“Prevention is better than cure.” Out of a country's health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventive measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Sample 1:

Every day, people are dying from various health-related complexities and diseases due to the lack of proper health education and preventive actions. In many cases, those are preventable diseases. This is why the government should allocate a sum of money from the health budget for health education and preventive measures. I believe that it would offer a substantial number of benefits, and this essay will prove it by analysing the economic point of view of a country and the health aspects of its people.

To commence with, many nations spend an enormous amount of money to treat their citizens who are already sick. This staggering cost would reduce if the state commences effective healthcare education by spending money on the health teaching system. As an example, if the administration explains to their citizens that smoking and drinking are so bad for humans through this educational programme, many people will end up quitting bad habits. As can be clearly seen from this illustration, the idea may bring colossal economic benefit to the government.

Secondly, many governments treat patients with several serious diseases like diabetes and heart diseases, and it takes up a large portion of the healthcare budget. However, before these health problems assault citizens, some preventive measures can prevent them. For example, exercise, sports, and proper diet plans can decrease the chances of such diseases to a great extent. Building parks and playgrounds can influence people to do exercise more often which can protect people from developing these diseases. This can be achieved by investing in preventive measures.

In conclusion, the government should spend money on health education and preventive measures from the health budget because it helps prevent such diseases from becoming widespread while also reducing the cost of treating sick people. 

Sample 2:

It goes without saying that prevention is better than cure. That is why, in recent years, there has been a growing body of opinion in favour of putting more resources into health education and preventive measures. The argument is that ignorance of, for example, basic hygiene or the dangers of an unhealthy diet or lifestyle needs to be combated by special nationwide publicity campaigns, as well as longer-term health education.

Obviously, there is a strong human argument for catching any medical condition as early as possible. There is also an economic argument for doing so. Statistics demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treating a condition in the early stages, rather than delaying until more expensive and prolonged treatment is necessary. Then there are social or economic costs, perhaps in terms of loss of earnings for the family concerned or unemployed benefit paid by the state.

So far so good, but the difficulties start when we try to define what the 'proportion' of the budget "should be, particularly if the funds are 'diverted from treatment'. Decisions on exactly how much of the total health budget should be spent in this way are not a matter for the non-specialists but should be made on the basis of an accepted health service model.

This is the point at which real problems occur - the formulation of the model. How do we accurately measure which health education campaigns are effective in both medical and financial terms? How do we agree about the medical efficacy of various screening programmes, for example, when the medical establishment itself does not agree? A very rigorous process of evaluation is called for so that we can make an informed decision.

Sample 3:

A government has various responsibilities to its citizens, and perhaps the most important of them all is ensuring proper "health care". There are different approaches to this, namely "prevention" versus "cure". This essay will explain why the treatment of patients is superior, using the case of tobacco as a clear example.

Firstly, health education has its limit and is not always effective. Over the last four decades, various Western governments have attempted to discourage smokers by placing surgeon’s warnings and revolting pictures and through different awareness campaigns. Yet smokers want to light up. Therefore, it seriously questions the government's endeavours of prevention rather than cure. Nevertheless, through the same period cancer treatment has improved considerably, producing beneficial spin-off discoveries for asthma patients. So, treatment is not only more effective but also has other benefits for the people in a society.

Secondly, even if prevention has solid evidence of being effective, there are common cases of patients suffering by pure chance. For example, some people who have never been a smoker can suffer from lung cancer whereas people smoking a pack a day can escape such illness. Therefore, even having followed the government's guidance, there would still be a need for treatment. In addition, if the fund is diverted from research for cures to education, there would be little to help those ‘chance victims’.

To conclude, the prevention of diseases has failed considerably in many cases whereas proper treatment can help many patients to recover. This is why diverting budgets for health education or preventive measures is not a prudent idea.

Sample 4:

With the COVID crisis putting stress on health and wellbeing, the adage, “Prevention is better than cure”, is often highlighted. Many have argued whether governments across the world are doing enough to facilitate optimal healthcare and health education for the people, while some are asking for these efforts to be stepped up further. I agree with the latter.

