Some people say in order to prevent illness and disease, governments should focus on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

It is believed by some that the government should prioritize reducing environmental pollution and addressing housing issues to combat illness and disease. While I recognize the validity of these concerns, I believe that focusing on safe and nutritious food sources, as well as promoting healthy lifestyle changes, should also be a priority for authorities.

Environmental pollution and housing problems can indeed lead to a variety of health issues. Regarding the former, living in an environment contaminated by air pollution can have detrimental effects on respiratory health. This is evident in major cities like Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi in Vietnam, where high levels of air pollution have contributed to a significant increase in respiratory illnesses in recent years. Similarly, communities living near water sources polluted by industrial waste are also at risk for numerous health problems. Housing issues, such as overcrowding and substandard living conditions, exacerbate health challenges by providing environments conducive to the spread of disease. High property prices and economic instability often force individuals with lower incomes to live in cramped, unhygienic spaces, negatively impacting their health.

From my perspective, in addition to the aforementioned factors, what people consume on a daily basis also has dramatic effects on health. In fact, consuming unhealthy or unsafe food can directly weaken the immune system. Many people rely heavily on fast food, leading to an increased prevalence of chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Others may consume food treated with harmful chemicals, increasing their risk of developing cancer. Therefore, the government should prioritize regulating food safety and educating the public about the dangers of poor dietary habits. Additionally, sedentary lifestyles and high-stress levels contribute to health deterioration. Modern lifestyles often prioritize work and study over exercise and leisure, leading to chronic stress and insufficient physical activity, both of which can rapidly weaken the immune system.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge that environmental pollution and housing issues are closely linked to health problems, I believe that addressing poor dietary habits and unhealthy lifestyles should also be on the government’s agenda. These internal factors have a direct impact on individual well-being and make people more vulnerable to external health threats.

Sample 2:

It is often suggested that governments can substantially mitigate illness and disease by focusing on environmental pollution and housing improvements. I fully support this perspective, as addressing these issues not only promotes health but also reinforces sustainable living conditions.

To begin with, tackling environmental pollution plays a pivotal role in reducing the prevalence of various chronic and acute health conditions. This is because pollutants like fine particulate matter and toxic chemicals in the air and water can lead to severe health consequences, including respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, and even cancer. For example, studies have shown a strong correlation between reduced pollution levels and lower rates of these diseases in urban areas after the implementation of stringent environmental regulations. This connection underscores the necessity of governmental intervention in managing environmental hazards to enhance public health.

Furthermore, the evolving nature of the global job market and individual growth trajectories suggest that frequent career changes can also lead to, inadequate ventilation, and overcrowding, can significantly contribute to health issues such as respiratory infections, allergies, and the rapid spread of communicable diseases. A notable initiative in this area is the Healthy Homes Program, which has led to a measurable decline in hospital visits for asthma and other respiratory conditions by improving home environments. Clearly, improving housing conditions is an essential strategy that directly benefits public health.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the government’s focus on reducing environmental pollution and improving housing conditions is crucial for disease prevention. This approach not only addresses immediate health risks but also contributes to the long-term wellbeing of the population.

Sample 3:

In the contemporary world, environmental pollution and housing issues have contributed to the deterioration of public health and some people believe that governments should develop initiatives to address these challenges. While I agree with this sentiment to a large extent, I am inclined that compelling outcomes will not be readily evident by simply concentrating on solving environmental contamination and housing challenges.

To commence, it is undeniable that the dire quality of air and water is one of the major factors for the degradation of public wellness. In metropolitan areas, rampant air and water adulteration, stemming from industrial activities and urbanization processes, leads to chronic diseases. For instance, the Ganges River in India correlates with severe ailments, including cholera, dysentery, and hepatitis, due to an overwhelming amount of industrial and human waste discharged into the river. Additionally, inefficiencies in housing schemes exacerbate the issues of overpopulation and poor living conditions, leading to a lack of adequate sanitation, ventilation, and essential services. Consequently, these densely populated neighborhoods become the breeding grounds for disease vectors, such as mosquitoes and fleas. Therefore, if governments put more emphasis on mitigating environmental issues and housing dilemmas, such problems will be alleviated to a great extent.

