Some people believe that governments should allocate money differently: less for curation and more for prevention. I partially agree with it, although I believe that it all comes down to finding the right balance.
On the one hand, if people know that the government will always help no matter what, they might ignore prevention measures, such as vaccination and screenings. It is just how human brain works – people often do not think about concequencies. If we do not have a feeling of a danger or unsafety, we do not consider it worthy our time.
On the other hand, leaders cannot just ignore already ill people, if they are in need for help. Government have to take care of every citizen, even if they missed prevention stage and are not able to take action. Moreover, while treating, governments can have useful discoveries, and vice versa. It is a driver for the whole progress in a health field, and these two parts can work hand to hand. Also preventing, such as vaccination or screenings, cheaper than getting over some serious illness. That said, if the government have equal amount of money for each part, it means that the abilities of prevention one is perceptially wider than opportunities for treating.
To conclude, governments should encourage citizens to take preventing measures, while still keeping treating programms opened. There is no right for them to abandon already sick people. Yet without leaders’ participation people will be less responsible about their health and treating expences for governments will only grow.