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.

  • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    … 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.

    • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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 $16 billion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.

      • squishy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

      • prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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?