题目
Some people say government should give health care the first priorities, some others believe there are more important priorities to spend the tax payers' money. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
高分范文
The debate over whether the government should prioritize healthcare funding above other areas is a contentious issue. On one hand, proponents argue that healthcare is a fundamental human right and that investing in it ensures a healthier population, which is ultimately beneficial for the productivity and economic stability of a nation. On the other hand, some believe that there are other urgent needs, such as education and infrastructure, which also require significant investment to foster long-term national development.
Advocates for prioritizing healthcare argue that by ensuring access to quality medical services, the government can prevent diseases, reduce mortality rates, and improve the overall well-being of its citizens. A robust healthcare system is crucial, not only for treating diseases but also for preventing them through vaccinations and health education. This, in turn, reduces the burden on social services and enhances workforce productivity, as healthier individuals are able to contribute more effectively to the economy.
Conversely, those who argue for other priorities suggest that education and infrastructure are equally, if not more, important. Investment in education is essential for creating a skilled workforce that can adapt to technological changes and drive innovation. Good infrastructure is vital for economic growth as it facilitates trade, connects markets, and improves efficiency across various sectors. Furthermore, some argue that addressing these areas can indirectly improve public health by reducing poverty, which is often linked to poor health outcomes.
In my opinion, while healthcare should indeed be a priority, the government must adopt a balanced approach. It is crucial to ensure that healthcare receives adequate funding to meet immediate needs and avert crises. However, neglecting other sectors such as education and infrastructure could lead to long-term challenges that might undermine the benefits of a robust healthcare system. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy that allocates resources efficiently across these crucial sectors is imperative for sustainable national development.
中文翻译
关于政府是否应将医疗保健作为优先资金投入领域的讨论是一个有争议的话题。一方面，支持者认为医疗保健是基本人权，投资于医疗保健确保了更健康的人口，这对国家的生产力和经济稳定最终是有益的。另一方面，一些人认为还有其他紧迫需求，如教育和基础设施，也需要大量投资以促进国家的长期发展。
支持优先考虑医疗保健的人认为，通过确保获得优质医疗服务，政府可以预防疾病、降低死亡率并改善公民的整体福祉。强大的医疗保健系统不仅对治疗疾病至关重要，而且通过疫苗接种和健康教育预防疾病。这反过来减少了对社会服务的负担，并提高了劳动力生产率，因为更健康的个人能够更有效地为经济做出贡献。
相反，那些认为应该优先考虑其他领域的人认为，教育和基础设施同样重要，甚至更为重要。投资教育对于创造能够适应技术变革并推动创新的熟练劳动力至关重要。良好的基础设施对经济增长至关重要，因为它促进了贸易、连接市场并提高了各个行业的效率。此外，有人认为，解决这些领域的问题可以通过减少贫困来间接改善公共健康，而贫困往往与健康状况不佳有关。
在我看来，虽然医疗保健确实应该是一个优先事项，但政府必须采取平衡的方法。确保医疗保健获得足够的资金以满足即时需求和避免危机至关重要。然而，忽视教育和基础设施等其他领域可能导致长期挑战，这可能会削弱强大医疗保健系统的好处。因此，制定一种综合战略，在这些关键领域之间有效分配资源，对于可持续的国家发展是必不可少的。
重点词汇
语法解析
原句：On one hand, proponents argue that healthcare is a fundamental human right and that investing in it ensures a healthier population, which is ultimately beneficial for the productivity and economic stability of a nation.
翻译：一方面，支持者认为医疗保健是基本人权，投资于此可以确保更健康的人口，这最终有利于国家的生产力和经济稳定。
语法分析
- 并列结构 (Parallel structure): that healthcare is... and that investing...
这句话的主要结构是 proponents argue 引导的宾语从句，描述了支持者的观点。which 引导的定语从句修饰 a healthier population，表达了更健康的人口对国家的好处。