Public money should be spent on promoting healthy lifestyle rather than treating illnesses. Do you agree or disagree?
Accompanied by the fast-paced lifestyle, modern citizens find it inevitable to suffer from various diseases. The health problem is an issue of broad interest to the general public. Where the public fund should be allocated has sparked a heated debate. Some individuals believe this money can be utilized to advocate a healthy lifestyle. Nevertheless, others insist those funds should be allocated to curb illness instead. From my observation, both of them are worthy public funding.
To begin with, having a healthy lifestyle is the fundamental solution for preventing the illness. A healthy lifestyle includes such factors as non-smoking, a balanced diet, regular physical exercises, and psychological well-being. It is the radical method to resolve illness. Without it, more diseases will follow. In light of this, a healthy lifestyle lays a solid foundation for preventing illness and eliminating its associated medical treatments. Therefore, elevating the awareness of a sound lifestyle deserves more public wealth.
Nevertheless, the reason for distributing the public saving on curing disease can be justified. A consistent and great amount of money is requested to conduct scientific researches and explore the unknown medication areas in order to combat thorny illness. By living a healthy lifestyle is only effective for the prevention of diseases but not for curing the exist one. Thus, some proportion of money needs to be spent on curbing illness.
In conclusion, both approaches to ensure the comprehensive well-being of people are productive. I believe, the public money should be spent evenly on the prevention of diseases and the treatment of the exist sick.
Accompanied by the fast-paced lifestyle, modern citizens find it inevitable to suffer from various diseases. The health problem is an issue of broad interest to the general public. Where the public fund should be allocated has sparked a heated debate. Some individuals believe this money can be utilized to advocate a healthy lifestyle. Nevertheless, others insist those funds should be allocated to curb illness instead. From my observation, both of them are worthy public funding.
To begin with, having a healthy lifestyle is the fundamental solution for preventing the illness. A healthy lifestyle includes such factors as non-smoking, a balanced diet, regular physical exercises, and psychological well-being. It is the radical method to resolve illness. Without it, more diseases will follow. In light of this, a healthy lifestyle lays a solid foundation for preventing illness and eliminating its associated medical treatments. Therefore, elevating the awareness of a sound lifestyle deserves more public wealth.
Nevertheless, the reason for distributing the public saving on curing disease can be justified. A consistent and great amount of money is requested to conduct scientific researches and explore the unknown medication areas in order to combat thorny illness. By living a healthy lifestyle is only effective for the prevention of diseases but not for curing the exist one. Thus, some proportion of money needs to be spent on curbing illness.
In conclusion, both approaches to ensure the comprehensive well-being of people are productive. I believe, the public money should be spent evenly on the prevention of diseases and the treatment of the exist sick.