First and foremost, “prevention” is easier and more affordable than “cure.” Surgeries and therapies are indeed very costly but preventable. If prevented, the money saved for these procedures can be utilised to promote safer living practices and similar issues. For instance, if a campaign on healthy living is planned to generate consciousness among youth, funds should be used for spreading awareness on the problem related to obesity, heart diseases and other issues rather than waiting for it to strike and then expend on the treatment. Furthermore, the additional cost can be utilised for other developments and critical services, like transportation, development of healthcare infrastructure, etc.

Further, promoting healthy living benefits people as well as a nation in the long run. For instance, promoting outdoor sports and exercise from a young age ensures that children imbibe the criticality of a healthy physique. Similarly, an anti-smoking campaign would enlighten teenagers, who are considered the most vulnerable to smoking, and potentially save a huge sum of money that can be used elsewhere.

It is true that such arguments are often done from an emotional perspective rather than being based on facts and a thorough blueprint, as people tend to talk about health predominantly when they suffer from illness and fail to follow the steps formulated by the government or concerned health ministry. But one cannot deny that being proactive is indeed more effective and beneficial for everyone involved in questioning.

Hence, there should be a greater emphasis on prevention than it is on the cure as it is not only cost-effective but also is a path towards a better lifestyle.

Sample 5:

There is an ongoing debate regarding the allocation of a country’s health budget, with some arguing that a significant portion should be redirected from treatment towards health education and preventative measures. While I agree that investment in health education and preventative measures is crucial, I believe that a balance between treatment and prevention is necessary for a comprehensive healthcare system.

Firstly, it is undeniable that prevention is better than cure. By investing in health education and preventative measures, such as vaccinations, regular health check-ups, and awareness campaigns, the government can reduce the incidence of diseases and promote overall well-being in the population. This proactive approach not only saves lives but also alleviates the burden on the healthcare system, as fewer people will require expensive medical treatments for preventable illnesses.

However, it is essential to recognize the importance of treatment in healthcare. There are certain medical conditions and emergencies that cannot be prevented through education and lifestyle changes. Therefore, a portion of the health budget must be allocated to ensuring that quality treatment and care are accessible to all citizens. Neglecting treatment in favor of prevention could lead to neglecting the needs of those who are already suffering from illnesses.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the significance of health education and preventative measures, I believe that a balanced approach is necessary. A large proportion of the health budget should indeed be directed towards prevention, but treatment should not be overlooked. By striking a balance between the two, a country can achieve a more sustainable and effective healthcare system.

Sample 6:

Judicious utilization of the health budget has often been a debatable issue in most countries. Although the patients suffering from health issues need timely treatment, I agree that the lion’s share of health budget should be allocated to preventative measures.

One of the most obvious benefits of spending more on prevention is huge economic savings for the state. The cost of public awareness drives in the form of telecasting health-related programs on television, organizing health camps, spreading environment cleanliness awareness and so on are relatively less expensive than setting up multi-speciality hospitals or spending huge sums on sophisticated surgical paraphernalia for the treatment of an ever-increasing ill population. In addition, diverting funds in the direction of preventative measures will eventually lead to high-quality lifestyles of citizens. For example, by incorporating health education in the school curriculum, the current young generation will cultivate healthy eating habits and physical regimes besides taking maximum possible measures to prevent diseases and avoid accidents.

However, it does not mean that governments should turn a blind eye to the plight of the already-existing patients. They need to be taken care of, treated and cured. As a matter of fact, a good number of them, if not all, are ill predominantly owing to lack of knowledge as to how to take care of their health or avoid physical injuries.

In conclusion, while admitting that funding for treatment of diseases is essential, I would argue that the primary focus of a nation should be a healthy populace: a long-term goal that can be achieved only by diverting a substantial part of its health budget into effective preventive measures.

Sample 7:

Many healthcare specialists advise people to exercise and be more aware of their health aspects. It is also suggested that a major share of the health budget should be diverted towards health education and preventative steps. I completely agree with this viewpoint.

