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

Thanks to the development of the world, life has been easier for most people living on

the

Remove the article

apply

show examples

Earth.

However

, the convenience of the modern world has built up the laziness and other factors which make its residents acquire a negative lifestyle. Discussions have been raised whether to pay national budget for sick individuals or to elevate a healthy lifestyle. While critics consider infected people to be worth paying, I believe promoting beneficial lifestyles must be the priority. Not surprisingly, healthy ways of living provide inhabitants variety of profits. People who process a positive lifestyle enhance both physical mental heal day by day, which contribute to their joyful life. These residents tend to have the ability to cope with stress, complex problems and develop a strong resistance to diseases.

As a result

,the number of infected cases would shrink sharply, which can one day end the vicious circle of paying for those people.

In addition

, scientists and researches had proved that living with healthy lifestyles is a way to lengthen our duration of life. Another striking point is that negative lifestyles would be promoted passively by the investment of government in treating infected patients. Since these patients are supplied financially with their treatment, people tend to have a minor concern about the way they are living. As a consequence, residents tend to maintain their bad living habits regardless of the troubles they might bring. In conclusion, I restate that the state budget should be invested

for

Verify preposition usage

in

show examples

elevating profitable lifestyles. If governments divide public money to both areas logically, I believe the whole society would be

dvantaged

Correct your spelling

advantaged

advantage

.