Some people think it is more important for the government to spend more money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illnesses than the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
To access whether the government should invest money in the prevention of illness or the related treatment, I might have to consider how to define certain utterances made by this topic. From the perspective of the government, it is reasonable for them to spend money in the area that is beneficial to the overwhelming people; however, the take-home message is how the government is to define “importance”.
There are, of course, people out there holding that government spending should be better given out to prevent diseases from happening via promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than to treat those who have already been ill. To them, the number of people currently without health problems but awaiting a better living condition is always more than that of the latter. That means the macro-economic allocation should firstly fulfill the need of most of the tax contributors to make sure the investment is persuasive. The financial flows are considered useful if they are used to things like organic food produce, fitness facilities set in residential surroundings, or even better air condition. They are much closer to the daily health of the public and would be somewhat easily proved to avoid certain food-related, sedentariness-driven, and pollution-oriented illnesses. Whereas the expenditure invested in the medical industry seems comparatively “invisible”, as it is always enjoyed solely by the minority who are put into the physical problems, and would be also hard to judge whether this money would be finally valuable. There also exist failures in the treatment; it sounds obscured to verify whether the cured patients get well because of the financial input in the medical facilities or just because of their immunity.
However, the thinking presented above doesn’t allow one to think of real importance that the investment in the medical area may have, and precludes them from recognizing the potential hazards and irrationality that lie. No matter how a healthy life is to promote, one must admit that in some cases, the lifestyle that is deemed “healthy” by our current knowledge cannot effectively “prevent illness”. Then it is not surprising that in the hygiene history, some paradoxical health rules considering certain living habits would be meaningful or harmful, have finally been proved unacceptable. We should also realize that for certain illnesses, the solely healthy lifestyle is certainly not enough. People are prone to diseases easily if there were no systematic medical expertise, facilities, or resources in dealing with them. In that case, investing in a healthy life promotion is spectacularly meaningless. The myopic thinking given in the prompt distracts us from rationally thinking what the “importance” truly means; it is then incomparable between the two investment directions in terms of the importance because of our still limited knowledge to our current health care and to the unknown future.
In conclusion, I would agree that the policy of government investing in a healthy lifestyle cannot be considered more significant than in disease treatment.