Sample 1:

Some people have proposed that a higher proportion of the national budget should be allocated to support those in need at hospitals. However, I believe healthy lifestyle promotion programs must be prioritised considering their perennial impact on society.

On the one hand, governmental support is critical to the recovery of patients whose treatment costs exceed their financial capacity. For example, the medical treatment process for a cancer patient includes numerous costly procedures, starting with the conduct of diagnostic tests, the use of prescribed medications, and ending with interpretation of the results and counselling. In Vietnam, the total sum of these medical and non-medical expenses can total over $50,000, which is unaffordable for the majority of Vietnamese working families. Therefore, to ensure proper treatment, the Vietnamese government must provide monetary support to these patients through insurance schemes or the Red Cross organisation.

On the other hand, health promotion and disease prevention initiatives can produce greater long-term social impact. Many of these initiatives, such as those executed by the WHO in Cambodia, have successfully provided locals with essential health information related to nutrition, along with the hygienic and cardiovascular benefits of regular exercise. As the number of Cambodians who adopt healthy diets and preventive measures against diseases are on the rise, the rates for hospitalisation have witnessed a remarkable drop in recent years. Cambodia has, therefore, reduced financial demand for the construction of hospitals and clinics, allocating a greater proportion of a stretched budget to other critical sectors such as education and social equality.

In conclusion, although some patients might benefit from governmental financial aid, I opine that programs which promote a healthier lifestyle are of greater importance to society as a whole. In my opinion, governments should promulgate laws that require the participation and involvement of all political bodies to support these programs.

Sample 2:

In today's modern world, the allocation of public funds is a subject of significant debate. A persistent question in public health funding is whether it is more important to invest in promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent illness or to allocate resources for treating those already sick. I partially agree with the statement, recognizing the value of both aspects of public healthcare.

To begin with, promoting a healthy lifestyle through public funds is undeniably essential. This is primarily because many diseases that plague society today are direct consequences of unhealthy lifestyles. The rise in non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity can be largely attributed to poor dietary choices, a lack of physical activity, and other unhealthy habits. By investing in education, awareness campaigns, and infrastructure for healthier living, we can reduce the incidence of these diseases and, consequently, the burden on the healthcare system.

Nevertheless, there are certain diseases that cannot be completely prevented through lifestyle modifications. Infectious diseases, for instance, can affect even the most health-conscious individuals. Neglecting this aspect would be unfair to individuals who suffer from such illnesses. It is our ethical responsibility to provide them with access to the best possible medical care and treatment options. By doing so, we not only ensure that individuals receive the care they deserve but also advance medical research and innovation, potentially leading to more effective treatments in the future.

In conclusion, while it is undoubtedly crucial to invest in initiatives that encourage healthier living, it is equally important to allocate resources for disease treatment. Striking a balance between prevention and treatment is the key to a comprehensive and effective public healthcare system, ensuring both a healthier future and the best possible care for those who are already afflicted with illness.

Sample 3:

Many people say that in order to fight diseases, the government should invest more money in encouraging a healthy lifestyle instead of spending money on the treatment of people who are already suffering from illness. I advocate this point of view.

On one hand, I agree that a large proportion of state budget should be allocated to activities or campaigns that promote a healthy lifestyle. This is because a lot of diseases nowadays are actually the direct result of people’s unhealthy habits. For example, children who eat fast food on a daily basis commonly can suffer from a range of health issues, such as weight problems and obesity. These diseases can be prevented if people are made more aware of the severe consequences of an unhealthy diet. In addition, there are a number of incurable diseases, such as HIV, AIDS and many forms of cancer. Of course, there are drugs and treatments that can prolong the life of patients suffering from such diseases, but the better solution in this case is obviously trying to prevent these diseases from occurring, instead of trying to cure them, which can often place a heavy burden on patients’ families, and on society as a whole.

On the other hand, the treatment for people who are already ill should also receive adequate funding, due to the fact that some diseases simply cannot be prevented. People living in many tropical or coastal regions, for example, are highly vulnerable to water-borne diseases after a natural disaster such as a tsunami or heavy flooding. Additionally, there are also some illnesses and disorders that are inherited. For instance, if a person suffers from asthma, it is highly likely that his children will also contract respiratory related diseases, regardless of their diet or lifestyle. These mentioned cases would be almost impossible for people or the government to prevent, and therefore money needs to be spent on the treatment of patients.

