These days, if people have health problems, many do not visit doctors. They try to get better at home by themselves. Is this a positive or negative development?

These days, if people have health problems, many do not visit doctors. They try to get better at home by themselves.
Is this a positive or negative development?

Positive development 

• People are now able to keep a check on their health instead of waiting for a doctor to decide their condition 
• They can take precautions in advance and act accordingly and also decide what course to follow 

Negative development 

• People are jeopardizing their health and life: diagnosing an ailment just on the basis of certain common clues can be lethal: doctors carry exposure and expertise to judge the intensity and suitability of medicine 
• This is also creating pessimism in society and making people apprehensive 

The growing propensity to opt for self-treatment, rather than professional medical advice may bring certain benefits like helping one embrace precautions pre-emptively, but it can jeopardize health and expose one to fatal conditions. Therefore, this is an extremely detrimental evolution. 

Resorting  to home remedies and selfcare can help people enlighten themselves about the symptoms of the diseases and match them with their own condition. This can assist the sick and their kin to embrace necessary safeguards  and recover faster without any external intervention. For instance, during the pandemic, many opted for this alternative owing to unavailability of physicians on time, and successfully managed their medical condition and kept  themselves safe. 

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the short-term and transient gains, this tendency is making many, especially the ailing, vulnerable to severe repercussions. The habit of self-medicating can precipitate advancement and seriousness of the ailment, often turning mild treatable illness into life-threatening complications. To exemplify, numerous  cases of hypertension are, undeniably, an outcome of self-managed exercise regimes, sodium restriction and unsolicited dietary supplements, without complementing them with prescribed medicines. This condition can sometimes also lead to cardiac arrest and strokes, among others.

Moreover, self-treatment is also held responsible for the growing anxiety and pessimism in society; most self-professed advisory and remedial interventions lack an in-depth analysis of indications of afflictions, and tend to present generalised content, which may not fit into every circumstance. However, when common people access these treatments, they often pre-dispose themselves to unwarranted stress and self-constraint, resulting in them becoming gloomy and desperate.  

In conclusion, although self-medication may help in alleviating mild infections and disorders, this should not become a norm, and one should always approach qualified medical professionals before subscribing to any interventions, otherwise they may become susceptible to lethal consequences or disabilities.

In many countries the consumption of fast food has increased dramatically in recent years. What has caused this increase? What effect might it have on individuals and society?

In many countries the consumption of fast food has increased dramatically in recent years. What has caused this increase? What effect might it have on individuals and society?

In the contemporary era, an inclination towards consuming processed food has risen considerably across the globe. This essay will discuss the attributes fueling this upsurge in consumption, as well as the subsequent consequences on the consumers and masses.

Many have hailed this trend, and this can be attributed to several reasons. A rich profusion of variety in the junk food and advent of the renowned international fast-food chains in the countries compel consumers to engage with a variety of available cuisines, resulting in satiating their taste palate. Furthermore, round-the-clock availability and instant delivery of such edible items through prevalent food applications, nowadays, is of great affordance for the people organizing any sort of events even at odd hours.

Moreover, in metropolitan cities people are substantially engaged in their grueling work schedules by virtue of which, they do not get adequate time to indulge themselves in the auxiliary activity like cooking, thereby pushing them to consume convenience food readily available in every nook and corner; in order to save the most precious commodity: the time.

Having said that, the preparation of junk food requires ingredients lacking essential nutrients which are necessary for a healthy body to thrive, precipitating serious health concerns, and hospitalization in extreme incidents of overindulgence like binge eating. Besides this, the exorbitant restaurant bills on a regular basis is adversely affecting the financial health of many, especially those hailing from lower and middle income strata.

To reiterate, the consumption of fast-food has witnessed a stupendous surge  owing to its quick and easy availability, variety, and addictive content; nevertheless, the severe repercussions associated with the spiraling consumption of such food pose serious health hazards along with the disruptions in budgets.

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

Do you agree or disagree?

Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem. 

