One school of thought holds the belief that public health is best improved by providing free access to gyms and sports facilities for everyone. I disagree with this opinion.
Supporters of this idea may point to the increase in willingness to stay healthy once sports facilities are free. This practise not only allows low-income individuals to keep fit but also other types of people. No longer do people need to purchase treadmills or weights, both of which take up a lot of space in their houses as they can now use them free of charge at gyms. Nevertheless, this line of thinking fails to factor in the fact that this would be a financial burden for sports-related businesses, as tickets and memberships are a significant source of profits. Not only does it affect private businesses but also disadvantage the government. National budget has to be distributed to maintain gyms and sports facilities. Such an approach is especially impractical for underdeveloped countries whose funds are often limited.
On the other hand, there are other alternative approaches that can also yield substantial benefits. Improving public healthcare system and raising people’s awareness are ones of them. As for the former way, enhancing the quality of medical staff and equipping hospitals with essential tools and appratuses will ensure that people receive proper treatments and diagnoses. This can be seen in Japan, where citizens benefit from up-to-date medical facilities and modern healtcare treatments. In addition, if people are well informed of their health problems, they will less be likely to overlook them. By educating people about diets and working out, both individuals and the society will be benefited as a whole, as less people suffering from diseases means more eased burdens on the healthcare systems.
In conclusion, despite seemingly the best approach to improve public health, free access to gyms and sports facilities is surpassed by other alternatives including enhancing the healthcare systems and raising people’s awareness.