A writer has just completed one of the most powerful dystopian novels of our time — a story set in a world ruled by a harsh, controlling system. But they are torn between two very different endings. In one version, the system wins. The main character, after trying to rebel, is broken down and finally gives in. This is similar to George Orwell’s 1984, where Winston is forced to betray his love and ultimately accepts Big Brother. In the other version, the protagonist wins. They manage to escape or destroy the system, and there is hope for a better world. This mirrors Fahrenheit 451, where Montag breaks free, and the old, oppressive society is left in ruins.

Context: In India, healthcare is delivered through a mixed system: government hospitals and public schemes like Ayushman Bharat operate alongside a large private medical sector and a growing health insurance industry. While private institutions often provide advanced treatment, their services remain unaffordable for most citizens. Public hospitals, though more widely accessible, struggle with overcrowding, underfunding, and uneven quality.

This has sparked calls for a fully nationalized model, similar to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), where the state funds and directly provides universal healthcare free at the point of use. Proponents argue such a system would ensure equity and protect citizens from crippling medical debt, while opponents caution it may be financially unsustainable, risk inefficiency, and stifle innovation in India’s healthcare sector.