Should the government increase the price to reduce the incidence of obesity?  Yes or no?  Proposal 

Yes they should: 

• Assumption (would) if such an action taken,  
• It will dissuade consumers from opting for such things and they will have to settle for cheaper but healthier options or home cooked meals
• Manufacturers will reduce the amount of fat being used in producing food items 

Why this action should not be taken

• Blaming food will not alleviate the problem 
• It is not the food but the sedentary lifestyles that is cause of this issue so, the state must ensure that this is taken care of effectively 
• People will not abandon consumption to these items: they are forced to do so because of their overwhelming engagement with their professional and academic pursuits. Therefore, the state  must focus on providing relief to people from their over-draining schedules so that people can get some time to cook rather than buy food.  
• They should instead promote active lifestyles 
• They should instead persuade the manufacturers to reduce the fat content in their produce.

The rising incidence of corpulence has caused an alarm about its impact on human health. This has prompted many to suggest that policy makers must intervene by making fattening food expensive, for this might discourage consumption of fatty foods. However, I fail to align myself with this proposal completely; this is unlikely to produce desired outcomes.
The school of thought proposing this arrangement assumes that costly edible goods loaded with fat would become  unaffordable for a majority of consumers, especially youngsters, addicted to such material, and persuade a switchover to healthier alternatives. Moreover, this could also coax manufacturers to reduce fattening content in their preparations, and support healthy food intake. 
However, this policy is unlikely to succeed as the food industry will turn to manipulative practices and tweak the quantity and quality of their merchandise to absorb the impact of extra levies, and still charge their clients the same price, thereby rendering this strategy ineffective. For instance, the UK government imposed extra taxes on gluten-laden crisps in 2010 to help mitigate intake of excessive sugar, but the sales continued to climb; food companies simply reduced the sizes of the crisps and the weight of packaging and their businesses continued as usual. 
Similarly, the need of the hour is to address the root cause of this physical condition: it is the sedentary lifestyle that is making people obese; and improved food habits cannot resolve this issue. Therefore, lawmakers must focus on promoting active lifestyles to persuade people to physically exert and metabolize  calories they consume with food and sustain their fitness. 
Overall, this recommendation lacks practical vision and professes a superficial situation by disregarding the actual cause of obesity, whereas minor adjustments in the product will offset any presumed benefits derived from a hike in prices. 

“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?

 “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?

Rising incidence of disease has prompted some to suggest the state allocating  more money to measures to thwart its onset and proliferation than combating it. I vouch for a balanced approach, for it will ensure taking care of healthcare support exhaustively  

Many assert that prevention is better than cure, and the healthy populace  can contribute more effectively to the economy through higher productivity - by enhancing workforce participation, and fewer sick leaves. For example, those with robust health are less likely to fall sick, thereby reducing absenteeism, and engage in using their skills to churn out economic value, benefiting society collectively. 

Moreover, this can help lessen the burden on public healthcare systems, allowing governments to allocate resources more efficiently. For instance, widespread vaccination programs protect individuals besides halting the spread of infectious diseases, safeguarding the entire community, and laying more money at the disposal of policy makers to ameliorate or establish new forays for furtherance of progress. 

Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to prioritize precautionary tools; many factors underpinning health are beyond individual control: genetic conditions, such as hereditary diseases, cannot be prevented despite a healthy lifestyle. For example, one may develop heart disease due to family history despite following strict fitness routines. Similarly, age-related health issues are inevitable: the human body naturally weakens over time, the elderly experience declining health regardless of their past habits. Additionally, unforeseen events: accidents can significantly impact health without any faulty habits. Therefore, policy hinging steps to circumvent ailments might not help sustain a healthy demography.    

In hindsight, while investing more into adopting safeguards against illnesses may help nip the evil in its bud, and avoid exacerbating disease, ignoring combative methods could precipitate chaos, and impact vulnerable sections adversely, so a balance must be maintained in spendings on healthcare.  

Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead. Discuss

 Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead. Discuss 

In contemporary times, some believe that it is the duty of the state to keep citizens of the nation hale and hearty. Consequently, some advocate state contribution in the prices of healthy nourishment, while others believe that unhealthy food should be rather taxed.  

To begin, if governments subsidise healthy food such as fruits and vegetables, it will promote a shift in eating habits. People, the impoverished, will be persuaded to consume something that ensures their well being; they will be able to afford otherwise expensive edible goods. For instance, in India, healthy breads were subsidized in many provinces which enabled even poor people to afford them, boosting their consumption, and improving their health. The enormous availability of healthy goods at a lower rate, compels farmers and producers to use healthy additives which ultimately minimises the usage of lucrative unhealthy additives.