Firstly, I feel that channelling the healthcare budget extensively towards pre-emptive health measures will reduce overall medical costs. It will also indirectly contribute to the country’s economic growth. The spending on medicines, lab tests, doctor’s fees, and surgeries is huge. In fact, it surges exponentially if the disease goes undetected and worsens at a later stage. Much of the clinical expenditure can be easily obviated if more money is spent on preventative steps. This can enable every individual to be educated about health. More health campaigns can encourage people to take simple steps of hygiene, such as avoiding contaminated needles and refraining from unwanted physical contacts. Due to this, many dreadful diseases such as AIDS, Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis can be prevented. This, in turn, can save exorbitant expenses at a later stage.

Secondly, incentivizing health programs can motivate people to support the government in eradicating preventable diseases. For example, a street play or a free seminar can be arranged to enlighten the public about the ill effects of smoking, chewing tobacco, alcoholism, and ignoring health check-ups. Lastly, the precautionary approach towards health will ultimately lead to a better quality of life. Healthy citizens will engender more happiness and wealth in the nation. In a developing country, many patients will be relieved of the extravagant medical costs and their productivity will increase.

In conclusion, I feel both the individual and the country can save huge amounts of money by diverting a major chunk of the health budget towards measures to prevent diseases. It can also provide additional perks for health professionals.

Sample 8:

The adage "prevention is better than cure" emphasizes the significance of prioritizing health education and preventative measures over treatment. I completely agree with this statement because prioritizing prevention enables societies to decrease disease burden, enhance public health outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Firstly, investing in health education enables individuals to make informed decisions about their health. To brief, by offering accurate and up-to-date information on healthy living, individuals are empowered to proactively safeguard their health. Campaigns promoting the benefits of exercise, healthy eating, and regular health check-ups, for instance, can lead to behavior changes that reduce the risk of chronic diseases. Additionally, awareness should be raised by promoting preventive measures such as vaccinations, regular screenings, and safe practices while encouraging individuals to seek appropriate healthcare services and adhere to preventive behaviors.

Furthermore, investing in preventive measures can lead to substantial cost savings in the long run. Elaborating on this, by preventing diseases or detecting them at an early stage, the need for costly treatments and hospitalizations can be minimized, alleviating the strain on healthcare systems and improving overall resource allocation. Moreover, initiatives like improving access to clean water, promoting sanitation, and implementing policies to reduce exposure to environmental toxins should be taken by governments that can effectively address the social determinants of health, eventually tackling health inequalities, and improving the overall health status of the population.

In conclusion, I firmly concur that through investments in health education and proactive measures, individuals can make wiser choices regarding their well-being, embrace preventive practices, and identify health conditions at an early stage, thereby contributing to improved health outcomes, reduced healthcare expenses, and ultimately fostering a healthier population.

Sample 9:

Modern medicine has evolved along two lines: prevention and cure. In this world, many people are dying from various types of health-related problems due to the lack of appropriate health education and preventive actions. That is why, according to my perception, government should spend a huge amount of money from the health budget for preventive measures.

To begin with, it is evident that, in most of the country's health, education is hardly imparted among the people. When people are made aware of health-related issues it naturally implies the prevention of umpteen diseases which can be avoided with basic alterations in lifestyles. For example, in most developing countries, people are suffering from so many communicable diseases because they do not know about the disadvantages of having unhygienic food and water. Moreover, if the government can provide information about basic preventive steps which can be inculcated at basic grassroot level then the chances of spread of various diseases are alleviated and hence this would improve the overall health of people. Also, another major reason is that creating awareness would definitely consume less funds of the government and would have more positive impacts.

On the other hand, it should also be remembered that not all examples of modern disease are preventable or predictable, and it is critical to maintain research into cures for all diseases. Hence, a certain amount of health budget should be diverted in curing diseases as well. For example, life-taking diseases such as cancer cannot be prevented with basic measures and hence there should be funds allocated to the cure and research of such gruesome diseases.

To conclude, it can be said that the government should spend sufficient amount of money on treatment too, but a high proportion of the amount should be spent on health education and preventive measures so that the population of the country can live in a healthy environment with less price.

Sample 10:

Nowadays, more and more people are getting sick or dying due to some critical illness; there could be different scenarios either for no one have enough awareness about these diseases with prevention methods. In this essay, the author argues that from most counties’ health budgets, a large percentage of the amount is spent on health education and preventative methods. I agree with this point of view, and I will discuss this in the following paragraphs.

