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?

In many countries, government spending on healthcare is a major economic burden. Problems like obesity and heart disease are crippling healthcare systems, and some

people

suggest that rather than raise taxes to pay for treatments, more money should be invested in preventing these illnesses in the first place.

This

essay will argue that prevention is better than treatment. The most obvious benefit of putting prevention before treatment is the reduction in human suffering that would inevitably result. Some of the biggest health problems in modern societies are utterly preventable, and

therefore

it is reasonable to suggest that money spent

this

way would cause less anguish. Government campaigns to reduce smoking would reduce cancer rates and

this

would increase

people

’s quality of life, and of

course

Add a comma

course,

show examples

end the suffering of

people

who lose loved ones. From a purely financial standpoint, it is beneficial to focus on preventing sickness rather than curing it. The cost of treating sick

people

with expensive medical procedures, equipment, and medicines is vastly higher than the cost of educating

people

not to smoke, eat unhealthily, or

otherwise

lead unhealthy lifestyles. Government campaigns have led to huge decreases in smoking in many Western countries, and it is likely that similar campaigns would yield similar results

elsewhere

. An additional benefit would be the lowering of taxes

due to

reduced expenditure on healthcare. In conclusion, preventing a disease makes more sense than waiting to treat it. The benefits to average

people

and

also

to governments are significantly higher than simply investing in treatments.