Spending Public Money on Health Prevention Versus Treatment
Healthcare
Public spending
Some people think it is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nature is the mother, origin and root of everything. Everything is part of nature and the humankind is not an exception for that. Yet, we, mankind, have a distinctive difference with other parts of nature, the capability of thinking or so-called “Rationale”. This ability sometimes leads to cruel actions, for example, neglecting ill or old people. Nowadays, some people engaged in a debate that is involving healthy people and those who are sick and ill. In greater detail, the discussion is on the subject of spending money for normal and healthy people instead of taking care of ill people. In the following, reasons and examples are stated about this debate. Every person has heard this proverb: ”Preventing is cheaper than cure”. This generates a theory which one of its basis is leaving ill people and focusing on future. Actually, it is a rule of nature that weak should be killed. At first sight, it is true but when you look at it from above it is an absolutely wrong rule. A life cycle of a person consists of birth, childhood, youth, growing old and eventually death. Considering the topic of our essay, being old or ill is associated with diseases. It is nature of oldness. On the whole, ill people, whether they are old or not, shouldn’t be evaluated by their health status. History is a great witness & supports for this fact, for example, “Steven Hawking”, the great scientist of physics. He could not even move his fingers but contributed to the significant developments in the world. On the other hand, a person is not just body and physic. Everybody has a soul, memory and feelings. When we intend to forget them and just considering future, thinking with regards to spending and saving money for next generation and future, this origin a great harm to unhealthy people. To sum up, it can be argued that, we, humans, shouldn’t care just about pleasant and apparently right people and occasions. Ill people are like us. They feel, enjoy and think. They should have behaved well and considered via spending money or paying attention to them.
Estimated band6.5
6.5
6.0
6.5
6.0
Response 02
344 words
Healthy lifestyle and healthy living are two commonly used terms nowadays. With the technological advancement and modern lifestyle, people are diverted from keeping themselves fit and healthy. The issue of promoting health is quite in a vogue. Some people think that more money should be spent on creating awareness among the people, instead of treating the ones who are already ill. The below paragraphs will analyse the problem in detail before coming to an appropriate conclusion.
With the modernization and urbanisation more and more people are exposed to diseases nowadays. People are becoming ill and affected by various debilitating diseases like TB, Diabetes and Cancer. Individual himself cannot be totally blamed for this condition. It is both the government and the rapidly changing lifestyle of the people, responsible for their health problems. It is, therefore, the duty of the authority to look after its people. The government must spend a little amount of money on the health issues created in the country. This can be done in various ways.
Firstly, there should be awareness created among the people about the healthy living. Health care programs, campaigns, seminars etc. should be organised by the authority to inform people about the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle. Issues concerning proper sanitation, balanced diet, regular exercise should be dealt with. Secondly, health care facilities should be improved; for example, diagnostic facilities like X-ray, MRI should be available to the patient in order to start the treatment as early as possible. Lastly, since each and every person cannot afford the cost of his treatment, those should be taken care of. Moreover, helping ill and poor people in terms of money for the sake of humanity can be the one reason.
To conclude, I neither completely agree nor disagree with the statement that money should solely be spent on promoting health and not on treating people who are ill. In fact, expenditure should be done equally for overcoming both the problems. Treatment should be carried out with the awareness programmes so that spreading of this problem can be prevented further.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 03
363 words
It is a known fact that a sizable portion of the annual budget made by the government is spent on public healthcare. The administration is always in a fix when it comes to managing the physical well-being of the population due to the perpetual rise in the number of sick people and lack of sufficient funds for treatment. It is often debated that government funds should be allocated for improving the general standards of living to prevent health issues at the grassroots level. I strongly support this notion and in the following essay, I will support my views with relevant instances.
Firstly, we must acknowledge the appalling conditions in which a majority of the population lives in, especially in third world countries. One of the prime causes of health issues is the lack of proper sanitation and maintenance by the local municipal corporations. Since the underprivileged sections of the society already suffer from a deficiency of shelter, food and hygiene, they are bound to fall prey to serious ailments. Secondly, these diseases tend to spread among other neighbouring localities and thereby worsening the situation.