However, if unhealthy food is taxed then younger people will not consume them anymore as it will become out of reach for certain individuals, and they will automatically get inclined towards healthy food. Moreover, this shift to healthy food will help the  state as the revenues can be invested in supporting organic farming and food production practices.  Similarly, overpriced unhealthy food will become unpopular with manufacturers, and they will substitute these for healthier ingredients.  For instance, in many parts of India unhealthy foods were heavily taxed on which manufacturers responded by shifting towards healthy additives; biofertilizers.

In conclusion, I feel that policy makers should adopt a balanced approach. Both the arrangements can contribute towards a healthy nation. Where one will help create inclination for healthy food habits, the other can dissuade the populace from faulty food habits. 

Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is commonly suggested that ensuring communal well being is possible by making fresh fruits and vegetables more affordable, while some think making unhealthy nutrition costly by imposing extra levies can fetch better outcomes. I opine that blending both the ways can produce desired results.

Olicymakers partially funding agricultural produce can go a long way in convincing the populace to switch to a wholesome diet, allowing them to consume appropriate amounts of nutrients. A majority of people, especially youngsters, and those hailing from middle or lower income groups, tend to resort to easily and cheaply obtainable edible goods: fast food, and so forth, since fresh and natural nourishment is out of their reach. However, if the latter is made economical, many will be stimulated to use these. To corroborate, some districts in  Sweden launched pilot projects on these lines, and reported resounding success as citizens overwhelmingly welcomed this move. Consequently, this scheme was permanently adopted as a law. 

Nevertheless, raising the prices of edible products packed with harmful ingredients by taxing them excessively, could induce consumers to forgo such goods; these will be out of reach of the most, and many will be forced to shift to nutritious alternatives. For instance, Singapore enforced a four hundred percent tax on gluten-laden hamburgers, leading to steep decline in their sales. Similarly, this will also persuade manufacturers to reduce injurious ingredients from their produce. To exemplify, when the UK government instituted heavy charges on crisps containing MSG, the manufacturers responded by completely eliminating this component from their products.  

In conclusion, using a combination of both these policies: persuasive and coercive methods can guarantee coaxing people to embrace healthy eating habits, and circumvent food-driven ailments, engendering a healthy and productive society; eventually, turning it competitive. 

 

Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead.Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead.Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In contemporary times, there is a growing debate on the topic of whether the state should contribute fruits and vegetables to promote a healthier lifestyle, while some lobbyists believe that edible goods that threaten health should be levied extra charges to make them unpopular.  

Subsidizing fruits and vegetables can persuade citizens to opt for healthier options as they will purchase healthier food due to its  affordability. It will even help the impoverished to buy healthier food. For instance, in Fiji, introduction of subsidised healthier food options led to a significant rise in their consumption. People from lower-income households reported feeling more energised and less dependent on junk food, showing how price adjustment can drive healthier lifestyle changes.

Similarly, reducing prices will promote healthier food habits and prevent disease. By doing this, the government can save financial resources typically spent on providing medical care. Additionally, this policy can stimulate the healthy local produce sans preservatives. By making fruits and vegetables more affordable, small farmers will get more business, which will strengthen the rural economy. 

On the face of it, some people argue that the state should tax unhealthy food instead, as this would discourage consumption and reduce spending on these items, especially among younger generations. They will  have less money to spend on such goods; consequently, they will shift to safer options. Likewise, this will force the manufacturers to reformulate their products, using healthier ingredients, as they would need to adapt to changing consumer demands and avoid additional tax burden.  

In conclusion, while subsidizing healthy food can improve access and affordability, taxing unhealthy food offers a complementary approach such as leading consumers toward healthier choice and promoting healthier production practices. Ultimately, a balanced strategy might be a most effective solution. 

Tobacco and alcohol are drugs that cause addiction and health problems. Should they be made illegal? Or should all drugs be legalized?

Tobacco and alcohol are drugs that cause addiction and health problems. Should they be made illegal? Or should all drugs be legalized?

