Some people say that the governments should pay for health care and education but others think that this is not the govrnment's reseponsibility. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

One of the highly controversial issues today relates to whether the state should be responsible for people's well-being and

education

or not. In

this

essay, the idea of the first group, which aims to achieve more success for each

society

, and the second perspective, emphasizing inevitable consequences for the community, will be discussed. Given the fact that the largest investor in any

society

is its

government

, advocates argue that the

government

should invest in

education

and medical care.

Therefore

,

this

investment not only promotes physical and mental health within

society

but

also

reduces illiteracy rates.

For example

, Japan's

government

's focus on literacy and healthcare has led to educational and economic advancements in the country. Simply put, the healthier the

society

, the more successful it will be. Opponents,

however

, argue that the is unnecessary for the state to invest in health care and

education

, the most significant of which is economic depression. Simply put, If the

government

spends the money

that is

in the treasury on health and

education

because there is no support for the withdrawal of that money,

society

will suffer economic depression over time. Despite the fact that if that money was used in other areas

such

as the restoration of historical monuments and icon building, could attract tourists, boost the economy, and create job opportunities. In conclusion,

while

governments prioritise the well-being and

education

of their citizens, I would argue that neglecting economic and financial restrictions can have detrimental effects. It may result in an economic recession, which holds significant long-term consequences for the nation.