Nevertheless, simply focusing on environmental and housing complications is not an effective way to combat all illnesses. It is imperative to recognize alongside these efforts, the government should prioritize raising public awareness and implementing educational programs. Furthermore, the promotion of robust lifestyles can encourage people to adopt healthy habits. To illustrate, a campaign in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam called upon the local citizens to incorporate a daily 30 minute-morning walk into their routines. As a result, the participants reported noticeable improvements in their mental and physical health. In other words, by enriching the population’s knowledge about health and prompting them to a more active lifestyle, the government not only lowers disease-related mortality rates but also eases the burden on its healthcare system.

To conclude, it is pivotal for governments to come up with initiatives to tackle obstacles posed by pollution and housing inefficiency in order to improve the population’s health. However, the underlying problems are not limited to those conundrums and the population itself also plays a crucial role.

Sample 4:

It has been proposed that authorities should prioritise resolving pollution and housing stress as an illness prevention measure. Personally, I would argue that while these solutions are somewhat effective, it would be more comprehensive to tackle other major causes of diseases such as poor diet and passive lifestyle.

On the one hand, governmental efforts to alleviate contamination within communities such as introducing green spaces and promoting usage of electric vehicles could help curb carbon emission. Once this aim is achieved, risks of respiratory diseases will also lower tremendously. Additionally, policymakers should regulate waste treatment and disposal considering how these issues are the major causes of digestive issues and water-borne illnesses. Since the aforementioned health problems are commonplace across cities worldwide, they merit due attention from governments if raising living standards for the general public is their main concern.

Likewise, insufficient housing is a radical challenge in contemporary society as rural exodus continues, crowding urban spaces with overwhelming populations. It is due to lack of housing in these parts that many people are forced to live in substandard conditions with narrow space, lack of hygiene, and high risk of infection, all of which create a breeding ground for a host of illnesses. In order to mitigate these problems, authorities hold the power to repurpose underutilised municipal buildings for residential use so as to provide affordable accommodation for residents.

On the other hand, it would be unwise to neglect other significant threats to people's wellbeing, i.e. unhealthy food consumption and lack of exercise, which arise from the modern world's busy corporate lifestyle. These issues have left people with weakened immune systems, rendering them more susceptible to other ailments. As such, the state should take these causes into account and introduce appropriate remedies for them. For instance, they could place higher taxes on fast food items while promoting healthier options or provide incentives for people to cycle or walk more by constructing bike lanes and clearing the pavements of street-side businesses.

All things considered, I am still of the opinion that although endeavours aimed at reducing pollution and housing stress are always worthwhile, authorities should take a more holistic approach in order to boost public health by incorporating diet and physical activities into the equation.

Sample 5:

In contemporary society, the debate over the most effective measures to prevent illness and disease has intensified. While I understand why some argue that governmental efforts should primarily target reducing environmental pollution and addressing housing problems, I believe they should not be the sole focus of governmental action.

On the one hand, reducing environmental pollution and improving housing conditions can yield significant health benefits. Air pollution, primarily caused by vehicular emissions and industrial activities, has been linked to respiratory diseases such as asthma and lung cancer. By implementing stringent regulations on emissions and investing in cleaner energy sources, governments can significantly reduce the prevalence of such illnesses. Similarly, addressing housing problems such as overcrowded and unsanitary living environments can prevent the spread of infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Initiatives like the Healthy Homes program in New Zealand have successfully reduced instances of such illnesses by addressing issues like dampness and mold in housing.

However, I argue that solely focusing on environmental pollution and housing problems may overlook other critical determinants of public health. Unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, such as poor diet and lack of exercise, also contribute significantly to chronic diseases like diabetes and heart conditions. This is why governments should implement education and intervention programs to promote healthy behaviors and empower individuals to make informed choices regarding their health. Furthermore, addressing inaccessibility to healthcare services is essential for ensuring equitable health outcomes. Even if environmental pollution is reduced and housing conditions improve, individuals from marginalized communities may still face barriers to accessing healthcare due to financial and geographical constraints. By prioritizing healthcare infrastructure expansion and implementing policies that remove financial barriers to healthcare access, governments can address underlying health disparities and promote overall public health.

