It is more important to spend on public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on treatment of people who are already ill.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is sometimes said that the state should spend money on the prevention of illnesses through promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than on the remedies of ill patients. From my perspective, while the former investment has an important part to play, I believe it is by no means of more significance than recovering ill patients.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why the promotion of a healthy lifestyle should receive funding from the government. Firstly, this source of funding could help solve the problems of an unbalanced lifestyle, which is pervasive in modern society and causes a range of debilitating diseases. For instance, obesity and diabetes often result from a lack of exercise and cholesterol-rich diet. These prevailing health problems could be prevented by propagation and public campaigns raising awareness amongst citizens about the associated risks of unhealthy food. Secondly, despite the development of medicine and healthcare systems, a lot of illnesses still remain incurable. For example, in many forms of cancer, the disease cannot be completely cured even after exorbitant and painful courses of therapy, which is regrettable as many of these cancers could have been negated with a healthy lifestyle.
On the other hand, the allocation of a reasonable proportion of public money for treating the ill is on equal terms with the former approach. It is a fact that a number of diseases are heredity. In other words, they are passed from parents to children in the genes and cannot be prevented in any way. For example, a child whose former generations have diabetes has a stronger possibility to suffer from this genetic disorder as he ages. In these cases, neither a healthy lifestyle nor a good diet could ensure a clean bill of health, thus highlighting the role. Moreover, the expenses of medical care and medicines are becoming higher, especially for those with serious inheritable illnesses. In these cases, the medical bill could pose a threat of a financial burden on the ill, who would need financial support from the state to alleviate the problem.
In conclusion, it is certainly true that the government should invest money in the promotion of a healthy lifestyle among all citizens, but this is by no means the public budget should be only distributed since, in many circumstances, costly treatment of the ill cannot be neglected.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-02 | nguyen.ttn1998 | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | pwlihnkt | 84 | view |
| 2022-10-22 | khanhkhanhkhanhkhanhkhanh | 73 | view |
| 2022-08-10 | nhattram39 | 84 | view |
| 2022-08-10 | nhattram39 | 84 | view |
- The graph below shows the production levels of main fuels in a European country from 1981 to 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- The graph below gives information about the percentage of the population in four Asian counties living in cities from 1970 to 2020 with predictions for 2030 and 2040 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make compariso 56
- Topic Some people believe that sport has an important role in society Others however feel that it is nothing more than a leisure activity for some people Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 89
- The diagram shows the life cycle of a monarch butterfly Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 85
- Some people believe that traditional culture is being damaged as it is used as a tool for making money in the tourism industry Others think it is the only way to protect culture and tradition Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 41.998997996 143% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 1615.20841683 123% => OK
No of words: 388.0 315.596192385 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13917525773 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89086117433 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55412371134 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 630.0 506.74238477 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4148264122 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.625 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 7.06120827912 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225990530468 0.244688304435 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0686983559946 0.084324248473 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0883716719486 0.0667982634062 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160118576432 0.151304729494 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0972671939007 0.056905535591 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.