The prevention of health problems and health illnesses is more important than treatment and medicine. Government funding should reflect this.
To what extent do you agree?
Healthcare remains to be a heated debate throughout these recent centuries, especially in the Covid-19 pandemic. While numerous civilians state that governmental aid should be given in precautions of health problems rather than in medical treatment, I strongly believe that the funds be flexibly divided as they are equally important to human wellbeing.
On the one hand, preventive health care improves public health in the long-term. To put it another way, preventive care means catching problems before they become real problems. By early endowing funds to this approach, the government would lower the potential possibility of patients infecting diseases, especially the chronic ones such as type 2 diabetes or cancer. Take regular wellness checks as an example, in doing so, you would have your blood pressure tested regularly. If your healthcare professional notices that it's increasing, you can start doing things to lower your blood pressure before it becomes problematic, thus, lessening the long-term cost of disease management and saving a huge amount of funds from the national budgets aided in experiments.
On the other hand, treatment plays an important role when a preventive method is ineffective. Precisely, medical therapy is generally considered to be management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder. Therefore, the administrator bodies presumably pay the earth for launching a full-scale investigation into a disease for it to become a lifelong knowledge that could be applied in treatment for even more than a century. The patients could then be satisfied with the assurance of their well-being sustainability, having said that the medical treatment is available after being carefully examined under unmeasurable time and funds.
In conclusion, government funding should be aided in preventive healthcare in a great amount. Nevertheless, funds in disease treatment could not be overlooked. The authorities should consider a wide spectrum of all possibilities to determine what means the best for local communities.
(Thank you very much! What band would I score with this essay, please?)
Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 The first sentence in the restatement paragraph is score reducing as it offers a personal opinion where it should not be provided. It removes the accurate restatement of the original prompt topic. The prompt topic should be restated over 2 sentences with the writer's opinion being the 3rd sentence presentation. No added but unsupported claims should be found anywhere in the presentation.
The writer has provided a strong opinion thesis but not a direct emotional response to the question. He has in effect, changed the discussion topic to one of his own design. The overall restatement and accuracy response is now incorrect as it no longer aligns with the orginal presentation. This is no longer a relevant and passing score essay.
Not a pro but here are some tips. Sentences like numerous civilians sounds very mechanical and memorized, better to use simpler words. That being said the original question prompt does not mention people's opinion but rather is a statement itself.
Better to use accurate ideas for answering the question prompt, such as agreeing and then using the idea that funding preventive medicine costs the government in the long term as the first topic and governments focusing more on treatment and medicine will not remove the main cause of disease as the second idea.
