There's a school of thought supporting the expenditure of tax funds towards promoting healthy lifestyle practices and disease prevention over spending exorbitantly on treatment of the sick. While in theory this might sound good, it's practical applications are far from ideal. I disagree with the above statement and this essay will discuss my views regarding the same.
Firstly, disease prevention is a step in the right direction when it comes to promoting health for all. In today's era, where fast food is cheaper than its healthier alternative and where the preference is to order food from restaurants over cooking at home, awareness needs to be created over how detrimental this choice is. Secondly, creating emphasis on building immunity and living healthy also reduces the load on hospitals to care for them, thus in turn saving further government expenses. For instance, advertisements can be directed at the general population urging them to adopt regular exercise and choose food that provides energy over fried food.
Meanwhile, cutting down the funding for treatment of the sick puts all effort spent on promoting healthy living to waste. Ill patients with insufficient treatment will spread disease regardless of any practice that one adopts to stay healthy. Hence primary focus needs to be put on curing any source of illness and controlling the outcome. In today's times of superbugs and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, sole maintenance of one's health doesn't get the job done. Apt treatment and isolation of the sick needs to be focused upon, which requires proper facilities and public funding to build and maintain them.
To conclude, focusing the expenditure on promoting healthy practices rather than spending on treating the ill is not the best way to ensure health of a community. Treatment of the ill requires more attention and funding in comparison.
There's a school of
thought
supporting the expenditure of tax funds towards
promoting
healthy
lifestyle practices and disease prevention
over
spending
exorbitantly
on
treatment
of the sick. While in theory this might sound
good
,
it's practical applications
are far from ideal. I disagree with the above statement and this essay will discuss my views regarding the same.
Firstly
, disease prevention is a step in the right direction when it
comes
to
promoting
health for all. In
today
's era, where
fast
food is cheaper than its healthier alternative and where the preference is to order food from restaurants
over
cooking at home, awareness needs to
be created
over
how detrimental this choice is.
Secondly
, creating emphasis on building immunity and living
healthy
also
reduces
the load on hospitals to care for them,
thus
in turn saving
further
government
expenses.
For instance
, advertisements can
be directed
at the general population urging them to adopt regular exercise and choose food that provides energy
over
fried food.
Meanwhile, cutting down the funding for
treatment
of the sick puts all effort spent on
promoting
healthy
living to waste. Ill patients with insufficient
treatment
will spread disease regardless of any practice that one adopts to stay
healthy
.
Hence
primary focus needs to
be put
on curing any source of illness and controlling the outcome. In
today
's times of
superbugs
and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, sole maintenance of one's health doesn't
get
the job done. Apt
treatment
and isolation of the sick needs to
be focused
upon, which requires proper facilities and public funding to build and maintain them.
To conclude
, focusing the expenditure on
promoting
healthy
practices
rather
than spending on treating the ill is not the best way to ensure health of a community.
Treatment
of the ill requires more attention and funding
in comparison
.