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 of disagree?

It remain a controversy that government should fund prevention instead of cure in recent times. While many people agree that funding for cure is better, I believe the spending money on prevention is a better choice.

On the other hand, funding cure is a really essential. Because there are many people, who suffer from serious injuries and illness. It may be the injuries resulted from playing sports, essentially adventure sports, or accidents. People cannot predict this illness previously and the only thing need to is cure. Moreover, if governments do not allocate budget for cure in hospital, the can endanger patient and result in overburdened medical staff. They cannot afford to buying advance medical facilities for curing without subsidise. They also don ‘t have money to pay doctor’s salaries and other costs.

On the other hand, it seems to me that government should fund prevention. Heath is the greatest asset of the nation, so we must look after. If people have a good heath, they tend to more creative and productive and as the result, people make scientific discoveries and breakthough. This is benifical and dealing with life-threatening disease. If government don’t spending money on health care services, many people have not opportunities to take part in cancer detection tests, especially, people from low-income background. If desease is detected soon, costs for treatment will be lower. And they can overcome easily.

In conclusion, funding cure has some benefits in short-term, but subsidise for prevention is better for long term. Therefore, government should allocate budget to prevention.