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?

In

this

day and age, more and more contemporary attention has been placed on the opinion that allocating public

money

for enhancing a robust

lifestyle

aiming at staving diseases off is more necessary than allocating it for the treatment of people who are already ill. From my perspective, I subscribe to the former idea.

To begin

with, by virtue of having a healthy

lifestyle

, people may reduce medical expenses, saving a great deal of

money

,

therefore

, investing public

money

in promoting a robust one is appropriate and accurate.

For instance

, if public

money

is spent on raising inhabitants’ awareness of the adverse health effects of smoking, they will be inclined to avoid using cigarettes and thanks to

this

, they will be less susceptible to lung cancer, so they can cut down on medical expenses.

In addition

, the best method to prevent any illness is to develop a healthy

lifestyle

.

This

can be explained by the reason that when inhabitants may improve their well-being or have a good physique, they might build up immunity against many diseases, leading to the possibility that the risks of suffering from many illnesses will be lessened.

For instance

, the Japanese government has invested public

money

in running health campaigns to incentivize their residents to have a healthy diet.

Thus

, nowadays, Japanese people seldom develop diseases that can put them in life-threatening situations. In conclusion, with all the reasons mentioned above, I strongly believe that it is better to spend public

money

on promoting a robust

lifestyle

in order to prevent illnesses.