There are calls for proscribing of tobacco and alcohol, since consumption of these adversely affect well-being, and may induce dependence on such substances. This essay shall delve deeper into this issue, and elucidate a clear stand.

Products such as cigarettes and intoxicants, like whiskey, have never been favourably viewed due to an umpteen life-threatening consequences, for instance, cardiovascular issues, causing contraction of veins, weakening of heart, and pulmonary diseases. Developing a habit of consuming these is not only expensive, in terms of health of direct users but also the others; their bodies are not habitual of this constant inhalation of toxins. In light of these reasons, consumption of such substances should be banned, or at least be severely restricted. 

Additionally, while one is intoxicated, the decision-making is exponentially impaired, leading to the loss of motor skills, blurred vision, often leading to road accidents, thereby harming people and property. For example, most road mishaps are caused by inebriated drivers, and over one million people perish, world over, every year as  per WHO, and  loss of property runs into several billion dollars. Thus, this justifies demanding regulations that are more stringent than ever before.  

As far as allowing other substances is concerned, no plea should be entertained; this will erode the prevailing civic order. For example, streets of Canada are filled with puffs and butts of marijuana, every nook and corner pungently stinks. Youngsters are losing their prime youth to menacing narcotics. A study at Cornell University reveals, irreversible brain altering effects and long-term ailments arising from substance abuse.

Overall, tobacco and alcohol should be treated like drugs, and should follow the same suit; these substances not only hamper the  health of those engaging with these but also jeopardize well being and  safety of others surrounding them.  

Many childhood diseases can now be prevented through the use of vaccines. Should parents be made by law to immunize their children against common diseases, or should individuals have the right to choose not to immunize their children?

Many childhood diseases can now be prevented through the use of vaccines. Should parents be made by law to immunize their children against common diseases, or should individuals have the right to choose not to immunize their children?

There is a fierce debate aligned with the issue about preventing several ailments through the mandatory use of vaccines. While some lend full-blooded support to this proposal, others protest and feel that it should be the prerogative of families.

The government is responsible to provide resources such as colleges, schools, jobs, hospitals, housing schemes, and to name a few, to its countrymen. Likewise, treatment and cure come to their priority. Hence, like other schemes, parents must vaccinate their wards from childhood to eradicate several diseases, and give a healthy and disease-free life to them under the supervision of the law, otherwise they might skip on some, or other pretext. 

Moreover, by implementing this policy they would set the precedents to work hand in hand with the policy makers to achieve the desired goal of a  healthy nation. According to the report published in Hindustan Times, India, that covid-19 immunization was made mandatory for entering at all the workplaces, schools, and colleges, which has not only saved many lives but also protected the future generations from ill-effects of infectious virus-borne diseases.

Nevertheless, such decisions, whether they would like to inject their little ones, or not, should be on parents. Furthermore, many medicines work on trial bases with no evidence of providing an appropriate care and cure to juveniles. For instance, in the USA, many young people who had taken vaccination for Hepatitis B in the age of 3-5 reported blood pressure fluctuations and weakening their liver function and henceforth, this situation created distrust among many.

To conclude, although mothers  and fathers choose the best facilities for their wards, by trusting their policy makers, they afford a safe life to their young ones,and such a move will help ensure unconditional compliance with the inoculation process.  

Some people say that cooking food at home is a waste of time. They claim that good restaurants are better and can make modern living easier and less stressful. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people say that cooking food at home is a waste of time. They claim that good restaurants are better and can make modern living easier and less stressful. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Agree 

• *Good eateries offer meals that are balanced
• This saves time for other essential tasks
• A rich variety that one can enjoy, something    

Disagree 

• Meals prepared at home are healthy, use fresh ingredients and hygienic 
• They are done carefully since love is main ingredient 
• Build bonds 
• Helps preserve traditions the native gastronomy 
• It does not upset budgets 

Eating out instead of preparing meals at home is becoming ubiquitous, and synonymous with  the contemporary lifestyles, but nonetheless, it is hard to discount the latter; home-cook alternatives  enjoy superiority due to incomparable benefits and offer a credible option for the long run.

