It is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle, in order to prevent illness rather than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this and then give your own opinion.

A highly controversial issue today relates to whether to use fund on preventative medicine or not. In this essay, I am going to examine this question from both points of view and then give my own opinion on the matter. There are people who argue that the benefits of consuming government subsidy to encourage the well-being of life considerably outweigh its disadvantages, which could avoid diseases, not using more money to care sick people. The main reason for believing this is that government needs huge money to care patients once people suffer from illness. It is also possible to say that if the regular check-ups become common among citizens, people would not need to have a hard time. One good illustration of this is that an earliest stage of cancer is curable that can be detected at a check-up. However, if it is too late to be found, the person will have to suffer in lifetime. On the other hand, it is also possible to make the opposing case. It is often argued that spending more tax for preventative medicine has adverse effects. People often have this opinion because individuals may start to receive more examination to search diseases, which may not be necessary for any medication or operations. A second point is that improved prevention of disease may lead to less salary for doctors and phaumaceutical workers. A particularly good example here is that it is heard they can not earn huge wage if the Covid virus completely died out. In conclusion, I believe both arguments have their merits. On balance, however, I feel the governmnet should spend more fund to encourage the way of healthier life. This is because consequently, people can avoid long-time suffering from illness and the auhtorities can decrease the cost of nursing.