Scribd
Upload
99 views1 page

Writing Task 2 - Discussion - Health Promotion or Treatment

While some argue public funds should support illness treatment, promoting healthy living prevents more serious issues and is more cost-effective. (1) Treating illness is important as rising costs mean many cannot afford care otherwise. (2) However, encouraging exercise and nutrition prevents conditions like cancer and heart disease, sparing misery. (3) Building public gyms and encouraging prevention is cheaper than medical devices and drugs for chronic diseases.

Uploaded by

Nguyễn Phước Hà Thiên
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views1 page

Writing Task 2 - Discussion - Health Promotion or Treatment

While some argue public funds should support illness treatment, promoting healthy living prevents more serious issues and is more cost-effective. (1) Treating illness is important as rising costs mean many cannot afford care otherwise. (2) However, encouraging exercise and nutrition prevents conditions like cancer and heart disease, sparing misery. (3) Building public gyms and encouraging prevention is cheaper than medical devices and drugs for chronic diseases.

Uploaded by

Nguyễn Phước Hà Thiên
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

It is more important to spend public money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to

spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree of disagree?

Body 1: Argument for treatment


- rising costs of health care
=> many people unable to afford expensive treatment => die if not treated => inhumane
- governments have obligation to take care of ill people
<= they pay taxes, contribute to public fund => have the right to receive social services
Body 2: Argument for health promotion
- health perspectives: prevent illnesses which may be incurable
Ex: exercising prevents cardiovascular diseases, healthy diets prevent cancer
- economic perspectives: cost-saving
Ex: building public gyms cheaper than buying expensive scanning machines and prescription
drugs/medications/cancer treatments/gene therapy to treat cancer

As the cost of health care has been inexorably increasing, how public funding should be spent on the health
care system has always been a topic of interest/debate. While some people argue that this money should be better
allocated to healthy living promotion, others maintain that illness treatment ought to receive more funding. Both
viewpoints are justifiable, but I personally lean towards the former.
It is understandable why the treatment of ill people should account for a large part of the health care
budget. Due to the rapidly rising costs of health care, many people, especially the underprivileged, become unable to
afford the expensive treatments to common life-threatening conditions such as cancer and heart diseases. As a result,
without government subsidies to reduce the costs, many patients would almost certainly die of/stand little chance
against these curable diseases. This gives a humanitarian justification for supporting spending on treatment. Besides,
from a social point of view, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of its ill citizens. When people
contribute to the development of their country through various forms of tax payment, they expect, and have the
right, to receive necessary well-being services and social security, a part of which is the national health services.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that healthy living promotion should be prioritised over treatment
when it comes to budget allocation. From a health perspective, encouraging healthy living helps prevent many
serious health problems and spare people of the misery of illnesss. Regular physical exercise, for example, can
strengthen the cardiovascular system and prevent heart diseases, while a healthy and balanced diet can reduce the
risk of developing cancer. From an economic perspective, disease prevention and health promotion are undoubtedly
more cost-effective than medications and therapies. For instance, building public gyms and sports areas for people to
do exercise is clearly cheaper than purchasing costly medical devices and prescription drugs to treat chronic diseases
like cancer or kidney diseases.
In conclusion/To conclude, provided that promotional messages are targeted to the appropriate audience,
preventive health care should be given more attention over the treatment of patients in the long term.

a healthy lifestyle = a healthy way of living = healthy living


promoting a healthy lifestyle = health promotion, disease prevention and health promotion
disease, illness, health problems, debilitating & life-threatening conditions
preventive health care/alternative to drugs: immunisation, diagnostic tests, screening people for potential risks
get a disease = catch = develop
under-funded area >< over-funded area
health care = medical care
cost-saving = cost-effective

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy