Essay: Should governments invest on medical technology or health education?

It is often said that everybody always desire to have a healthier life and a better healthcare system. I would agree with this, but it is debatable whether governments should depend on medical technology or health education.

Perhaps the strongest reason for investing medical technology is that many dangerous diseases can now be treatable thanks to medical advances. A recent research have shown that cancer cells can be killed off by a new medicine that have an extract found in the bright yellow curry spice turmetic. Another advantage to adopt this idea is that improvement in medical technology will translate into a better healthcare treatment. And as a result, this also help to develop medical technology in the sense that we can find more and more effect medicines, machines, and new treatment methods.

There are, however, equally strong arguement against investing in medical technology. One such arguement is that some infectious such as HIV-AIDS are still incurable by modern medicine. However, if people can understand what this disease and its prevention really is, it can be preventable. For example, in areas where an educational program on healthcare has been launched there is often a lower rate of disease despite the unavailability of modern medical facilities. Another related arguement is that, if these technologies are widely used, this will create an economic burden for governments. This is because they must pay an enormous number of money for these machines. Therefore, this is impractical for deprived areas in comparison to a health education program which is less costly and even have an equal amount of effect.

In the end, to my mind, whether governments should adopt the idea spending on medical technology or not depend in large part on their economic facilities.

It is often said that in order to improve health and life expectancy, government should invest in medical field. I would argue with this, but it is debatable that investing public money in either medical technology or health education is the best way.
Perhaps the major reason for funding health education is that it results in raising the ability to protect yourself. In deed, health education helps in the sense that this program provides basic medical knowledge for public. Therefore, a number of diseases can be prevented, in stead of finding costly remedy. For example, thanks to propagation of HIV there is the decreasing quantity of HIV patients in many parts in the world. Granted, this solution make it possible for individuals and society save the huge amount of money and still reduces the significant number of patients.
There are, however, equally arguments support that investing in medical technology is more effective. One such argument is that modern gadgets contribute to cure some dangerous diseases. For example, advanced technology allows cancer to live for longer time. Nonetheless, advanced technology requires a big sum of money while it can not cure all diseases, such as HIV-AIDS.
In my view, government should government should put their money into better use by funding health education. However, this depends on economic conditions of each area. Specifically, in big cities with health education government should adopt modern medical technology, but heath education is more suitable because of limiting finance in poor ares.