In today’s society, there is a belief that the use of public funds to promote a balanced and healthful lifestyle for the whole population should be prioritized rather than using that money to treat ailing individuals who have suffered from diseases related to an unwholesome lifestyle. In my opinion, I believe that using national budgets for health programs that help sick people will bring more practical benefits for both long-term treatment and prevention.
Granted, when the government uses state budgets to foster healthier communities, such as communication campaigns and public awareness education, there can be benefits in the long run. For example, after having a balanced lifestyle with regular exercise, people will be conscious of protecting their health, thereby avoiding chronic diseases such as obesity, gout and cardiovascular, respiratory diseases and also psychological diseases (those related to a high-fat diet and the use of various types addictive substances), and in the long run will improve the overall well-being of the whole population. However, it is much easier to lead an unhealthy indulgent living than to give them up. Using posters encouraging people to eat healthy and quit smoking and drugs as an example, unfortunately, these government efforts really don’t have too much effect, as people only see them as street decorations and don’t pay too much attention to them. In addition, seminars and talk shows on nutrition and lifestyle often only talk about the benefits of healthy living, not how to get rid of unsanitary factors in people’s lives. From this, it can be seen that there have been many efforts from the government and non-governmental organizations in promoting a healthier community but not achieving the desired high efficiency, moreover, this has not helped patients suffering from these illnesses. Paradoxically, the incidence rate is still rising while patients are still burdened with costly hospital costs and do not receive any help from the community budgets.
To add further credence to my assertion, treating people who already have the disease will solve urgent current problems simply because of the medical costs of ailments stemming from sedentary lifestyles and substance use such as cancer, dyslipidemia, obesity, are unaffordable and not all people can shoulder it all despite using health insurance. The support packages extracted by the government from the government funding will be a great help to disadvantaged people who are facing diseases, it not only helps but also has a strong impact on people. For example, when patients receive financial support for medical treatment from local authorities, they will feel grateful and understand the value of health, and after the illness is over, they can become witnesses to overcoming illnesses and will influence relatives and acquaintances on healthy living and health protection. In the long run, people’s awareness of health will still increase, at the same time, the incidence of disease will decrease and people’s trust in the government will be strengthened, which is much more practical than efforts to promote active lifestyles without too much impact on people.
In conclusion, there is still a section that believes that promoting a wholesome living for the entire population is an effective method. In my opinion, definitively solving the health issues of people who have suffered from the malady is a more comprehensive method when we do not have to spend money on communication campaigns or seminars but also can help people have more trust in the government. Moreover, this measure is also more humane when we will help people with difficulties in paying hospital fees and treatment costs, as opposed to measures that do not bring noticeable effects.