First of all, “prevention is better than cure”. This is only possible when everyone has enough knowledge about all types of illness and safety precautions. For illustration, a few decades ago, malaria was introduced into the world. At that time, more than 80% of Italy people got infected because they didn’t have enough education about these diseases, and even they didn’t know how to protect themself from malaria. While within a short duration of time, other countries got infected too, but not Italy. Due to this reason, a number of people got died at that time.

On the other hand, the government must invest as much as possible in health education and preventive methods rather than treatment or treatment equipment because if people are aware of what is good or bad for their health, they always try to protect themself from it. For example, In Japan, most people live a long life because their government is spending plenty of money on health education. Moreover, from elementary school, they are teaching their pupils about health education and how to use precautions to stay safe with others.

To conclude, I believe that “health is wealth” If the government invests more money in health education, there is a good chance of reducing the hospital-patient ratio. And they can utilize that amount in the future work of their people.

Sample 11:

Providing appropriate healthcare services to the inhabitants of a country has always remained an important social initiative, but consistently rising per capita health expenditure has invited a debate on finding ways of cutting down public expenditure in this domain. Some have even suggested channelizing funds to programs aimed at encouraging the prevention of ailments rather than combating them.

Diverting public money to initiatives aimed at teaching inhabitants about healthy practices can be more productive and fruitful as it would help in ensuring keeping various fatal and crippling diseases at bay, thereby reducing the need to manufacture and procure expensive medicines and equipment. This would enable the government to channelize much precious funds to ensure better life and facilities for the inhabitants of a country.

Furthermore, prioritizing creating awareness among masses about benefits of adopting and leading a healthy lifestyle over treating would result in improving the health index of society, especially in terms of fatal and crippling diseases. This in turn would enhance the productivity of society by shifting its focus to more vital areas rather than exploring ways to treat ailments.

However, reducing financial outlay and changing preferences from providing treatment to educating about healthy lifestyle and prevention of ailments could prove to be a disaster as life is becoming complex and many people may not be receptive to the idea of leading a disciplined life. Moreover, certain illnesses and disorders occur due to unavoidable reasons especially those linked to the aging, complex lifestyle and pollution, for instances, some illnesses like arthritis start occurring naturally and cannot be prevented even by following a healthy lifestyle.

To sum up, I feel that the government should keep both prevention and cure on priority and not focus only on one area - both of these enjoy equal relevance for effective healthcare interventions. 

Sample 12:

Preventive healthcare is slowly gaining importance. The average life expectancy rate has come down, which has initiated a probe into this domain. Also, people from all over the world are urging their governments to allocate a considerable amount towards health education and preventive mechanisms. I welcome this outlook whole-heartedly. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I shall elaborate on the importance of creating awareness of health.

Recent surveys have confirmed that many deaths due to smoking could have been prevented by proper health education. Many teenagers get addicted to drugs, which leads to many terminal diseases and finally, death. This could be prevented by organising campaigns on health and making them aware of the ill-effects of drugs. Another leading causative factor in death is diabetes. The numbers furnished by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) are scary. Untreated diabetes leads to kidney failure. So, the government has to protect people by educating them on lifestyle and conduct periodic health checks for free.

The governments have to do a comparative study on the money spent on buying expensive pieces of machinery for treatment to the money spent on preventive healthcare. The latter is more economical. The amount of money spent by an individual for treatment after the onset of the disease is very high. So, the budget for preventive healthcare helps to improve the economy at the individual level. Healthy citizens will be more productive and contribute to the nation’s development. A classic example is the introduction of pediatric vaccines which have increased the mortality rates of children. Considering the success rates, it is worth investing in preventive operations.

Although some people argue that it is an overload on the budget, it has to be implemented considering the long-term benefits.

In summary, governments should invest in preventive health care with a vision of creating a healthy world. Though we may not see immediate results, it would benefit future generations.

Sample 13:

There is no denying the fact that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. This is why it is being argued these days that governments should invest a majority of their health budgets in creating awareness about preventative measures rather than providing a cure for diseases. Since health education and awareness about preventative measures offer more benefits than providing treatment, this essay agrees that nations must concentrate on preventative instead of curative measures.