Those vouching for dining out suggest that this endeavour makes life uncomplicated, and renders a much required relief to tired to the bone people who are spared of struggling with the daunting task of cooking from scratch, and later cleaning up. To corroborate, the working professionals, especially the  young generation,  must consistently subject themselves to the struggle of fulfilling their obligations, even when telecommuting within deadlines, making it imperative to devote longer than usual time to their work. This leaves them with little energy to cook, and thus, their resort to visiting eateries to douse their hunger.

Nevertheless, despite eating at food joints looking appealing and home-cooked meals pales in comparison, the family-prepared nourishment can afford, one cannot access it anywhere else. The lip-smacking delicacies served in restaurants emphasize on satisfying the taste buds, and completely disregard the nutritional value of ingredients, whereas home-prepared options strike a balance between the both. To exemplify, even the eminent chefs rarely dine at hotels, and rather prefer to enjoy meals at home. Similarly, homemade food is also an economical option: it costs a tiny fraction of what one would spend outside to have an appetizing meal. Many prone to ordering meals from eateries complain facing financial troubles due to overspending.   

In hindsight, outside meals help one circumvent the labour involved in making meals at home, and earn a relaxation, the effort put in kitchens act as a catalyst to wellness, and a bulwark against budgetary disruptions, making it critical rather than being a futile undertaking.

People sleep less than before in many countries. Why do people sleep less? What effect does it have on an individual and on society?

People sleep less than before in many countries. Why do people sleep less? What effect does it have on an individual and on society?

Sleeping less / sleep deprivation/ depriving oneself of sleep/ shorter sleep duration/ hitting the bed later than before/ sacrificing sleep  

Causes 

• Overwhelming professional or academic obligations that keep people tied to their work for longer hours, and sometimes, they carry their work home 
• Socializing when one is free 
• Dedicating free time, that should be otherwise spent sleeping, to engaging with technology 
• Smoking 
• Sedentary lifestyle: lack of physical activity makes people prone to disturbed  
• Mental ailments such as depression 
• Noisy neighborhoods, especially those living near the main roads and clubs and party venues, suffer from this problem 

Effect 

• Lack of concentration, and Perennial drowsiness affecting productivity at work and studies 
• Makes people age faster 
• Ailments such as hypertension can afflict such people 
• Irritability that causes one to lose temperament quickly, resulting in impulsive behavior 
• Pick up fights with those around 
• Hazards while driving   

Poor work-life balance and daunting work and academic demand-led sleep deprivation has become a new normal today,  but presents myriad complications to the affected individuals and those around them.

The  primary driver of this rapidly proliferating propensity, or rather the compulsion, is meeting professional obligations within deadlines, mandating devoting extra hours at work, and even carrying assignments home. This is generally done at the cost of sleep duration - progressively shrinking considerably - and both professionals and students are prone to this circumstance. To corroborate, nearly seventy percent of urbanites world over, working or studying, complain about their jobs and education interfering with their sleeping routine.

Similarly, the urge to socialize and indulge with technology are other major sources of the motivation to stay awake longer than before. To exemplify, as per the report of the US Health department, almost every age group, across the world, is inclined to attending parties, watching television, playing computer games, and browsing social media, among others, even during wee hours, resulting in sleep deficit.

However, this behaviour is making people susceptible to unwarranted challenges:  disruptions in circadian pattern, resulting from missing sleep can severely impact physical and mental wellbeing. Sleeplessness causes weakened digestion and appetites; lack of concentration; forgetfulness and irritable attitudes, and predisposes one to ailments, like hyper-tension, and diminishing performance. These factors  also jeopardize the safety of others - road users and coworkers, impacting national productivity and health. For instance, the majority of mishaps on the roads, and in factories and offices are linked to drowsy drivers and operators.     

In hindsight, the current penchant for forgoing sleep is bolstered by overwhelming work and academic pressure, and strong cravings for socializing and technology-driven entertainment, but is having dire consequences for health and social environment, demanding quick attention, and appropriate solutions.

Many pharmaceutical companies advertise their medications on television and the radio. Some people say this is inappropriate, as it can lead to people seeking prescriptions, rather than diagnosing the root problem. Others believe it is important to spread awareness for all solutions. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Many pharmaceutical companies advertise their medications on television and the radio. Some people say this is inappropriate, as it can lead to people seeking prescriptions, rather than diagnosing the root problem. Others believe it is important to spread awareness for all solutions. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

A great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with a view that medicine manufacturers should not advertise their products via mass media, while others disagree and believe that such information is vital for enlightening the public. This essay will discuss both sides and share a plausible opinion.

