It is argued that preventing problems relevant to health is more crucial than curing these problems

prevention vs treatment

Question: The prevention of health problems and illness is more important than treatment and medicine. Government funding should reflect this.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Essay: It is argued that preventing problems relevant to health is far more crucial than curing these problems. Basically, I side with this standpoint, however, the role of treatment can never be ignored.

On the one hand, I believed that measures of avoidance are better than medicine in term of long-term benefits namely physical and mental health or economy. In general, using prevention not only help patient to avoid diseases or problems, but also enable them to reduce side-effect of drugs as well as incidental damages. Especially, operation in internal organs like brain or heart has a very high risk of disordering function of them in the future. Added to this is sense of disturbing for medicine user because vomiting and anorexia usually occur after taking pills. Furthermore, some kind of problem will require you to pay enormous expense if you are re-infected, meanwhile, vaccination has permanent effect.

On the other hand, treatment has always been considered as an only choice when it comes to certain circumstances. Firstly, not every problem can be avoided with current technology. Taking "Yasuo" for example, it is known as an inborn disorder relevant to impairment of bones and the only way to prevent is fixing the original gens of human, a novel solution, therefore, studying medicine is more possible. Secondly, in fast-paced modern lifestyle, people are more incline to have poor diet and not to take periodical examination. As a result of lack of time and serious attention, avoidance is less effective than treatment, which is instantly powerful.

In conclusion, government should invest money into both of prevention and medication due to the different of situation.

Hy @Huyngoc168
my suggestion for your writing:
1. do not forget to include funding government in the introduction paragraph.
2. 'in term of long-term benefits: directly say ' in the long-term benefits'
3. I see that your thesis statement and the third paragraph fully agree with the issue, so do not use 'on the other hand' as means of there are contrasted ideas.

4. The conclusion should be a paraphrase from the thesis statement

Phan, you have not followed the discussion requirements for this essay. This happened because you went in a different direction for your discussion when compared to the original discussion instruction you were provided:

Original Instruction: To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Response: Basically, I side with this standpoint, however, the role of treatment can never be ignored.

This is a single opinion extent essay. Yet your response represents a two point of view discussion. That runs counter to the instructions you were provided. Therefore, the TA section of this essay will be non-passing in consideration. You did not offer a response that reflects the discussion requirement of the original presentation. Therefore, the essay will fail a major part of the scoring process and most likely not be able to reach a passing score for the remaining considerations in the end.