There are several arguments to substantiate this viewpoint. First and foremost, investments made in the prevention of diseases will save people’s money. Treating any sickness is becoming increasingly expensive these days. For instance, the prices of several life-saving drugs are rocketing sky-high. Similarly, treatment of any illness requires diagnosis but, in many countries, doctors show reluctance to use their knowledge and expertise to diagnose even minor ailments and instead prescribe patients many unnecessary and costly tests. This has made the incredibly expensive health care beyond the reach of many ordinary people. Therefore, if the government channels most of its health funds for the prevention of diseases, people can be saved from enormous health bills. Likewise, spending money on creating awareness about health will also reduce the financial/ monetary burden on the government’s shoulders. As government has to spend its limited resources on various crucial aspects such as providing education, developing infrastructure and conducting social welfare schemes, providing treatment to a large number of people at affordable prices in state-funded hospitals will result in a severe shortage of funds. To generate more funds, the government will have to either levy heavier taxes or reduce its spending on other areas. In both scenarios, the one who will be at a disadvantage is the common man. For instance, a rise in taxes will give birth to inflation which will make it extremely difficult for people to afford even the basic necessities of life. Similarly, if spending on other crucial areas is curtailed, many people, who rely on governmental help, will suffer a lot.

In addition, despite the existence of a cure, the treatment for a malady can make life inconvenient in several ways as it can cause needless pain and suffering. In exemplification, treating cancer using chemotherapy results in many side-effects such as loss of hair, nausea, vomiting, skin infection, fatigue and so on. On top of that, some diseases are incurable and most often result in a person’s demise. A perfect example of this would be HIV, which has no viable cure as of yet. Sometimes, therapeutic and surgical intervention fails to produce the desired results. Such failures make people lifelong dependent on costly and unnecessary drugs and also exert an enormous emotional toll on the patient and his/her family. Absenteeism from school and work due to various ailments is another good example to justify the argument that prevention is much better than cure.

Although it cannot be guaranteed that the funds directed towards prevention will yield fruitful results, it is undeniable that we need to try to implement such measures.

To conclude, a healthy citizenry is the real wealth of a nation. By preventing diseases, people can enjoy a happy and peaceful life. In a world of scarce resources, spending money on developing costly diagnostic and therapeutic techniques is a waste as long as prevention of diseases is an achievable goal. Thus, it is far more judicious to spend money on prevention rather than cure.

Sample 14:

It is ever said that prevention is better than cure. Therefore, a large share out of the total health budget must be utilized from curement to educate people on keeping good health and what to do to get a healthy body. I thoroughly agree with the statement and will express my perspective in the upcoming paragraph.

To commence with, if a big amount of money is spent on creating awareness among people regarding their food habits, that can create a danger for them and make them a victim of many diseases, it is a noble cause. For instance, people become addicted to using alcoholic products. So, if the masses are advised through dramatisation about the adverse outcomes of consuming toxic products, they will abstain from taking these drugs. Thus, the money that a government spends on the curement of individuals from various diseases could be used for other purposes.

Moreover, if people are healthy and fall less sick, it will not only be beneficial for the masses but also for the regime that throws money for the well-being of its individuals. To exemplify, people who work in any firm will not take leave more, and they will do a lot for the betterment of their company, and in this way, medical facilities will be less used by the individual. It will be possible only through instructions that folk get when they see any campaigning or rallies and to name but a few. Thus, educating people about health hazards is more powerful than spending money on the treatment.

To conclude, Therefore, it is clear from the above-mentioned viewpoints that abstain from consuming unhealthy food is better than admitting to a hospital. Besides, the money spent on treatment could be used to guide people about potential health issues. These issues like obesity the cardiovascular disease could never have happened if people got information about the repercussion of an unhealthy diet beforehand.

Sample 15:

The proverbial saying “Prevention is better than cure” emphasizes the significance of proactive measures in maintaining good health. I agree that a substantial portion of a country’s health budget should be allocated to health education and preventative measures rather than solely focusing on treatment. This approach can lead to numerous benefits for individuals and society as a whole.