To start with,  a lobby strongly believes that this strategy encourages self-assessment, which could be erroneous. This is to say, people might wrongly assume that they have a certain illness since the symptoms shown on the television matches their own, precipitating perilous situations, where the ailing consumes drugs without proper professional investigation, resulting in doing more harm than good. 

Moreover, such companies prioritize commercialization over health, endangering human lives by exaggerating benefits or hiding side-effects. For example, a recent survey revealed that many pharma businesses promote their drugs by over stating the merits of their product and obfuscating its adverse reactions, causing the symptoms of disease to amplify rather than alleviate.

Having said that, a group hypothesizes that drug advertisements could disseminate knowledge widely, engendering awareness about the up-to-date medications, treatments and diseases. To corroborate, in Japan, regular adverts on radio help citizens stay updated regarding the ailments and related medical interventions available at the nearby hospitals. Additionally, many can be benefited by early detection of underlying medical conditions and pay a visit to a doctor for proper check-ups. Furthermore, ads on mental illness and its remedies can encourage the afflicted to open up about their conditions and seek help by eliminating the stigma related to it.

In conclusion, disputes aside, I believe that such broadcasting information about medical formulations can be beneficial to some extent, but only if effectively  controlled and regulated  to ensure accuracy, and prevent manipulation.

Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A general perception is emerging that social health insurance is not reasonable and people with excellent health should not pay for sick counterparts. I completely disagree with this statement and shall discuss in the following paragraphs.

To start with, a lobby hypothesizes that one should not bear the  brunt of extending treatment for the ailing since the responsibility lies on the shoulders of governments. They have the means and resources to dispense available medical interventions for the betterment of those afflicted by health issues. Moreover, this system can make many, especially youngsters, bereft from saving for their autumn years, or emergencies; consequently, making their future bleak. For example, in Japan, a recent survey revealed that many are unable to accumulate enough for their retirement since most of the income is being directed towards universal insurance.

Having said that, a group strongly asserts that ‘as you sow so shall you reap’. If one starts funding for those suffering from ill-health today, in the future someone will do the same for them too. This kindness will precipitate an ever-lasting loop of support for each other. Similarly, the world is facing unprecedented incidence of disease, and their treatments are exorbitantly priced, mainly for the destitute populace. This arrangement will aid many in alleviating the monetary burden and afford treatments. To corroborate, many in France pay a substantial amount for the healthcare on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, helping a number of destitute ill to avail suitable medical treatments.

To conclude, disputes aside, everyone should pay for unified national health insurance since it will enable creation of a socially assuring   network and  allow many to afford treatments - rather than abandoning them - and such gestures will surely have reciprocal results for the payers.

Many people think that every individual is responsible for their own healthy lifestyle, others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Many people think that every individual is responsible for their own healthy lifestyle, others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The discourse over who should be accountable for maintaining the healthy ways of life: citizens or the state,  is multifaceted. While some put the onus on the former, others vouch for the intervention from the latter. Both the views are augmented by justified opinions, which shall be delved deeper into in the following paragraphs. 

On one hand, proponents of citizens bearing this burden argue that maintaining well being is a personal choice. They believe that one should take ownership of their health by making a proper diet plan,  exercise and their own well being; they are impacted directly by the consequences resulting from ignorance of their health needs. Also, this viewpoint emphasizes personal freedom and obligation, suggesting that people are positioned better to comprehend their own needs and preferences and maneuver accordingly. For example, someone opting to eat a balanced diet, exercise regularly, and circumvent harmful habits, like smoking, is a self-selected option,  for one can experience direct rewards fetched by such an arrangement. 

On the contrary, some argue that policy makers have a crucial role in ensuring a fair health index of society. This perspective suggests that not everyone has equal access to the resources necessary for sustainable health, such as education, nutrition, food and healthcare, making it imperative for politicians to don the mantle to help ensure mitigation of diseases, disorders and ailments.  This will help sustain economic productivity and minimize expenditure incurred on extending health care support to those inflicted by illnesses due to paucity of expertise and know-how about circumventing ill-health.

