Some people think it is more important for the government to spend more money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illnesses than the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
题目大意
一些人认为，政府花更多的钱提倡健康的生活方式，以预防疾病，比治疗已经生病的人更重要。你在多大程度上同意或不同意？
思路解析
不同意
当然，有一些人认为，政府支出应该更好地通过促进健康的生活方式来预防疾病的发生，而不是用来治疗那些已经生病的人。对他们来说，目前没有健康问题但正在等待更好生活条件的人数总是多于后者。这意味着宏观经济配置首先要满足大多数纳税主体的需要，以确保投资的说服力。如果这些资金流用于有机食品生产、住宅环境中的健身设施，甚至更好的空气条件，那么这些资金流就被认为是有用的。它们更接近公众的日常健康，而且在某种程度上很容易被证明可以避免某些与食物相关的、久坐不动和污染导向的疾病。而投资在医疗行业的支出似乎比较“隐形”，因为总是只有少数人有身体问题，也很难判断这笔钱是否有价值。治疗也存在失败；要验证治愈的患者是因为医疗设施的资金投入还是仅仅因为他们的免疫力而痊愈，这听起来很模糊。
然而，上面提出的想法并没有让人想到医疗领域的投资可能具有的真正重要性，并使他们无法认识到潜在的危险和不合理的一面。无论如何提倡健康生活，我们都必须承认，在某些情况下，我们目前所知的“健康”生活方式并不能有效地“防病”。那么，在卫生史上，一些自相矛盾的健康规则，考虑到某些生活习惯可能是有意义的，或者是有害的，被证明是不能接受的，这也就不足为奇了。这还不是全部的事实，直到我们也意识到，对于某些疾病来说，仅仅健康的生活方式肯定是不够的。如果没有系统的医疗专业知识、设施或资源来应对疾病，人们更容易患上疾病。在这种情况下，投资于健康生活推广是非常没有意义的。提示语中的短视思维，使我们不能理性地思考“重要性”的真正含义；因此，这两个投资方向的重要性是不可比拟的，因为我们对目前的医疗保健和对未知的未来的了解仍然有限。
提纲
写作示范
To access whether the government should invest money in the prevention of illness or the related treatment, I might have to consider how to define certain utterances made by this topic. From the perspective of the government, it is reasonable for them to spend money in the area that is beneficial to the overwhelming people; however, the take-home message is how the government is to define “importance”.
There are, of course, people out there holding that government spending should be better given out to prevent diseases from happening via promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than to treat those who have already been ill. To them, the number of people currently without health problems but awaiting a better living condition is always more than that of the latter. That means the macro-economic allocation should firstly fulfill the need of most of the tax contributors to make sure the investment is persuasive. The financial flows are considered useful if they are used to things like organic food produce, fitness facilities set in residential surroundings, or even better air condition. They are much closer to the daily health of the public and would be somewhat easily proved to avoid certain food-related, sedentariness-driven, and pollution-oriented illnesses. Whereas the expenditure invested in the medical industry seems comparatively “invisible”, as it is always enjoyed solely by the minority who are put into the physical problems, and would be also hard to judge whether this money would be finally valuable. There also exist failures in the treatment; it sounds obscured to verify whether the cured patients get well because of the financial input in the medical facilities or just because of their immunity.
However, the thinking presented above doesn’t allow one to think of real importance that the investment in the medical area may have, and precludes them from recognizing the potential hazards and irrationality that lie. No matter how a healthy life is to promote, one must admit that in some cases, the lifestyle that is deemed “healthy” by our current knowledge cannot effectively “prevent illness”. Then it is not surprising that in the hygiene history, some paradoxical health rules considering certain living habits would be meaningful or harmful, have finally been proved unacceptable. We should also realize that for certain illnesses, the solely healthy lifestyle is certainly not enough. People are prone to diseases easily if there were no systematic medical expertise, facilities, or resources in dealing with them. In that case, investing in a healthy life promotion is spectacularly meaningless. The myopic thinking given in the prompt distracts us from rationally thinking what the “importance” truly means; it is then incomparable between the two investment directions in terms of the importance because of our still limited knowledge to our current health care and to the unknown future.
In conclusion, I would agree that the policy of government investing in a healthy lifestyle cannot be considered more significant than in disease treatment.
