Is there an alternative to "no government" in terms of protecting natural rights? (Can someone explain that in simpler words please ? I'm not very good at english

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

In simple terms, we can comment on the following idea.

According to Enlightenment philosopher and thinker John Locke, it would be so difficult to live under the condition of "no government" for the following reason. The government is the social institution that takes care of people, protecting their natural rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to own property.

John Locke concluded that for the government to be valid and be legit, people have to approve or give their consent to allow that government to rule the citizens.

Locke wrote the book "Two Treatises of Government" in 1689. In the book, Lock makes a critic on the idea of "patriarchalism" and then supports the idea of a society based on human natural rights and the social contract, where individuals in society give up some of their liberty in exchange for protection from the government.

health care plans in the united states having high costs because they are focusing on providing quality programs for different groups of individuals. the quality of the service is based on money flow received from the members. without this investment, couldn't be possible a constant scientific searching to prevent death and illness caused because of low levels of health investigation. currently, the complaints are not about the highest cost, but about the coverage and benefits to access the necessary health services required by the members.  

besides, if a global health system is established the quality levels will fall down because of the standardized of the health. the access to care will increase but the quality will be low because it depends on the money invested.