Some people think it is more important for government to spend public money on promoting a healthy life style than on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
better to prevent or to fix health problems?
A developing nation is where local people are ensured health as much as they hope. Some people reckon that building a healthy life is much better than treating sick people. I strongly disagree with the statement due to the fact that everything has 2 both sides.
To begin with, there are some remarkable benefits in efforts on building a healthy lifestyle for residents. Firstly, thanks to clean environment, people have a more positive behavior and last lifespan. Obviously, when government pours a massive amount of money into constructing entertainment sites and improving habitat quality, citizens reduce work-pressure and have better health. Moreover, because government frequently implements instrument of propaganda, medical pilot programs, people will be equipped with knowledge of sick prevention to protect their own. Secondly, this idea will surely hinder widespread plague which state is utilizing various measures to control it. According to some medical experts, in spite of lifestyle and medical ignorance, some harmful viruses still have good conditions to grow, and thus, local authority combines with inhabitants to address above problems radically. As a result, this policy is considered as an ingenious solution because of its permanent value.
By contrast, if nation looks down on curing illness, large advantages will be unfortunately forgotten. Specifically, when nation's budget expends much money on researching to figure out root of sickness, it creates extremely vital breakthroughs in medicine. Evidently, although some residents always have a healthy lifestyle, they still contract untreatable diseases as well as serious cancers. Thus, fabricating medical cutting-edge technology not only adapts to current demand but also serves future need to heal the most effective patients. Besides, in today globalization process, by dint of cosmopolitan workshops, transferring technology and expertise is occurred quickly and actively, and hence, this action becomes a lasting symbol of international solidarity.
In conclusion, each idea has its own value. Government should combine advantages between above solution to advance citizens' health much and much better.
This is quite an interesting topic to read. I notice that you identified your position early in the paper. However, you do not provide a detailed position in the form of a thesis statement that outlines the points you will use to defend your position. Also, I notice that you began with a counter argument rather than your main argument; the second argument should be the last before the conclusion part.
Additionally, you ought to avoid long sentences that make your work look awkward and difficult to read.
The other point is that you need to back up your claims with reputable sources. For example, "according to medical experts..." needs you to insert references.
Remember that a conclusion requires you to restate your thesis and the main points.
All in all, you have very strong points that if used properly would make a strong argument paper.