Health education plays a pivotal role in equipping individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to make informed decisions about their well-being. By allocating a significant proportion of the health budget to health education programmes, countries can empower their citizens to adopt healthy lifestyles, understand potential health risks, and take preventive measures accordingly. For example, investing in educational campaigns that promote healthy eating habits and regular exercise can help prevent conditions such as obesity and diabetes, reducing the burden on healthcare systems and improving overall public health.

Preventative measures, such as immunizations, screenings, and early detection programmes, are instrumental in identifying health risks at an early stage and preventing the development of severe illnesses. Allocating resources to these initiatives can save lives and reduce healthcare costs in the long run. For instance, implementing widespread vaccination programs can effectively eradicate infectious diseases, preventing outbreaks and the need for extensive treatment.

In conclusion, I strongly support the idea of diverting a substantial portion of a country’s health budget towards health education and preventative measures. By prioritizing these proactive approaches, individuals can be empowered to make informed decisions about their health, leading to healthier lifestyles and reduced healthcare burdens. Furthermore, preventative measures can significantly reduce the incidence and severity of diseases, resulting in improved overall public health outcomes.

Sample 16:

Countries around the world, except for a few first-world countries, are struggling to cope with the soaring costs of medicines and treatments. But I think that things would have been different if they had emphasized more on health education and preventive measures instead of actually spending so much on “medicines and treatment”. So, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that a big proportion of the national budget should be diverted from medical treatment to health education and preventative actions.

First, a couple of centuries ago, Cholera was thought to be caused by breathing “miasmas”, and treatment was given to dilute the odours associated with the disease. But, once it was found that some microscopic creatures were actually the main “culprits” which had caused this, along with the other diseases, treatments changed, and sanitation became the chief means of disease prevention. In fact, some health experts today even go on to suggest that our health owes more to “the idea of proper sanitation” than to all the cures developed before or since!

Secondly, and very interestingly, for most diseases, and for all non-infectious diseases, the word “cured” is simply not defined. Besides, there is no scientific or medical test or cure for any non-infectious disease. There is also no test or cure for any so-called “self-resolving” diseases like the common cold, influenza, or measles. Many medical dictionaries do not even contain a definition for the word “cure”! And, I won’t even go to dig into the “fallacy” of the anti-biotic cure because anti-biotics do basically nothing but allow the living microbes to develop a “resistance” to one antibiotic after another. So, our lifestyle and knowledge related to health do more prominent work and that’s where our national budget should be spent to get actual results.

To conclude, it is fair to suggest that prevention is far better than cure if we want to use our health budget wisely and have a healthy nation.

Sample 17:

Inadequate health education and lack of preventive measures cause unexpected deaths each day across the world while a large percentage of the world population does not get proper treatment. So, I do not think that the government should reduce the current treatment budget for prevention measures. That money ought to be diverted from sectors like weaponry and defence.

Many people are bereft of basic knowledge about many fairly common health issues, like cardiovascular diseases, for instance. Most of these diseases can be dramatically decreased if more people are made reasonably knowledgeable about them through disseminating information and public health education programmes. Many countries have already got tangible results from this approach. Besides, many countries have dramatically harnessed the transmission of COVID-19 because they livestreamed campaigns to provide information on how to contain the transmission of the virus and prompt citizens to maintain social distancing, wash hands frequently with soap and avoid large crowds to reduce chances of catching the virus.

However, although I am steadfast in favour of allocating the budget to preventive measures, I do not think that the current treatment should be suffered severe budget cuts. The usual treatment that patients are currently having is of profound importance. The government ought to slash money from elsewhere. At these unpredictable times, the government still spends a huge amount of money on fatal weapons. If they reduce the minute amount of budget from this sector and divert it into the health budget – both for preventative measures and to treat ill people, it can bring favourable results. In consequence, this would reduce the number of patients substantially, which in turn, along with preventive measures, ameliorate the health of our nation as a whole.

To recapitulate, millions of people die every year around the world due to ignorance of preventable illnesses. The government ought to allow a considerable amount of budget for this, but the budget should be allocated from other sectors like weapon production and national defence.

