Some people think it is more important for government to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many commentators believe that it is beneficial to spend public money on preventing illness, rather than spend it on the cure for those who are already suffering from diseases. I disagree with

this

viewpoint, as I consider treating

patient

Suggestion

a patient

the patient

is more essential and should be given higher priority. On the one hand, the promotion of a healthy lifestyle to deter illness is undoubtedly a worthy aim of any government. The number of people who lead sedentary lifestyles is on the increase, which

consequently

makes them confront with diabetes or heart disease.

In addition

,

dependence

Suggestion

depending

on the car accelerates the possibility of health problems due to the inactivity.

Thus

, the authorities should launch promotion campaigns encouraging their citizens to walk or cycle

instead

of driving cars to get regular exercise.

On the other hand

, I would argue that public expenditure should be allocated

first

for the treatment of people who are ill.

Firstly

, it is untrue that all illnesses are the result of their lifestyle choices. To demonstrate, in developing countries, the rising level of pollution and low quality of sanitary system is probably the culprit of unhealthy living conditions.

Secondly

, financial resource is essential for not only cure of those who are seriously

ill but

Accept comma addition

ill, but

also

to conduct vital research into new treatments.

For instance

, failure to subsidise medicines or to invest in hospitals would certainly provoke many deaths which could have been avoided by timely treatment. In conclusion, while promoting a healthy life is important, treatment should have priority in health care spending.