For some, it is more crucial to allocate investments to prevent health diseases rather than to spend more on healthcare in the first place. Subsequently, I completely agree with such a view, as this approach appears to be more inexpensive and quite productive.
As a rule, the cost of medicine is quite demanding, so the mass implementation of preventive measures is a far more optimized choice. If more citizens had been through mass health campaigns – conducted by the government – more of them would not have suffered from severe illnesses, thus a considerable amount of resources would not have been spent either by the individual or the government. To illustrate this, by 2009, the nation of Singapore, which spends just around 4% of its GDP on healthcare, had been penalizing unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and alcohol use; thereafter, a sharp decline in the frequency of emerging illnesses was observed throughout the national campaign concerning health. But can just a price be the only crucial advantage of such a methodology?
Poor health conditions were distinguished as a considerable contributor to the economic losses. Since a worker is struggling with a certain disease, he will eventually stagnate in productivity or even resort to taking sickness days, which means that the government does not obtain income tax, and the company observes a drop in revenue. For instance, in Japan, there is a policy developed to avert employees from becoming sick by mandating annual medical checkups in order to stablesize generating of corporations’ income.
To conclude, although larger funding for the healthcare system could emerge as a reasonable decision, I assert that avoiding the sickness rate through preventive actions is a far wiser approach due to its being cheap and effective.