In conclusion, while addressing environmental pollution and housing problems is absolutely crucial, I contend that governments should also consider other determinants of public health, such as unhealthy lifestyle behaviors and healthcare accessibility, to adopt a more comprehensive approach towards disease prevention.

Sample 6:

In recent years, the outbreak of rare and new diseases has been preying on the minds of millions of people in the world. Some suggest that the only way to win the battle against illness and disease is to improve the environmental conditions and solve housing problems. As far as I am concerned, I am on the same wavelength with them on this matter.

It is no exaggeration to say that today the environmental pollution has reached its peak, and its effects on humans, animals, and vegetation alike can be grave and irreparable. With each passing minute, hundreds of lives are claimed in the world, and their reasons for death are from people’s daily activities – those related to the degradation of the environment. For instance, today’s farmers are no stranger to the practice of overdosing the farmlands with pesticides and insecticides. Besides, countless factories are poisoning the water with toxic refuse and environmentally unfriendly chemicals. If efforts are made in stopping these activities, many people would be saved from unnecessary diseases.

In addition to this, I feel that in order to combat disease, housing problems should be properly addressed, especially in metropolitan areas where accommodation is scarce, and people are plentiful. Homeless people who are forced to live in the gutter or in small sewage-ridden, iron sheds on the streets are carrying diseases that are highly infectious. For this reason, they should be provided with sanitary places where they can live so as not to affect the lives of other people.

Though some people contend that government needn’t spend a lot on environmental pollutants as industrial proliferation are bound to have hazardous byproducts, however, it shall be very unpragmatic to let the harmful agents deplete the immunity of people today.

To conclude, it is my belief that most modern plagues can be prevented if the governments are willing to take the bull by the horns to introduce and enforce appropriate measures in handling this situation. I hope that future generations enjoy lives with no disease.

Sample 7:

While it is undeniable that addressing environmental pollution and housing problems plays a vital role in preventing illness and diseases, I partially disagree with the notion that the government should solely focus on these aspects. This essay will argue that while reducing environmental pollution and housing problems are important, they should not be the exclusive areas of focus.

Environmental pollution, such as air and water contamination, undoubtedly contributes to various health issues. For instance, prolonged exposure to air pollutants can lead to respiratory issues, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Similarly, water contamination can result in gastrointestinal diseases, posing significant risks to public health. In addition, inadequate housing conditions can also have detrimental effects on health. For example, overcrowded or poorly ventilated housing can exacerbate respiratory conditions. Additionally, substandard housing may contribute to mental health disorders, as individuals living in unstable or unsafe environments may experience heightened stress and anxiety.

While addressing environmental pollution and housing problems is crucial, there are limitations to solely focusing on these areas. Access to healthcare services plays a pivotal role in preventing and managing illnesses. Without adequate access to healthcare facilities and resources, individuals may face barriers to receiving timely medical treatment and preventive care. Moreover, socioeconomic determinants such as education and employment significantly influence health outcomes. Higher levels of education are associated with better health literacy and healthier lifestyle choices. Similarly, stable employment provides individuals with financial security and access to healthcare benefits, reducing the likelihood of illness. By addressing a broader range of factors, including access to healthcare, education, and employment, policymakers can create more comprehensive strategies to promote population health and well-being.

In conclusion, I maintain a partial disagreement with the proposition that the government should exclusively prioritize environmental and housing interventions in disease prevention.

Sample 8:

The outbreak of diseases in recent years has raised questions about the reasons behind public health deterioration and the solutions to it. I completely agree with the notion that it is the environmental and housing problems that are the culprits for the crisis and therefore efforts should be emphasized to address such problems.

To commence, environmental degradation, particularly air contamination, is the leading cause of a vast majority of health complications. Citizens, especially those living in busting and industrialized metropolises, are constantly exposed to fine dust and toxic fumes released from vehicles and factories, becoming more susceptible to various respiratory diseases, ranging from asthma to lung cancer. As can be observed, hospitals in Hanoi have recorded an overwhelming increase in such cases in recent years, and this number also correlates with the alarming pollution levels in the city. As a result, the number of patients would be massively reduced by the governments taking initiatives to improve the environmental conditions.

