WHO must cut budget by 20% after US withdrawal.
-
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.
-
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.
Probably fewer countries excusing the hard power they use?
Just because they occasionally kiss their victims doesn't make what they do to them first any better. It never has. But if the world's bully finally stops providing any good then maybe we can move on as a species.
-
.... 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 simplest way would be for the remaining countries to raise their contribution. And perhaps have a review of the executive salaries.
-
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.
-
.... 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 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.
So, who must cut their budget? Don't keep us in suspense!
-
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.
It just seems too obvious to me that this is the intentional sabotage by the Trump administration on behalf of at least Russia. None of this makes sense whatsoever. Not even if you're a stock market businessman who doesn't care about allies.
It literally only makes sense in the purview of relative strength gain of Russia; maybe China too.
-
It just seems too obvious to me that this is the intentional sabotage by the Trump administration on behalf of at least Russia. None of this makes sense whatsoever. Not even if you're a stock market businessman who doesn't care about allies.
It literally only makes sense in the purview of relative strength gain of Russia; maybe China too.
No one trusts Russia either so Trump has put America in the same pig pen as Russia to wallow in.
-
Exactly. $116M is absolutely inconsequential to the budget and by extension the American people. What the WHO produces has a huge impact on all people, including, yup American people. So the American people are only losing here.
Everyone loses. That's the painful part.
-
.... 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.
I wonder how the amount that should be paid is divvied out. Or if it is all just voluntary. I was thinking Europe was quite outsized, so it could be by wealth, but also Japan seems quite large and Russia fairly tiny.
-
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.
I do not vote representatives based on US policy here in Europe.
I vote them because of what I expect them to do based on a current situation in light of the lessons history gave us.The Tesla protests and torching may be useful now, but if we have nothing to replace those people with, even worse alternatives may come to fill the void.
As a EU citizen, my main focus is to build an alternative, not to protest and counteract a foreign dictator.
-
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?
"I can hear the echoes of people saying “why should I care about US politics?”"
I am one of those.
Here on Lemmy there is so much US noise, I even started to downvote some posts and comment who are, in the end, just bitching around about a failed government when the problem I see in the US is actually a failed culture.
This post's original message may be a useful one, but not if you are focusing on what US did and should do, but rather what the rest of us can do in spite of the situation created.
-
I wonder how the amount that should be paid is divvied out. Or if it is all just voluntary. I was thinking Europe was quite outsized, so it could be by wealth, but also Japan seems quite large and Russia fairly tiny.
They explain on their site here.
There is membership/assessed, which goes by each member country's wealth. There are also voluntary contributions, which comes in a few forms - core, which have no specific requirement on use, strategic donations which have general goals and can be applied to anything in that field/theme, and specified, which go to specific projects or efforts.
There is also a budget portal which details how money is spent.
