The issue of how public money should be distributed has sparked considerable debate. While some argue that it should be used for promoting healthy lifestyles, others maintain that it should be used to treat people who are already ill. Although both perspectives present valid points, I am inclined to support the former position for several reasons.
To begin with, people who support that public money should be spent on promoting healthy lifestyles, often argue that public campaigns can reduce smoking, obesity and inactivity. Indeed, advertisements, posters and other means used for promoting can influence people’s way of thinking. Posters which illustrate how smoking harms people’s health can lead to smokers quitting, same goes for obesity. This clearly illustrates why this viewpoint has gained traction. Another argument in favour of this position is that preventing diseases reduces long term healthcare costs. For instance, it can cost less for the government to spend the money on campaigns that will influence people to take preventative action regarding their health and possibly prevent an illness. However, the costs of taking care of a patient who is already ill are much higher.
However, critics claim that hospitals and medical staff require continuous funding to function. This idea is supported by the fact that hospitals require constant supplies and medications. Moreover, healthcare workers should be fairly paid for the long working hours. A further point is that the government has a duty to care for people who are already sick. Admittedly, the government is responsible for treating people’s illnesses and providing the necessary treatment, yet public money is limited so it should be allocated to a certain number of people who need it most.
Despite the merits of both sides, I hold the view that spending the money on promoting healthy lifestyles is more beneficial. This perspective is strengthened by the fact that many illnesses can be prevented and with the right health campaign, people can be encouraged to change their lifestyles. This approach can affect more people and lead to a better outcomes regarding the prevention of illnesses. In contrast, spending the money on a certain number of people will have a smaller impact on healthcare costs.
Taking everything into account, although using public money to treat people who are already ill has certain advantages, I remain convinced that spending the money on promoting healthy lifestyles is the more reasonable and beneficial approach.