Similarly, decreased public health has been associated with housing problems. Due to overcrowding and inflation, many struggle to pay for proper dwellings and therefore have to resort to low-income neighborhoods with substandard living conditions. This includes lack of access to clean water, and ventilation, as well as the presence of mold and pest infestation, all of which contribute to the spread of bacteria and dangerous viruses. Consequently, inhabitants of such areas are more likely to contract chronic or infectious illnesses such as lead poisoning or diarrhea. A standout example of this would be Africa during the Ebola pandemic, in which the damage would have been lowered significantly if hygiene, sanitation, and clean water had been prioritized in the first place.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that a vast majority of ailments can be prevented if governments place more importance on dealing with environmental contamination and poor housing.

Sample 9:

Certain concerned parties today contend that the optimal means of improving public health is to confront pressing environmental and housing problems. In my opinion, though these solutions would be helpful, it is more important to prioritize proper nutrition.

On the one hand, there are current issues concerning housing and the environment that impact health. Many illnesses and conditions are either directly or indirectly related to one’s environment. For instance, a person who lives in an overcrowded metropolis such as Hanoi or Beijing must deal on a daily basis with the immediate dangers of air pollution, potential drinking water contamination, car accidents, and elevated crimes rates. If there were fewer individuals in these cities and the air was cleaner because there were more open, green areas, then it is probable that hospitals would be able to focus more on a reduced number of patients.

On the other hand, there are various causes for diseases and the primary one is poor nutrition. In the last several decades, lifespans globally have increased exponentially, largely as a result of advances in medical science and greater understanding of the human body. A standout example of this would be the plant-based diets that are widely recommended by most nutritionists. A person who consumes little meat, reduces their carbohydrate intake, and mostly does not eat sugar will drastically lower the risk of conditions ranging from diabetes and heart disease to Alzheimer’s and cancer. National health authorities can widely and effectively address these health problems by legislating the levels of unhealthy ingredients in food products.

In conclusion, those in favor of combatting housing and environmental problems make legitimate arguments though improving the average citizen’s diet is in fact the best guarantee of good health. Naturally, governments should pursue a balanced policy.

Sample 10:

The matter of whether authorities should put greater emphasis on addressing household and environmental problems to enhance illness precaution has been an ongoing debate. From my perspective, I fully acknowledge the impact of this proposal, though there are some equally important factors that need to be considered.

First of all, better control of environmental pollution and domestic issues exhibit paramount importance in curbing health complications. For instance, the implementation of emission controls in industrial sectors and the promotion of renewable energy sources can significantly mitigate pollution levels, thereby enhancing public health outcomes. Similarly, addressing housing problems such as overcrowding and inadequate sanitation is essential for preventing the spread of infectious diseases and improving overall well-being. By investing in affordable housing initiatives and urban planning that prioritises health and safety standards, governments can create environments conducive to good health for citizens.

However, I assert that preventing illness and disease requires a multifaceted approach that extends the scope of environmental and housing considerations. Initiatives namely healthcare accessibility, disease prevention programs, and promoting healthy lifestyles are equally vital components of an effective public health strategy. Furthermore, fostering collaboration among governmental agencies, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders is essential for implementing comprehensive public health initiatives. By working together synergistically, these entities can leverage their collective expertise and resources to address health disparities and promote equitable access to healthcare for all individuals.

In conclusion, while reducing environmental pollution and addressing housing problems are integral to preventing illness and disease as they result in higher levels of well-being, I believe they should be complemented by a comprehensive approach that encompasses various facets of public health. By adopting a holistic strategy that addresses the root causes of health disparities, governments can truly fulfil their responsibility in safeguarding their citizens' health.

Sample 11:

It is indubitable that people's health is influenced by the environment and housing conditions. That is why some people are of the opinion that governments should focus more on the environment and housing to avoid illness and disease. I, however, disagree with this notion. I believe that even though government should address environmental pollution and housing scarcity, there are many other things on which government must spend equally to prevent ill health.

indeed, the environmental problems and housing conditions are two main sources for illness and diseases. For instance, in many parts of my country, India, people live in slums and do not have access to clean air and potable water because of air and water pollution. ln these areas people suffer from diseases such as dengue, malaria, diarrhea and so on. So, if the government looks into environmental pollution and provides basic housing, such problems could be avoided.

