Some believe that healthcare should be funded entirely by the state. Others argue that people who can afford to contribute to their own care should do so.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some believe that healthcare should be funded entirely by the state. Others argue that people who can afford to contribute to their own care should do so.
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
Both views here are about who pays, not about who gets treated — and conflating the two is the usual error. The sharpest observation available is that a private tier does not simply add capacity: doctors are a fixed pool in the short run, so a second system staffed from the same pool moves clinicians rather than creating them. Building the answer on that keeps it out of the generic "fairness versus choice" groove.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase both views, then state a position: state funding as the universal base, because health spending is unpredictable and risk has to be pooled.
Body 1 — The case for full state funding — illness is unaffordable and unpredictable, so pooling is the only rational structure; and a single system has bargaining power.
Body 2 — The case for private payment — it adds money and relieves pressure, and forbidding it is hard to justify in a free society.
Conclusion — Universal state provision, with private care permitted but staffed and regulated so it does not drain the public system.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
326 words
According to some, healthcare should be funded entirely by the state, whereas others contend that those who can afford to contribute towards their own care ought to do so. In my view, while universal state funding should remain the foundation of any healthcare system, permitting affluent individuals to co-finance elective care can ease pressure on public resources without compromising equity.
On the one hand, advocates of fully state-funded healthcare argue that this model guarantees equal access regardless of income. To clarify, when treatment is financed entirely through taxation, patients are not deterred from seeking timely medical attention by the fear of prohibitive costs. For instance, countries with comprehensive public healthcare systems, such as the United Kingdom, tend to report lower rates of untreated chronic illness, since financial hardship never prevents citizens from consulting a doctor.
On the other hand, others maintain that wealthier citizens should shoulder a share of their own medical expenses. This is attributable to the fact that public healthcare systems are frequently strained by limited budgets and lengthy waiting lists. Consequently, when affluent patients opt to pay privately for elective procedures, such as cosmetic surgery or non-urgent operations, public resources are freed for those who cannot otherwise afford treatment, thereby reducing overall waiting times.
From my perspective, the state should continue to finance essential and emergency care in full, since no citizen should be denied urgent treatment on financial grounds. However, permitting those with sufficient means to pay for elective or non-essential procedures privately would relieve pressure on public hospitals without undermining the principle of universal access. In this way, scarce public funds could be redirected toward patients whose conditions are most severe.
To conclude, although opinions differ on how healthcare should be financed, I believe that state funding should remain guaranteed for essential care, while allowing affluent individuals to contribute towards elective treatment can alleviate strain on the system.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is a discussion (discuss both views) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase both views on healthcare funding and state the conditional opinion that essential care should stay state-funded while wealthier patients contribute for elective treatment.
Body 1: Argue that fully state-funded healthcare guarantees equal access regardless of income, illustrated by lower untreated illness in countries such as the UK.
Body 2: Argue that letting affluent patients pay privately for elective procedures relieves strain on public budgets and shortens waiting lists for everyone else.
Body 3: State the opinion that essential and emergency care must remain fully state-funded while elective care can be privately financed, freeing resources for the neediest patients.
Conclusion: Restate the balanced position that guaranteed essential care plus optional private contribution for elective treatment best serves the healthcare system.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
state-funded
paid for by government money rather than private individuals
advocates of fully state-funded healthcare argue that this model guarantees equal access regardless of income
prohibitive costs
prices so high that they prevent someone from doing something
patients are not deterred from seeking timely medical attention by the fear of prohibitive costs
shoulder
to accept responsibility for a burden or cost
others maintain that wealthier citizens should shoulder a share of their own medical expenses
strained
put under pressure by having too much demand for too few resources
public healthcare systems are frequently strained by limited budgets and lengthy waiting lists
waiting lists
ordered lists of patients waiting for treatment because resources are limited
public healthcare systems are frequently strained by limited budgets and lengthy waiting lists
elective procedures
medical treatments that are planned in advance and not medically urgent
affluent patients opt to pay privately for elective procedures, such as cosmetic surgery or non-urgent operations
universal access
the principle that everyone can obtain a service regardless of income
relieve pressure on public hospitals without undermining the principle of universal access
redirected
sent or allocated to a different purpose than originally intended
scarce public funds could be redirected toward patients whose conditions are most severe
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
How do I avoid a generic "fairness versus choice" essay on this topic?
Find a mechanism instead of a value. Here it is that clinicians take a decade to train, so a private sector recruits rather than creates them. Arguments built on how something works are much harder to answer than arguments built on what you think is right, and examiners can see the difference.
Is it acceptable to disagree with both views partially?
Yes, provided the result is a definite position rather than a hedge. "Public funding, private care permitted but conditional" is a clear stance with an argument behind it. "Both have good points" is not.
Do I need to know about health systems in specific countries?
No. General knowledge of how insurance and training work is enough, and it is safer. Naming a country's system invites factual claims you may not be able to defend, and IELTS gives no credit for the detail.
