The prevention of health problems and illness is more important than treatment and medicine. Government funding should reflect this. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is often argued that mitigating health issues and diseases is better than treating them,

hence

the government should allocate appropriate budgets for it. In my opinion, I completely disagree with

this

view.

To begin

with, following a healthy lifestyle,

such

as eating the right food, as well as keeping fit and staying in shape is certainly beneficial to fitness and preventing illness.

Nonetheless

, there are some diseases that are incurable and occur based on genetics,

such

as cancer.

For example

, my grandfather led an active and healthy lifestyle, did not smoke and had a good diet,

however

, he developed lung cancer when he was 65 years old.

Therefore

, I hold the view that finding new ways to treat these kinds of illness is in need of consistent funding which the ministry has a responsibility to budget for.

Secondly

, in many countries, there is a desperate need for investment in health care, especially for the development of new ways to combat serious disease

such

  as Parkinson's disease. To illustrate

this

, in the USA over the past two decades, there have been huge advances in the treatment of Parkinson's with new types of drug, which was the result of several years of investment by administrations. If the regime in other countries had

this

at the top of their agenda

then

I believe that many more terrible illnesses could ne cured by cutting edge medicine with the

next

decade. To sum up,

although

some argued that authority money needs to be set aside for the prevention of well-being problems rather than pharmaceutical and treatment. I firmly believe that funds need to be used for the treatment of serious diseases and the improvement of better pharmaceutical.