In conclusion, while individual responsibility is crucial for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, government support is equally important in providing the necessary infrastructure and resources to make healthy choices accessible to all. Both approaches are essential in promoting a healthier society.

“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?

 “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?

While a school of thought firmly believes that the majority of public spending should be creating awareness about circumventing illnesses rather than combating them. I will delve into this matter profoundly even though I feel this should be a joint responsibility.

An army of people proposes that traditionally, people have had at least to take a week off from their respective workplace in order to ensure their speedy recovery from the wellness demanding an expensive healthcare intervention; ranging from diagnosis to their treatment. Besides this, they will not be able to contribute towards economic productivity. However, if citizens know about taking precautions they will be able to sustain their well-being, and not only it will help in saving public money but also pay taxes by working leading to lesser loss of economy and better  public health index. 

Nevertheless, despite this proposal presenting certain benefits, it seems short-sided. One cannot ignore the impact of stressful lifestyles people are living in the contemporary times and even by following healthy regimes their healthy lifestyle is affected by overwork and lack of time to focus on their health and also their diet; consequently, they are being affected by lifestyle diseases like diabetes-2 and hypertension which needs necessary medical intervention. Likewise, aged people cannot predict the autonomous diseases they will be inflicted with and will require compulsory medicinal and treatment support. For example: disorders like arthritis, weak vision, lack of mobility and so on, affect everybody and only medicines can provide relief from such conditions.  

In hindsight, undeniably, creating awareness about  staying away from disease and ailments can potentially help society, but laying more emphasis on it instead of treatments can prove to be disastrous. Thus, I feel that  both the preventive and combat methods should be prioritized. 

In some countries, more and more people are hiring a personal fitness trainer, rather than playing sports or doing exercise classes. What are the reasons for this? Is this a positive or a negative development?

In some countries, more and more people are hiring a personal fitness trainer, rather than playing sports or doing exercise classes.  What are the reasons for this? Is this a positive or a negative development?

Seeking personal training to ensure well being rather than joining sports, is becoming a vogue. This essay will explain the causes and whether it is a favorable, or an unfavorable evolution. 

The most prominent reason driving this trend is that these days many are influenced by social media celebrities and want to emulate them, so they subscribe to private training over group activities. Moreover, there is a growing perception that this can help one achieve their desired results without adjusting their busy lifestyle; this arrangement can be flexible as needed. Similarly, there are some who feel shy in group activities and cannot perform properly, and thus, seek separate arrangements. For instance, those obese turn public shy and circumvent instances where they could become a butt of jokes for others.  

This tendency has helped reap rich rewards in the realm of wellness, for most of those subscribing to these settings are able to chase their objective without distractions and constraints, and obtain quick outcomes. This has turned out to be an extremely beneficial phenomenon since even in times when time is a primary restriction due to overwhelming professional engagements, people are able to sustain their physical and mental well being.   

Nevertheless, this craving has its own shortcomings though mostly inconsequential: it is an expensive affair by virtue of trained fitness professionals being in limited supply, and can tax family budgets. To corroborate, Lebron James, an NBA player spends 1.5M USD towards his personal training, which everyone can ill-afford, causing morale of those unable to afford  such arrangement to dip.

In conclusion, the yearning for customized regimes to bolster wellness is driven by social media and dearth of time, but this has proven rewarding for a majority; thus, it is beneficial evolution. 

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

 More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

Assumption (would) if such an action taken,  

• It will dissuade consumers from opting for such things and they will have to settle for cheaper but healthier options or home cooked meals
• Manufacturers will reduce the amount of fat being used in producing food items 

Why this action should not be taken

• Blaming food will not alleviate the problem 
• It is not the food but the sedentary lifestyles that is cause of this issue so, the state must ensure that this is taken care of effectively 
• People will not abandon consumption to these items: they are forced to do so because of their overwhelming engagement with their professional and academic pursuits. Therefore, the state  must focus on providing relief to people from their over-draining schedules so that people can get some time to cook rather than buy food.  
• They should instead promote active lifestyles 
• They should instead persuade the manufacturers to reduce the fat content in their produce.