Therefore, the administration must take necessary measures to improve the living conditions of these segments of society. Furthermore, certain initiatives can be taken, not only by the government but also by other groups of authority and the public. The importance of physical exercise should be emphasized more in schools and physical education should be made a mandatory subject in the daily curriculum. Households should also adopt practices like eating healthy and following a healthy lifestyle by engaging themselves in physically demanding activities together or individually more often.
Nevertheless, the dire need for resources to overcome the health crisis faced by the government cannot be overlooked. However, a step must be taken towards a long-term solution to this issue, otherwise, we are bound to develop a vicious cycle that might be relentless to conquer.
In conclusion, I would like to add that the predicament of deteriorating health conditions of the public can only be surpassed by embracing a more vigorous manner of living. Thus, the efforts of both the government and the civilian population are required to achieve that threshold.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 04
371 words
Some people assert that investing public money in the promotion of healthy living can have significantly bigger impacts on disease prevention than spending tax money on treating existing patients. Although raising awareness of a healthy lifestyle is of great importance, I firmly believe that the government would be better off spending money on curing existing diseases.
On the one hand, it is a valid argument to suggest spending taxpayers' money on promoting a healthy lifestyle because many medical conditions are simply the result of bad lifestyle choices, including poor dietary habits and lack of physical exercise. For example, the obesity epidemic, one of the culprits behind heart failure and diabetes, is fueled by the availability of fast food and sugary drinks , both of which are consumed at an alarming rate by people who lack good eating habits and knowledge of nutrition. Furthermore, the excessive intake of unhealthy food works in conjunction with a sedentary lifestyle where exercise is forgoed , putting the health of many citizens at risk. Therefore, educating the public about the importance of portion control and healthy diets could be a good preventative measure to weight-related diseases.
On the other hand, there is no good reason to say that funding treatment for people who are already diagnosed with illnesses is less important. First, without proper treatment and medical care, people suffering from existing diseases could die from curable diseases . For instance, complications caused by the Covid-19 virus can make its hosts lose their ability to breathe, causing untold numbers of death , but if a vaccine is administered in a timely manner, patients have a high chance of survival. Another important point to take into consideration is that promoting healthy life choices is not a thorough approach to disease prevention since people’s habits and vices tend to differ from one another. Therefore, information about good diets and workout regimes will only benefit people who are already conscious of their health, and people who are prone to unhealthy lifestyle patterns will simply ignore such measures.
In conclusion, although encouraging people to live healthy could prevent some diseases to a certain extent, it is not a conclusive solution. Thus, the state should continue funding the treatment of patients with existing health problems.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.5
Response 05
319 words
The world health care system has been facing enormous pressure due to frequent outbreaks of diseases. It is argued that the state should increase their spending on raising the citizens’ awareness of a healthy way of living rather on providing timely treatments when the diseases have occurred.
Without question, “prevention is better than cure”, therefore the government should have policies in making its people adopt a healthy lifestyle. Through national and local awareness enhancement campaigns, people can be better informed of potential health risks associated with their bad habits. For example, instead of consuming too much fast food on a daily basis, teenagers or busy workers will therefore choose more nutritious foods or try to cook by themselves, which can prevent the high incidence of obesity, diabetes and other fatal diseases.
In addition to their long-term positive effects on people’s frame of mind, such campaigns are cost-effective. What needed is budget on conveying messages on the mass media like television, newspapers or conducting various workshops to share advice and experience to the public. By contrast, the medical treatment fees for a single patient with cancer disease like liver or lung cancer can amount to dozens of millions or billions, meaning a huge financial burden to the state and the family.
However, the government cannot ignore its obligation in improving their medical system as well as assisting the already ill patients covering their medical fees. The hospital fees are so expensive in some countries that only the rich can afford, so the government’s role in offering aid for treating the sick is a moral duty. As well as this, constructing more hospitals and buying modern equipment should also be put into consideration as it is more effective in the short run.