However, simply focusing on the environment and housing would not prevent all diseases. Government also has to allocate budget for other preventable diseases such as polio and TB, whooping cough, measles, mumps and so on, which need immunization. All over the world all governments are spending on pulse polio vaccine to eradicate polio from the world. Then, there are diseases such as cancers, which can be prevented by screening tests. Government should spend on tests like PAP smear and mammography, through which cancer of the cervix and breast can be diagnosed much before the actual symptoms appear. ln such stages, these cancers are totally curable with very inexpensive treatment.

Another important area, which needs government action, is the awareness of people. Mass awareness campaigns are needed along with looking into the housing so that people can take steps to prevent themselves. For example, even if the government provides housing to all, but the people keep stagnant water in coolers and other areas, dengue can spread like an epidemic and all government efforts will go in vain.

ln conclusion, I reiterate that simply giving priority to environmental pollution and housing will not prevent all disease. Government should allocate funds to other things such as screening tests and awareness of the people also to prevent disease.

Sample 12:

It is believed by some that to reduce the incidence of illness and disease, the focus of governments should prioritize mitigating environmental pollution and addressing housing issues. In my view, while these solutions are crucial for disease prevention, a comprehensive policy encompassing various other aspects could yield better results. 

On one hand, proponents of environmental improvement argue that environmental degradation primarily contributes to numerous illnesses. Indeed, air pollution is exacerbated by emissions from factories and heavy reliance on private transportation, leading to respiratory diseases. Furthermore, water pollution, particularly toxic pollutants affecting marine life, poses risks to human health as seafood is a significant source of nutrition. Similarly, inadequate housing conditions due to shortages force many, especially low-income individuals, into unsanitary living environments, exacerbating health issues. Therefore, addressing air and water quality degradation and housing shortages is crucial to combating disease spread. 

On the other hand, focusing solely on environment and housing overlooks the multifaceted determinants of health. Firstly, a robust healthcare system with advanced medical facilities and qualified professionals is essential. This ensures effective responses to diseases, including outbreaks of contagious or life-threatening illnesses. Access to healthcare should be equitable, irrespective of socio-economic status, as currently, many cannot afford treatment. Secondly, poverty significantly influences health outcomes, necessitating policies for poverty alleviation through employment opportunities and social welfare programs, addressing basic needs and contributing to long-term health improvements.

In conclusion, while addressing environmental pollution and housing shortages is crucial for disease prevention, a holistic approach integrating healthcare accessibility and socio-economic well-being is essential.

Sample 13:

It is thought by some that in order to reduce the incidence of illness and disease, it is advisable that the focus of the state should be on the mitigation of environmental pollution and housing problems. In my opinion, while these two proposed solutions should be adopted for the sake of disease prevention, a comprehensive policy, encompassing various other facets, could yield far better results.

On the one hand, proponents of improving the state of the environment justify their position by saying that the deterioration of the environment is mainly responsible for many instances of illness and disease facing humankind. In fact, the air is becoming increasingly contaminated due to greenhouse gas emissions released from manufacturing plants as well as the over-reliance on private means of transport, which means that upon breathing polluted air, people would suffer from a range of health-related issues, chief among which are respiratory diseases. In addition to air pollution, polluted water is also receiving a great deal of concern in recent years, with toxic pollutants in the sea affecting marine species, and by extension, humans as these species are the source of food for our consumption. By the same token, housing shortage forces people, especially those in lower-income brackets, to reside in substandard and dilapidated living conditions, with no access to clean water and proper hygiene, and this can give rise to a diverse array of diseases and health complications. Ultimately, addressing the deterioration of air and water quality as well as the scarcity of housing are imperative in an attempt to curb the spread of illness and disease.

