some people think it is more important for government to spend 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?

It is argued that prevention is the major solution to cope with illnesses and the authorities should invest in

this

instead

of treating ill people. It is totally disagreed. Analysing the unfairness of depriving people from their human rights of receiving medical assistance, as well as the limitation in preventing illnesses only through a healthy lifestyle will prove

this

. Everyone has the right to have access to public

health

services because they pay taxes, which should return to the populations, in

this

case, particularly through

health

subsides.

For example

, North American citizens do not have public

health

assistance, but they do not pay as much taxes as Europeans, who are fully covered by their public

health

service.

Hence

, Americans have spare money to pay a private

health

insurance. It is clear that governments have to step in

health

issues when they are receiving money for

this

.

Although

a healthy lifestyle is relevant when it comes to preventing certain illnesses

such

as obesity, it is not the solution for all

health

problems.

For instance

, diabetes can be a genetic illness. Many people are not able to fight it only by avoiding eating sugar no matter how many campaigns the governments make to raise awareness in having healthy eating habits. For

this

reason, the resources to treat ill individuals have to be available whatsoever. In conclusion, it is totally disagreed

that is

more important to spend money on encouraging healthy habits than for the recovery of sick people. The

health

service is a right of all citizens who pay taxes and prevention is not suitable to address all

health

problems. Governments must invest massively in public medical assistance.