WHO must cut budget by 20% after US withdrawal.
-
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
-
System shared this topic on
-
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
People will die. Literally increasing morbidity AND mortality on purpose. WTaF?!?!
-
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
I can hear the echoes of people saying “why should I care about US politics?”
This is one example. The biggest problems we face as humanity can only be solved with a global effort.
-
People will die. Literally increasing morbidity AND mortality on purpose. WTaF?!?!
The american elite managed to convince ordinary americans that foreigners are to blame for most of their problems.
-
I can hear the echoes of people saying “why should I care about US politics?”
This is one example. The biggest problems we face as humanity can only be solved with a global effort.
We should get to the point of being knowledgeable about the WHOs function, current financial support and reasons thereof, and what we can do to support its functions.
Focusing on what another country does or does not, even if related to a common resource it's a waste of time at best. -
We should get to the point of being knowledgeable about the WHOs function, current financial support and reasons thereof, and what we can do to support its functions.
Focusing on what another country does or does not, even if related to a common resource it's a waste of time at best..... Except what a country does or does not do directly impacts the WHOs functions and financial support, so.... Kind of important.
There are many contributors, some substantially more than others, and any of them leaving will have an impact on the efficacy of the WHO.
-
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
I was going to ask why the US was contributing 20% of the WHO budget, but it looks like the US produces about 25% of the world's total GDP.
-
The american elite managed to convince ordinary americans that foreigners are to blame for most of their problems.
As an American, fuck America.
-
.... Except what a country does or does not do directly impacts the WHOs functions and financial support, so.... Kind of important.
There are many contributors, some substantially more than others, and any of them leaving will have an impact on the efficacy of the WHO.
As per the map you uploaded, USA created a problem: can we do anything about it as non-Americans? No we can't.
Let's then assess the situation, inform better the public about the WHOs function, and sit with as many of all the other countries to work to a joint solution.Giving me news about US "actions" and internal discourse, for everyone outside of the US, is inaction-causing noise at best, propaganda at its worst.
What should be communicated is the existence of a void and its possible consequences.What about China filling the void being a possible consequence for example? Is it a possibility? Is it good or bad? Should we talk to China about it or not?
If I keep thinking about Trump and his henchmen I won't ask myself those questions.
-
.... Except what a country does or does not do directly impacts the WHOs functions and financial support, so.... Kind of important.
There are many contributors, some substantially more than others, and any of them leaving will have an impact on the efficacy of the WHO.
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $1.5-7 trillion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
-
The american elite managed to convince ordinary americans that foreigners are to blame for most of their problems.
The american elite managed to convince ordinary americans that evil foreigners are to blame for all their problems.
No they didn't. Millions of Americans already believed this and were waiting only for permission to externalize it.
-
As per the map you uploaded, USA created a problem: can we do anything about it as non-Americans? No we can't.
Let's then assess the situation, inform better the public about the WHOs function, and sit with as many of all the other countries to work to a joint solution.Giving me news about US "actions" and internal discourse, for everyone outside of the US, is inaction-causing noise at best, propaganda at its worst.
What should be communicated is the existence of a void and its possible consequences.What about China filling the void being a possible consequence for example? Is it a possibility? Is it good or bad? Should we talk to China about it or not?
If I keep thinking about Trump and his henchmen I won't ask myself those questions.
USA created a problem
Which other countries can also create if contributions are altered.
Being aware of the how and why of national politics impacting international politics is a good thing. Suggesting otherwise is just putting blinders on.
-
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $1.5-7 trillion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
It is.
Its a shockingly stupid decision. Not surprising considering the administration, but incredibly stupid.
-
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $1.5-7 trillion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
That’s what I was thinking except I was thinking about the military. Why are the numbers for health so much lower than for war. It’s not a little lower it’s multiple zeroes lower and that’s not just the US. The UK is paying $22m to the WHO but has a military budget more than 3,000 times larger!
-
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $1.5-7 trillion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
These contributions are so small. I wouldn't mind if my own country increased their contributions to WHO by 20% to make up for this shortfall.
The biggest problem is that the WHO is a worldwide health organization. Without cooperation from the States, there could be huge health impacts elsewhere that could have been otherwise averted. Will other countries also pull out?
-
We should get to the point of being knowledgeable about the WHOs function, current financial support and reasons thereof, and what we can do to support its functions.
Focusing on what another country does or does not, even if related to a common resource it's a waste of time at best.Where did I say we should focus on another country? Why does everything have to be black and white?
There are shades in between ignoring and focusing on you know?
-
As per the map you uploaded, USA created a problem: can we do anything about it as non-Americans? No we can't.
Let's then assess the situation, inform better the public about the WHOs function, and sit with as many of all the other countries to work to a joint solution.Giving me news about US "actions" and internal discourse, for everyone outside of the US, is inaction-causing noise at best, propaganda at its worst.
What should be communicated is the existence of a void and its possible consequences.What about China filling the void being a possible consequence for example? Is it a possibility? Is it good or bad? Should we talk to China about it or not?
If I keep thinking about Trump and his henchmen I won't ask myself those questions.
Giving me news about US "actions"…
You do realize that OPs article is about a US “action”? You’ve now been informed and might be able to take action like voting accordingly, writing to your representatives etc.
Or, as per my initial comment, you could’ve ignored US news and would be none the wiser.
-
The american elite managed to convince ordinary americans that foreigners are to blame for most of their problems.
Average voter: both sides have issues
-
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
Well good thing the US doesn't existing in the... world...
-
The Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed cutting its budget by a fifth. This comes after its largest contributor, the US, decided to withdraw. The organisation must now reduce its tasks and staff, it said.
I'm afraid of what the result will be in the global opinion when America's soft power diminishes.
If the only existing side remaining is that of a bully, then that's what everyone will see.
Isolation is the only result of this.