In conclusion, raising the level of public awareness is more important, but the government cannot neglect its concern on the supply of medical treatment for those currently being ill.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 06
295 words
It is said that taxpayers’ money should be allocated to promote a healthy lifestyle rather than to focus on treating patients. I completely agree with the statement, for disease prevention is cheaper, and being healthy is always better than being hospitalised.
Knowing how to lead a healthy life is more cost-effective than paying money to cure a particular disease. For instance, the cost of a balanced diet containing fundamental nutrients in the form of fresh ingredients such as meat, fish and vegetables is within financial capacity of even the underprivileged. In contrast, the expenditure on medical treatments of serious diseases such as cancer or diabetes may be as high as thousands or even millions of dollars, which is a fortune for the majority of people. Therefore, rather than spending a huge sum of money on treatment, allocation of the government’s budget for promoting a healthy lifestyle, which is much less expensive, is deemed a wiser investment.
Additionally, it is more comfortable to be fit and healthy than to stay in a hospital ward surrounded by drugs and medical devices. In fact, maintaining positive habits of eating well and doing physical exercises, despite taking a decent amount of time and effort at incipient stages, yields more desirable results than spending parts of one’s life on a wheelchair, with a zimmer or heavily dependent on medical treatments. For example, no one would have to suffer from costly hours of painful chemotherapy if they are able to minimise the cause by leading a healthy lifestyle.
In conclusion, it is my firm conviction that prevention is always better than cure, and therefore promoting a healthy way of living is the better budget spending. Tackling the upstream causes of ill health is the core principle of any person’s overall well-being.
Estimated band7.5
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
Response 07
367 words
Some people assert that investing public money in the promotion of healthy living can have more profound impacts on disease prevention than spending tax money on treating existing patients. Although raising awareness of healthy lifestyles is of great significance, I firmly believe that the government would be better off spending their budget on the cures of existing diseases.
On the one hand, a valid argument to spend taxpayers’ money on promoting a healthy lifestyle is the simple fact that many medical conditions are the result of lifestyle choices, including poor dietary habits and lack of physical exercises. For example, the obesity epidemic – a culprit of heart failure and diabetes – is fueled by the availability of fast food and sugary drinks , both of which are consumed at an alarming rate by people who lack good eating habits and nutrition knowledge. Furthermore, the excessive intake of unhealthy food works in conjunction with a sedentary lifestyle where exercises are forgoed , putting the health of many citizens at risk. Therefore, educating the public about the importance of portion control and healthy diets could be a good preventative measure to weight-related diseases.
On the other hand, there is no good reason to say that funding treatment for people who are already diagnosed with illnesses is less important. First, without proper treatment and medical care, people suffering from existing diseases could die from curable diseases . For instance, complications caused by the Covid-19 virus can make its hosts lose their ability to breathe, causing untold numbers of death , but if a vaccine is administered in a timely manner, patients have a high chance of survival. Another important point to take into consideration is that promoting healthy life choices is not a thorough approach to disease prevention since individual’s habits and vices tend to differ from one another. Therefore, information about good diets and workout regimes will only benefit people who are already conscious of their health, and people who are prone to unhealthy lifestyle patterns will simply ignore such measures.
In conclusion, although encouraging people to live healthy could prevent diseases to some extent, it is not a conclusive solution. Thus, the state should continue funding the treatment of patients with existing health problems.
Some people assert that investing public money in the promotion of healthy living can have significantly bigger impacts on disease prevention than spending tax money on treating existing patients.
Helping people know about something and understand why it matters.
From the essay
Although raising awareness of a healthy lifestyle is of great importance, I firmly believe that the government would be better off spending money on curing existing diseases.
Regular ways of eating that are bad for your health.
From the essay
On the one hand, it is a valid argument to suggest spending taxpayers' money on promoting a healthy lifestyle because many medical conditions are simply the result of bad lifestyle choices, including poor dietary habits and lack of physical exercise.
Activities that move your body to keep you healthy and fit.
From the essay
The importance of physical exercise should be emphasized more in schools and physical education should be made a mandatory subject in the daily curriculum.
