“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 preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Main question
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Agree or disagree with what
Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.
“Prevention - helping evade is better than cure - combative”.
Should governments spend a major part of the budget on measures that prevent disease or not is a debatable matter. While many vouch for this, others detest it.
Yes a major part should be spent on preventing disease, why ? Justify with reason explain why you agree with this
If people were able to evade falling sick, this would save governments a lot of money otherwise spent on account of creating a huge health care infrastructure.
A good health index will also mean that citizens will be able to contribute to the productivity of the economy: a sick person does not only drain public money but also remains away from work, and takes time recuperating
No a major part should not be spent on preventing disease, why ? Justify with reason explain why you agree with this
In contemporary times, people are exposed to stressful life where they do not have time to take care of their health, it is causing a spike in lifestyle related disease.
Age related ailments cannot be avoided, they are going to catch up with the age.
Hereditary disease cannot bee avoided
Unannounced epidemics cannot be circumvented at any cost
Conventionally, it is said that preventing any health ailments is better than curing, making many believe that the policy makers must invest in educating the populace about ways to circumvent falling sick, whereas a school of thought dissents with this proposal.
Those supporting this initiative think, if people were able to evade diseases it would save the government humongous monetary resources, otherwise spent on account of creating a huge health care infrastructure such as the state-of-the-art diagnostic systems, healthcare environment like hospitals, interventions like surgeries, and other treatments, and hiring and paying doctors and nurses. For example, investments in the combative framework take away the lion's share of the health budget of every country.
Moreover, citizens will be able to contribute to the productivity of the economy with a good health index; a sick person does not only drain the public budget, by subscribing to the state supported treatment and other facilities, but also remains away from work and takes time recuperating, and not generating any economic activity.
However, those rebelling against this suggestion, fear that this might cause chaos as hereditary ailments cannot be avoided; many inherited illnesses: diabetes, thyroid and certain heart-diseases, can be delayed but not altogether avoided. Additionally, the contemporary generation is exposed to stressful lifestyles where they do not have time to take care of their health, precipitating a spike in lifestyle-related ailments like anxiety, depression and obesity, to name a few. These cannot be avoided despite embracing deterrents; thus, mandating creation of a mechanism that can offer an effective cure.
In hindsight, I feel it is better to allocate equal weightage to both the mechanisms: one that inhibits illnesses, and the other that provides remedies, ensuring that the health support system functions effectively.
