Hello @cansha you can check my previous essays as well .. Thanks in advance 
Hope gave me some wonderful comments. I would like to know your feedback too.
Some people say that private health care is better for people. Others say that healthcare should run by the government.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is argued by some people that privately-managed hospitals are effective for people, while others counter-argued this statement and claim that healthcare ought to be managed by government. In my opinion, former standpoint is more reasonable in terms of never-ending and qualitative services offered by independent healthcare centers.
To begin with, one section of society claims that government hospitals are better because of their cost-less and accessible services. In other words, government hospitals offer their services either at low cost or totally free, thereby helping economically-challenged people to have the benefit of services ranging from regular checkups to major operations. Moreover, government hospitals can be easily found in remote areas, where even public conveyance is not available, resultantly helping those individuals, who are unable to come to metropolitans in order to gain benefits of free healthcare facility. For example, in India, 47 percent people who are below the poverty line are accessing free medical facilities provided by government hospitals.
On the contrary, others, including me, contend that private hospitals are exceptional as opposed to civil hospitals. To put it in perspective, private health institutions offer not only 24 hour services, but also hire best brains from the medical field in order to perform meticulous tasks, which can be highly beneficial to patients in such serious situations as extreme accidents or brain surgeries. Singapore is a prime example here, where 35 percent more lives are saved by private health-cares as compared to government hospitals, only because of their exigency services and world-class staff.
To conclude, even though some feel that government hospitals offer free facilities and easy access to individuals, it seems to me that private health cares are always superior because of their quick facilities and superlative workforce.
Word Count : 288
Tourism is always considered as positive development on an international level.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that tourism has brought about a constructive advancement on a global scale. However, I completely disagree with this statement in terms of its negative influence on environment and economy.
One reason to support this standpoint is its detrimental effects on local surroundings. Since tourism is emerging as an exceptional industry worldwide, transportation development also moves in tandem, which is considered as attributable to pollution. Pollution not only toxifies the air quality, but also increases such breath-related illnesses as asthma or in extreme cases, cancer. India, for example, is gradually becoming a tourism hub, and owing to this transport system also developing day-by-day, which resultantly produces 21 percent more pollutants than ever before. Thus, this example clearly shows the potential negatives of widely hailed ‘tourism’.
Another feasible point to justify this viewpoint would be its pessimistic impression on economy of visited nations. To put it in perspective, tourism tends to improve international relations because it encourages the constant flow of money from affluent economies to less developed countries. In reality, however, more often than not the wealth generated stays in the hands of privately-owned companies or local officials rather than local citizens of concerned place. To illustrate, many of us have visited developing states as globetrotters, and have witnessed at first hand the poverty that exists outsides the confines of the luxurious hotels.
To conclude, even though tourism has plethora of positive impacts such as conveyance growth and revenue generation, it seems to me that overall effect of this phenomenon is not always good.
