Some people believe that hospitals should spend more money on new medical technology, while others argue that those funds should be allocated to doctors and nurses. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

 Some people believe that hospitals should spend more money on new medical technology, while others argue that those funds should be allocated to doctors and nurses. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

A fierce debate has ensued regarding the investments in the healthcare sector, some assert that it is paramount to allocate funds to state-of-the-art methods and medical equipment, whereas some posit that prioritizing medical caregivers is necessary. I would analyze this notion profoundly while hunting with hounds and running with hares. 

Channelizing  monetary resources to equip healthcare environment with up-to-date medical tools: modern scanning machines, laser treatments, lab test, to name a few  will prove to be a blessing; this will assist the professionals to diagnose the diseases precisely, and at an earlier: cancer at an early stage, resulting in dispension of a better treatment to the patients, in terms of surgery, medicines, tests, and many more. 

Additionally, the technologies: AI,  could aid healthcare teams to save invaluable time; most of the tasks will be undertaken by robots. The automatic machines will complete their duties independently, saving immense time and human intervention required to finalize treatments, speeding up the process and mitigating waiting times for those ailing. To corroborate, implementing AI in the USA has precipitated relief for the sick as they can now access regular checkups and necessary therapies quickly.

However, doctors and nurses play a vital role in the medical care, and thus must  get precedence; these specialists boast of the expertise required to assess, prescribe and alter treatments; and monitor progress of those suffering from disease, disorders, and so on, something irreplaceable. Similarly,  technology can never mimic humans; the latter can provide ill with human touch and empathy - motivation and positive attitude to overcome disease, and many more.

In hindsight, both technology and staff are pivotal to an effective healthcare framework. Therefore,  both must enjoy equal relevance when thinking about investing resources for improvements; ignoring any of these would engender an imbalance.

Some believe that the government should support artists like musicians, painters, and poets, while others argue that this is a misuse of funds.

 Some believe that the government should support artists like musicians, painters, and poets, while others argue that this is a misuse of funds. 

Discuss both views and give your own opinion

Why? These people do not have resources to support them 

• They represent the culture and tradition and help perpetuate these  further: this has been historically proven 

• Their work reflects the condition of society 

• These people have a pivotal in bringing around revolutions

• They are also responsible for helping society become visible 

This is wastage of money 

• Funds could be used to alleviate problems like poverty 

• Funds could be used to carry out research and improve technology 

The idea of the state affording financial support to those performing various kinds of arts, invites mixed views, with some supporting this, others rejecting it. 

The advocates of such funding propose that individuals engaged in realms of music, painting, and poetry, to name a few, enjoy a special position in society; they are the sole medium of perpetuating the knowledge and wisdom, accumulated by ancestors over the eons, about history, culture, rituals, and traditions, down the generations. In absence of these societies would lose its identity, due to being disconnected from its past, and fade away soon. However, these exponents lack money to survive and carry out this critical duty, making it imperative for society to bolster them, and policy makers being the true representatives for the country must take ownership in this endeavor. 

Similarly, these art practitioners don other important roles of entertaining and informing the inhabitants of the nation about the conditions of their surroundings, and challenges facing them. To corroborate, poems and songs, especially the traditional genre, have not only amused their audiences but also helped them to enlighten themselves about social evils/stigma, and persuade them to abandon such practices.

Nevertheless, those critical of such initiatives tend to present the same old argument that these monetary resources instead of being squandered in such useless undertakings, would have been used to alleviate illiteracy and poverty, and render better healthcare and amenities to the marginalized, but their different objections fall flat as preserving all manifestations of art is as crucial as progressing.

In hindsight, the critics will be critics, and bound to doubt every noble move, nonetheless extending all possible assistance to musicians, poets, and so on, should continue, for this is the only way to sustain continuity of social and cultural values.  

Introduction 1

The public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the issue that should the state afford financial support to those performing various kinds of art. While some are in favor of this, others profess that the monetary resources could be used in other more critical areas.

Introduction 2

There is a fierce debate between different schools of thought when it comes to the issue of the state affording financial support to those performing various kinds of art, since some are in favor of this, others consider it as a useless exercise, and recommend better use of resources.

Introduction 3