In conclusion, both promoting a healthy lifestyle and spending money on the treatment of people who are already ill are equally important in the fight against diseases, and each country should develop flexible plans to adapt to different situations.

Sample 4:

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.

Sample 5:

It is sometimes said that the state should spend money on the prevention of illnesses through promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than on the remedies of ill patients. From my perspective, while the former investment has an important part to play, I believe that it is by no means more important than recovering ill patients.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why the promotion of a healthy lifestyle should receive funding from the government. Firstly, this source of funding could help solve the problems of an unhealthy lifestyle, which is pervasive in modern societies and which causes a range of debilitating diseases. For instance, obesity and heart diseases often result from the lack of exercise and a cholesterol-rich diet. These health problems can be prevented through propagation and public campaigns that raise awareness among citizens about the associated risks of unhealthy food. Secondly, despite the development of medicine and healthcare systems, a lot of illnesses still remain incurable. For example, in many forms of cancer, the disease cannot be cured completely even after exorbitant and painful courses of treatment, which is regrettable as many of these cancers could have been negated with a healthy lifestyle.

On the other hand, the allocation of a reasonable proportion of public money to treating the ill is of the same significance. It is a fact that a number of diseases are hereditary. In other words, they are passed from parents to their child in the genes and cannot be prevented in any way. For example, a child whose parents have diabetes is highly likely to suffer from this genetic disorder as he ages. In these cases, neither a healthy lifestyle nor a good diet could ensure a clean bill of health, thus highlighting the role of treatment. Moreover, the expenses of medical care and medicines are getting higher, especially for some serious inheritable illnesses. In these cases, the medical bill could pose a serious financial burden on the ill, who would need financial support from the state to alleviate the problem.

In conclusion, it is certainly true that the government should invest money in promoting a healthy lifestyle among all citizens, but this is by no means the only way public money should be distributed since, in many circumstances, costly treatment of the ill cannot be neglected.

Sample 6:

Many people believe that instead of being spent on curing the sick, public money should be used for illness prevention by encouraging people’s living in a healthy way. Personally, I totally agree with this point of view, and supporting arguments will be presented in the following essay.

There are many reasons why illnesses should be prevented rather than be cured. Firstly, it is a fact that many of them nowadays are caused by unhealthy lifestyles and habits. For example, those who consume too much fast food and lead a sedentary lifestyle are likely to suffer from the risks of obesity and cardiovascular diseases like heart attack and heart failure. People can minimize the chance of getting these illnesses if they actively change their eating practice and do physical activity on a regular basis. Secondly, scientists nowadays still have yet to find medical treatment for some incurable diseases like HIV, AIDS, different types of cancers and especially the Covid-19 epidemic. Therefore, a more ideal approach, in this case, is apparently trying to lower the number of infected cases, which can clearly alleviate the burden on the patients themselves and their families.

Furthermore, prevention is less costly than cure in the long term. Obviously, effective preventive solutions stop people from contracting acute diseases, which will lead to fewer sick people being hospitalized. This not only reduces patients’ spending on hospitalization, drugs, and other medical fees but also lowers government expenditure on healthcare services. For example, during the raging outbreak of Covid-19 these days, worldwide authorities are sparing no effort to vaccinate their citizens with the hope of halting the spread of the pandemic. This means the amount of public money saved can be, otherwise, reallocated to improving other fields of the society, such as education, economy, and infrastructure, as well as promoting sustainable social development and people’s well-being

All things considered, I wholeheartedly agree that prevention is better than cure and that the state budget should be spent on preventive solutions, for the advantages given above.

Sample 7:

In contemporary society, the allocation of public funds has become a subject of intense debate. Some argue that it is more prudent to invest resources in fostering a healthy lifestyle to prevent illnesses, while others believe that treating those already afflicted should be the primary focus. I concur with the former perspective, as preventive measures not only contribute to overall well-being but also alleviate the burden on healthcare systems.

To begin with, fostering a healthy lifestyle has multifaceted benefits. By channeling public funds into educational campaigns, fitness programs, and nutritional initiatives, societies can empower individuals to make informed choices regarding their well-being. For instance, public health campaigns can disseminate information about the importance of regular exercise, balanced diets, and stress management. Such initiatives may not only promote physical health but also contribute to mental well-being, reducing cases of lifestyle-related diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular issues.

Furthermore, investing in public health programs can substantially reduce the economic burden associated with treating chronic illnesses. To illustrate, a study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that investments in preventive health services resulted in significant reductions in future healthcare expenditures, which is particularly crucial nowadays given the global rise in these expenses. By curbing the prevalence of diseases through proactive measures, governments can redirect resources towards other urgent needs, such as education and infrastructure, in order to elevate the general living standards of their citizens.

In conclusion, while treating existing illnesses is undeniably crucial, prioritizing the promotion of a healthy lifestyle through preventive measures offers a more sustainable and economically viable solution. By promoting individual responsibility and reducing the prevalence of diseases, societies can achieve long-term health benefits and alleviate the strain on healthcare resources.

Sample 8:

The debate over whether public funds should prioritize promoting a healthy lifestyle to avert illnesses or be channeled towards treating the already sick is a contentious one. This essay posits that investing in preventive health measures is fundamentally more crucial than allocating funds for treatment. The discussion will delve into the long-term economic benefits of prevention and the enhancement of public health standards.

Firstly, the economic rationale behind prioritizing prevention over treatment is compelling. Preventive measures, such as public awareness campaigns and subsidized healthy food options, can significantly reduce the prevalence of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart conditions. For instance, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health revealed that for every dollar spent on preventive health programs, there is a return of about $2.71 in reduced treatment costs and increased productivity. This is because preventing diseases not only saves immediate healthcare costs but also averts the loss of productivity due to illness, thereby bolstering the economy.

Moreover, investing in preventive healthcare fosters a healthier society. Initiatives such as community exercise programs and nutritional education in schools equip individuals with the knowledge and tools necessary to make healthier lifestyle choices. Countries like Japan have successfully implemented nationwide health promotion programs, resulting in some of the highest life expectancies in the world. These measures underscore the importance of a proactive approach to health, emphasizing that a healthy populace is foundational to societal progress and well-being.

In conclusion, while the treatment of illnesses is undeniably important, the allocation of public funds towards promoting a healthy lifestyle offers more significant long-term benefits. By prioritizing prevention, not only can economic savings be realized, but the overall health of the population can also be improved. This strategy ensures a more sustainable healthcare system and a vibrant, productive society.

Sample 9:

Allocating public resources towards fostering a health-conscious society rather than exclusively treating ailments post-diagnosis presents a profound debate. This discourse supports the former approach, asserting its superiority due to its long-term sustainability and broader health improvements. The ensuing argument will explore the effectiveness of preventative measures in enhancing public health and reducing healthcare burdens.

Preventive health strategies extend beyond mere cost savings, embodying a vision for a resilient, informed society. For instance, implementing mandatory physical education in schools and community-based fitness initiatives can significantly mitigate the risk of obesity and associated non-communicable diseases. Such interventions, reflective of the Finnish model which saw a dramatic decline in heart disease mortality rates through national lifestyle campaigns, illustrate the transformative power of preemptive action. This approach not only alleviates the financial strain on healthcare systems but also cultivates a culture of wellness, empowering individuals to take charge of their health.

Additionally, the ripple effect of preventive healthcare transcends individual benefits, fostering a societal environment where healthy living is normative and accessible. Urban planning that encourages active transportation, like cycling and walking, coupled with the provision of green spaces, serves as a testament to the societal benefits of preventive measures. These initiatives, akin to those in Copenhagen, Denmark, not only enhance physical health but also contribute to environmental sustainability and community well-being, showcasing a holistic approach to public health.

In conclusion, investing in preventive healthcare is a wise and ethical choice, offering both economic and societal benefits. It not only leads to a healthier future but also reflects a commitment to enhancing every citizen's quality of life. Redirecting public funds towards health promotion and disease prevention is essential for sustainable development.

Sample 10:

It is widely argued that spending government funds to promote salubrious living style among citizens is more crucial than treating terminally ill patients. I strongly agree with this statement, because rather than allowing diseases to develop and lavishly spending money on patients in critical conditions, proper preventive measures with changing lifestyle can save both invaluable lives and money.

The most popular preventative measure to save life and public fund is introducing a healthy life. In fact, this alone protects people from spending money on treatments for most of the precedent diseases. In other words, the cost of healthy living is considerably cheaper compared to the capital needed for the scientific research and treatments for the perennially ill patients. For instance, the diseases like Metastatic cancer, Cystic fibrosis are almost incurable but take a massive amount of money to continue treatment. Studies show that the cost of one year treatment of 100 patients with these diseases is equivalent to the amount that a government needs to finance for almost one million citizens’ basic well beings.

