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

It is a common belief that spending public money on leading a healthy lifestyle is more crucial to prevent disease than spending it on medical treatment. I am partly in agreement with

this

view though more public funding should be invested in treating old

people

or individuals suffering from hereditary

diseases

. Proponents often argue the need for promoting public service advertisements to raise health awareness. Some effective ways for

this

are to promote healthcare education and make online content to provide information about the risks of unhealthy habits and the importance of eating balanced meals. Through these campaigns,

people

will practice including carbohydrates, grains, meat, and vegetables in their meals

while

halting smoking and drinking.

Furthermore

, more public money should be allocated for constructing eco-friendly parks and sports centres that offer various cheap programs. A salient example is Central Park in New York City where busy working

people

can increase their levels of fitness and relieve stress through walking or jogging or participating in yoga classes.

Although

the above-mentioned points are undoubtedly true, I believe it is more significant to invest in medical treatment.

This

is because all taxpayers deserve to receive national welfare systems including medical services.

Coupled with

this

, there is little that we can do for hereditary

diseases

or illnesses that occur from the natural ageing process. Indeed, the majority of old

people

suffer from both minor and major

diseases

such

as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular

diseases

and others,

while

some young individuals find hospitals

due to

illnesses that run in the family. The government should

therefore

spend national budgets on developing surgical methods, medicines, and technologies.