Obesity is menacing the future of society. This has prompted some to suggest that the state should intervene and make edible items that are laden with fat content, costlier to mitigate this health condition. However, others voice their dissent on this issue. 

This suggestion is founded on an assumption that expensive fattening nourishment will force people to opt for other more healthier options since such alternatives will either go out of the reach of a majority of consumers, especially youngsters, or will provide little motivation to consume such products since these items will cost as much as pricey healthy food. Most of the time people are seen consuming such items since these either are quite economical to afford, or are cashing on the desires to evade the struggle of cooking at home. However, this action will compel many to reconsider their options in favor of appropriate nutrition. 

Nevertheless, others suggest a more practical approach and are critical of this one. They predict that this policy is highly unlikely to obliterate corpulence since consumption of edible goods loaded with fat is a compulsion rather than a matter of voluntary choice. Most are pushed into buying such things: they have overwhelming work schedules and are exhausted by the time they reach home, leaving them with little energy to think about  preparing healthy meals. Moreover, it is the sedentary lifestyle from where this issue stems and not what people consume. Therefore, the state must promote healthy lifestyles and also persuade manufacturers to use healthy ingredients, instead of resorting to such impractical methods.  

Overall, the proposed policy of price hike of edible products that carry surfeit fat seems to be lacking in substance. Governments must act pragmatically and instead of punishing citizens,  they should look for more viable  options.  

Many people think that every individual is responsible for their own healthy lifestyle, others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Many people think that every individual is responsible for their own healthy lifestyle, others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Why individuals. Justify the stand  

• It is individuals who are following unhealthy ways of life by embracing faulty food habits, sedentary lifestyles

• Even if the state tries to help, people may not follow unless they are convinced. One can take  a horse to the pond, but not force it to drink water

• They are the ones who are controlling their own life: some may even consider it as an encroachment of their rights. 

Government 

• Health is a state subject, if these people fall sick, the state will have to divert invaluable financial resources to rendering expensive health support. This will also exacerbate the situation, on one hand the sick will drain public money, on the other, they will remain away from work, affecting economic productivity. 

• People are parting with money while paying taxes, so they expect something in return. 

• In times when people are leading a stressful life and spending most of their time tied to their professional obligations, they have little time to focus on healthy practices and nutrition, a void which the government can easily fill.  

While a school of thought firmly believes that sustaining wellness should be an individual prerogative as it directly impacts them, whereas others profess that policymakers should take ownership in this case. I will delve into this matter profoundly even though I feel this should be a joint responsibility. 

An army of people proposes that traditionally, people have been accountable for their own well being as it has an instantaneous implication on their autonomous lifestyle since ailments and illnesses can hinder their activities such as walking, working, or engaging with the work actively; and also rob them of deserving moments of relaxation, even sleeping. Nearly sixty percent of Australians realize this fact and ensure maintaining a robust health at their own devices. Consequently, the health index of Australia ranks fairly high in comparison to several nations in the western hemisphere.

Additionally,  there is a general belief that it is possible to take a horse to the pond but one cannot force it to drink water. On a similar note, unless inhabitants are convinced about the necessity of staying healthy, no governmental interventions will be of any avail. Thus, one should be accountable for their well being. 

However, despite the former opinion holding substance, the role of regimes in this endeavor can hardly be overlooked. Concurrent times have seen health becoming a state subject by virtue of the wellness of citizens being connected with empowerment and productivity of the nation. A sick society will consume invaluable public resources instead of bolstering economic development; the money will have to be shifted to affording prohibitively expensive health infrastructure.    

Therefore, where private citizens can endeavor to embrace/follow healthy ways of life because of the personal benefits they derive, politicians can also contribute by sharing this onus to ensure collective progress.

Intro-1 

There is a fierce argument over the issue as to who should take the ownership of sustaining wellness. While some think that it should be an individual prerogative, others profess that policymakers should play a substantial role. I opine that this should be a joint responsibility.

Intro-2 

When it comes to sustaining wellness, a debate ensues since some profess that it should be an individual prerogative, while others profess that policy makers should take ownership in this endeavor. This essay shall analyze this matter profoundly and emanate its opinion in favor of both the parties taking joint responsibility.