one in public hospitals. It is due to the fact that making money is always the top priority of private holding companies. Therefore, patients who choose to take medical treatment at these companies might suffer more from financial hardship. Furthermore, with the aim of maximizing profits, some private clinics not only impose higher treatment price but also minimize the labor cost by hiring low-skilled or even unqualified medical practitioners. This leads to the possibility of patients being wrongly diagnosed and receiving ineffective health cure.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the governments should encourage private organizations to invest in medical systems because of some undeniable advantages. Firstly, it can help to lessen the burden on public health care system. For example, many public medical centers in Vietnam have been overloaded for a long period of time, resulting in the deterioration in the quality of health care. In order to deal with this situation, private clinics are widely established and provide people with more and better choices when seeking for medical care. Secondly, thanks to local private clinics, residents of rural or mountainous area can easily access to the primary health care without needing to take a long road to center hospital. As a result, people from minority groups might not hesitate in having a regular check-up, so that they are able to detect health problems at early stage and take preventive measures if necessary.
In conclusion, despite the drawbacks of medical services being provided profit-making companies, I believe that they play an integral parts in improving the quality of medical systems.
In paragraph two, the word cure should be cures as you are discussing more than one patient.
In paragraph three remove it seems to me. While the discussion is a personal perspective the focus is on the opinion versus you. The paper is well supported with information that aids in the understanding of what you have written. Good job!
On a personal note, I appreciate how the structure of your essay makes it comprehensible and understandable. I do have a couple of suggestions that will improve the flow of your narrative.
Firstly, reconsider the phrasing and your general usage of some particular words. For instance, in the first paragraph, be clear by what you mean when you mention of the medical services sector being a form of business than a service. You can briefly explain how privatization and heavily monopolizing this can result to higher prices in services, making it inaccessible. Touching on these arguments can improve your essay's quality because it shows a long-term perception.
Secondly, when you are using transition sentences, you can be more creative. You can, for instance, omit the "on the one hand" in your second paragraph; this can also eliminate the repetition from the words because you use a similar opener in your third paragraph.
Lastly, I suggest that you add more details to your concluding remarks. You simply wrapped up the essay by mentioning how the drawbacks are proof that profit-making companies have no space in medical services. You can add flairs to your essay by, for instance, discussing how this can be better for people who are poor. You may also discuss why this sector has to cater to these people because it's a fundamental right of everyone.
Best of luck to you.
You must make the thread Urgent for a new review from a Contributor, thank you.
First Paragraph (Introduction): The second sentence is against privately owned hospitals, and the third sentence supports privately owned hospitals. It's good that you mention both sides. However, both stances are too strong. If you change the wording of those two sentences so that the language is more mild, then the introduction will be more appropriate for an essay discussing pros and cons in the following paragraphs. Because the prompt is asking for both advantages and disadvantages, you don't need to use such firm language when introducing both sides.
Second and Third Paragraphs (Body): 1) You have good information for both paragraphs. You just need a topic sentence for each paragraph to keep tying those facts back to. Every time you mention a fact in a body paragraph, explain more explicitly how it relates to the topic sentence of that body paragraph. 2) The essay might be easier to follow if you discuss the advantages before the disadvantages.
Fourth Paragraph (Conclusion): It is good that you addressed both the drawbacks and the benefits that you mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Since you mentioned that privately owned hospitals compromise patient safety, it doesn't seem appropriate to use the phrase "improving the quality." Instead, maybe you can mention how privately owned hospitals continue to offer care to a greater number of people who would otherwise have no access to any medical care at all. In this way, private hospitals increase the reach or jurisdiction of the medical care system.
General: You do not need to mention "I," "me," "my," or other first-person words, unless they are being used for style or emphasis.
It is irrefutable that having good health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. Health care is extended to people by both public and private entities. Privately owned hospitals can offer benefits that public hospitals cannot, but they also have their drawbacks.
Governments should encourage private organizations to invest in medical systems because privately funded hospitals can handle unfavorable situations and offer resources that public health care systems cannot afford to. For example, public medical centers struggle to offer high-quality care when they are overloaded with patients. Meanwhile, private hospitals are financially well-supported, so they can open up branches in a multitude of areas and serve a greater number of people than public hospitals can handle. Thanks to local private clinics, residents of rural and mountainous areas can easily access health care without needing to travel long distances to central hospitals. Secondly, private hospitals have the money to provide patients with more and technologically advanced choices when they are seeking medical care, whereas public hospitals can only supply limited options because of their low budgets. All in all, private hospitals can present patients with amenities that public hospitals cannot.
On the other hand, because making money is the top priority of private holding companies, privately owned hospitals engage in practices that put human lives at risk. Private clinics charge exorbitant fees for their services and prescription drugs. Consequently, patients who cannot foot the private systems' medical bills are denied access to treatments that are crucial to their well-beings. In addition, privately held hospitals minimize labor costs by staffing low-wage, unqualified medical practitioners. Such hiring practices ultimately put human beings at risk because patients can be misdiagnosed and not receive vital treatments as a result. Thus, though privately owned hospitals have the funding to offer quality care, they do not always function in ways that prioritize patient care in reality.
In conclusion, despite the advantages offered by privately held hospitals, it is in patients' best interests to have both public hospitals and private clinics be available to them. Patients should be able to decide which hospitals to frequent based on the quality, affordability, and safety of the care they desire.