Sample 18:

Many avian flu viruses cause outbreaks worldwide causing havoc at least once in a few decades. This is why many people opine that the health budget should be restructured by diverting a considerable amount of money from treatment to health education and preventive actions, which I also accord with because precautionary measures and proper education could have been sufficient to restrict or even prevent many such diseases.

Hundreds of thousands of people are on the grip of the deadly diseases, like COVID-19, for example, which condemn its victims to a terrible condition. With the spreading of the outbreak, the death toll soars dramatically mile after mile. Terror, isolation, and claustrophobia haunt as people are forced into quarantine. If countries had more health budgets for educating people and taking careful measures, the pandemic could have been restrained in its origin. On top of that, more healthcare research budget could have been a good way to come out with a proper vaccine sooner. Therefore, there is sufficient justification for channelling more funds into public healthcare education and research programmes.

Besides, the uncertain prognosis and treatment demonstrate that the necessity of preventive measures and health education is decisive. In simple words, the clinical spectrum, new diagnostic approach, the necessary information on the transmission mechanism, and the prevention and the therapeutic blueprint are yet to develop. But interestingly enough, evidence points to the fact that a healthy lifestyle such as washing hands frequently with soap, having healthy food, social behaviours, regular exercise, and so on, can limit the transmission of the viruses. So, these findings should be disseminated across the world. Thus, health education and preventive measures deserve more money than treatment.

In fine, communicable diseases are spreading like wildfire throughout the earth. So, it is sensible enough to conclude that world governments ought to spend more money on preventive measures and public health awareness compared to the treatment budget.

Sample 19:

A huge amount of money is spent curing preventable illnesses and obviously it would make far more sense for more of this money to be spent educating the public about the long-term benefits of a healthy diet and lifestyle. However, in countries such as the UK where the national health system is already under severe pressure, there is barely enough money to cope with the current surge in demand for its services. Therefore, it seems hard to imagine the consequences of diverting a large chunk of its funding to preventative strategies.

Recent research has shown that many of today's illnesses are related to lifestyle. Many people work long hours, do not have time to cook healthy meals and drink too much in order to cope with the stress of modern life. If the government spent more money on alleviating such problems, for example, by subsidising gyms, taxing unhealthy food, reducing the number of hours in a working week and introducing more annual leave, there could be a massive knock-on effect on people's general well-being, and this would be a very cost-effective solution in the long term.

Unfortunately, such a positive outcome cannot be guaranteed, and the government would have to take a huge risk of cutting health budgets at a time when the money is so desperately needed. It would be extremely difficult to convince tax-payers of the benefits of investing in public health facilities and awareness campaigns when all they see are long queues at A&E, lengthy waiting lists for routine operations and extreme difficulty getting an appointment to see their local GP.

So, although I completely support the idea of diverting money to preventing rather than curing illness, the reality is more complicated and requires careful research, thought and planning.

Sample 20:

A sizeable proportion of the country’s health budget should be spent on health education and preventive measures. Rather than treatment, I am in full solidarity with the above statement because, firstly, it saves money, and secondly, it reduces the burden of doctors.

To embark on providing health education is a prudent approach to conserving plenty of money because it aids individuals in knowing plenty of techniques to prevent diseases, which saves government funds.

There is no denying this conviction that this perspective enlightens them to handle minor health conflicts at their disposal, which assists higher authorities in saving their health budget. Moreover, it encourages individuals to conserve their hard-earned money because health education teaches them many preventative measures that help them prevent diseases before they originate. For example, in the COVID-19 pandemic, the unabated support provided by New Zealand’s government in educating people to mitigate the virus saved millions of dollars compared to other countries.

Furthermore, it is a sane approach to the declining number of hospital patients, which would minimize the pressure on medical staff. This step would bring a paradigm shift in people’s health-related awareness, decreasing their over-reliance on doctors. For example, the awareness campaigns originated by the “Red Cross Club” have assisted millions of people in giving first aid, which has helped reduce the worth of medical employees to a great extent.

To summarize, health education and preventive measures save money for the government and people, but they also help reduce the workload of doctors. Therefore, spreading awareness via health education should be the top priority of higher authorities.