On the other hand, it is overly simplistic to just take into account the environment and accommodation, as determinants of health are multifaceted and encompass a range of other influencing factors beyond these two aforementioned concerns. Firstly, the development of a robust healthcare system has a crucial role to play in this endeavor. Such a system should be constantly upgraded so as to ensure that it is equipped with state-of-the-art medical facilities, advanced technologies as well as well-qualified professionals, which allows for more effective responses to disease, particularly in case of the outbreak of contagious or life-threatening ones. The government should also ensure that healthcare is accessible to everyone, regardless of their socio-economic background, as currently the poor are deprived of this basic human right due to the exorbitant expenses associated with treatment and medicine. Secondly, it is noteworthy to acknowledge that poverty is a major determinant of health outcomes, and therefore, the government should implement policies aimed at poverty alleviation, as socio-economic well-being is closely tied to health status. This can be executed by offering them employment opportunities, for example through vocational training schemes, and social welfare programs, which ensures that their basic human necessities are met and in long term contributes significantly to the decline in incidence of illness and disease.

In conclusion, while it is understandable why addressing environmental pollution and housing shortage is essential for curbing the spread of illness and disease, I believe that the government should adopt a holistic approach that takes into consideration the advancement and accessibility of healthcare facilities and socio-economic well-being.

Sample 14:

There are several factors that contribute to infectious diseases across the globe. Some people believe that to prevent the occurrence of illness, and higher authorities should concentrate majorly on reducing environmental pollution and housing problems. This essay will explain why I completely disagree that the government should focus only on these two factors.

On the one hand, some people believe that to stop sickness, the government should concentrate mainly on lowering environmental degradation. To begin with, many people get sick because the environment is polluted with harmful contaminants such as poor drainage systems, smoke, dust, industrial waste, chemical waste, emission, and radiation. These products are toxic to the environment and people living in the surroundings, thereby causing several illnesses. For example, in 2007, there was an outbreak of typhoid and cholera in Ogun state due to poor waste disposal and a dirty environment. In addition, some individuals are exposed to illness and diseases due to housing challenges. An increasing number of people do not have an adequate place to stay; they live in places like uncompleted buildings under bridges, and overcrowded areas, which can expose them to numerous illnesses. For instance, in a recent survey conducted by a medical institute in Nigeria, it was discovered that the prevalence of Tuberculosis was rampant in overcrowded areas. These few examples made some people think that the government should shift its attention only to cutting down on housing issues and ecological pollution.

On the other hand, the high authorities should also pay attention to buying more diagnostic equipment and providing enough vaccines. The government should purchase several diagnostic tools that will diagnose diseases early. Many people are at risk of sicknesses such as hypertension, cancer, stroke, asthma, brain diseases, and diabetes, but due to a lack of equipment to diagnose and curb these illnesses early, a lot of people die as a result. For instance, to diagnose metastasis of cancer and staging, most Nigerian hospital does not have the equipment to run the test; they would rather send the collected samples to the UK; before the results come out, the cancer has spread, and the patient may die as a result. Also, the government should shift its attention to the provisions of many vaccines. There are several outbreaks of diseases; if the higher authorities can provide enough vaccines to stop the spread of these diseases, a lot of people will be vaccinated, and sickness will be prevented. Hence, buying adequate diagnostic tools and providing enough vaccines will greatly curb the spread of illness.

To sum up, some people view that to stop illness and diseases, the people of higher authority should pay attention majorly to decreasing environmental degradation and housing challenges. Nonetheless, I completely disagree because purchasing tools to diagnose diseases and providing enough vaccines is also entirely necessary to prevent illness.

Sample 15:

The spectrum of healthy living involves many aspects, such as mental, social, physical, and spiritual. Some say the government has a role in preventing sickness by reducing environmental pollution. In my opinion, I am in between the notion that the government can work by setting up policies to reduce pollution drastically and should also face the healthcare sector.

Foremost, preventing illnesses can be achieved by setting up policies that would curb pollution. The government should place more taxes on companies that produce fumes in any production. Also, policies that ban companies from setting up their offices in residential areas. For example, in Pakistani, due to the high volumes of production in oil in surrounding there has been a high rate of cancer patients. I believe this can be reduced by implementing laws to cushion the effects.

Furthermore, the government should also be involved in improving the healthcare sector. As human beings, we tend to have a breakdown of body systems due to different factors. I believe that having a standardized healthcare facility will go a long way in preventing illnesses. For example, most developed countries have low mortality rates due to immediate response to emergencies and accessible healthcare facilities.

In conclusion, I believe that the government should not only focus on reducing pollution and housing problems by implementing rules. But it should also be directed towards having a world-class healthcare facility to curb diseases.