In addition, preventive actions with lifestyle work miraculously with those who are susceptible to inheritable diseases. We know that people are mostly vulnerable to suffer from the diseases that their ancestors did. Considering this, governments can save huge public funds if they sort out the group of people who are potential to inherit rare genetic diseases. If these people are brought to a master plan to follow a customised lifestyle which could contribute to withstand the potential genetic diseases, both governments and individuals can save a massive potential medical expense.

In conclusion, I agree that governments’ preventive measure with lifestyle modification, targeting diseases and potential patient types, is not only cheaper for individuals and governments, but also more effective and safer than studying and curing the diseases in hindsight.

Sample 11:

In today's complex healthcare landscape, the allocation of public funds presents a pressing concern. Some think the government should direct resources toward promoting a healthy lifestyle to prevent diseases, others believe we should primarily focus on the treatment of patients. I totally agree with the first statement and there are some reasons to support my opinion.

When it comes to cost-effectiveness, preventive measures, such as vaccination campaigns and educational initiatives on nutrition and exercise, are far less expensive than treating advanced diseases. For example, the cost of administering vaccines to prevent infectious diseases like measles or polio is significantly lower than the expenses associated with treating patients who contract these diseases. This economical method allows for the allocation of resources to a broader spectrum of the population, thereby reaching a larger number of individuals.

Moreover, directing public money toward motivating individuals to embrace practices and choices that lead to overall well-being can significantly minimize the healthcare burden. By focusing on prevention, healthcare systems are less inundated with patients suffering from avoidable illnesses. This reduction results in shorter waiting times for treatments, better patient care, and an overall more efficient and responsive healthcare system. For instance, countries with robust public health campaigns against smoking have seen a decrease in smoking-related conditions, leading to reduced strain on healthcare resources.

Additionally, having a healthy lifestyle plays a crucial role in preventing epidemics. Timely and extensive vaccination campaigns, for instance, have been instrumental in averting large-scale outbreaks of contagious diseases. When a significant portion of the population is vaccinated against diseases like influenza or COVID-19, the spread of these illnesses is curtailed, preventing them from reaching epidemic proportions.

In conclusion, it is evident that spending public budget on educating people to lead a healthy lifestyle is a prudent and forward-thinking approach. It not only proves to be cost-effective but also alleviates the burden on healthcare systems and effectively prevents epidemics. While treatment remains vital, a focus on prevention represents an indispensable cornerstone of public health policies, ensuring the well-being and vitality of society at large.

Sample 12:

Health funds are always included in every country's national budget since the early stages of the world. Every year the government has allocated a lot of money for the prevention and cure of the public most common diseases. It is agreed that spending public money to promote a healthy lifestyle for the prevention of illnesses is more importantly than for the treatment of already ill people. This argument will be proven that prevention is better than cure, and already ill people are expected to be at their terminal life.

For one, spending state funds on promoting a healthy lifestyle to prevent illnesses is better because prevention is better than cure. For instance, when I was working as an RHU (Rural Health Unit) nurse in a small community called San Pablo situated in the province of Pangasinan in the Philippines; we disseminated multivitamins and done vaccinations for children in the area because our government had a program called "Eliminate Diseases by Prevention", so we, as health officials and workers implemented it. It is actually a good campaign because no children in that particular community have had serious children’s diseases. Thus, they became healthier and the public money has been used wisely.

In addition to this, it is no sense using the people's money for those who are already ill because it is expected that they will be at their terminal life. For instance, in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) of Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital where I am currently assigned to a hospital as a duty nurse, we have a terminally ill colon cancer patient, Mrs Corazon Cojuanco. When she is in her final stage and any further medications or treatments will not work in prolonging her life. So, cancer patients who are at their last stage, such as colon, lung or breast, should not be funded anymore because it is useless. It is really better to allocate the money for the promotion of healthy lifestyles.

In conclusion, spending more public money on a healthier lifestyle is better because prevention is always better than treating an already ill patient as well as it is no sense using it because they are already at their terminal stage of their life. Thus, it has proven that 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. Thus, improving healthy lifestyles is highly recommended.

Sample 13:

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.

Sample 14:

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, ...