Should the government fund the World Health Organization?

In principle I think we should contribute to some funding of the WHO but not to the detriment of our own NHS which is on its knees

Decrease the amount and fund national and local programmes

Decrease and divert more funding to national and local programs instead

Each country should pay a % based on GDP.

No, it's shown its self to be ineffective; fund national and local proggrames instead.

Yes, but decrease the amount and fund national and local programs with it

Yes, but I would rather make all health services publicly owned, rather than state of privately owned

Yes, but investigate spending and should there be found to be corruption or waste, withhold and directly spend the money ourselves, primarily on preventive health care such as vaccines etc.

Yes, and I’m satisfied with the amount that is funded

Yes, but investigate WHO corruption

The Government should instead fund a Health and Social Care organisation that is created as a Commonwealth of Nations group, weaving together 56 countries and pooling their knowledge to better co-ordinate their individual efforts regarding Healthcare reinforcing their duty to the people.

Yes, but it has shown to be ineffective

Establish a UK World Health Organisation programme that provides helps and medical care for nations in need.

Yes, but it should be capped and used/funded appropriately and with strict regulations and safeguarding in place, also there should be a balance and a lot of funding should also go into national and local services and programs too.

They should contribute to the funding. Not solely fund it, which this question implies.

Depending on state of budget

Lower funding for the world health organisation and divert more to local and national programs instead

Keep it as it is now

Decrease the amount given to world health organisation and divert more funding to national and local programs instead

Decrease the amount and divert more to local and national programs instead

Yes, but only for specific programs that help people and not just for the sake of having an organisation

not until our economy gets better

No, abolish the WHO with immediate effect.

Only countries that need it

WHO failed to warn of covid in a timely manner

Yes, but not instead of the NHS or local services.

Yes, I'd contribute 11% of the GDP to the World Health Organisation to contribute towards multiple efforts including psycho-social support, access to medicines, sexual and reproductive health and rights, water and sanitation, antimicrobial resistance and health emergencies and preparedness.

Withdraw funding until it accepts Taiwan again.

Yes, but more funding should be directed to national and local programs and funding should be relative

Fund it but strive for it to have reforms to improve it.

No, the WHO is corrupt and ineffective

Yes, but only as long as each nation of the world pays an equivalent rate according to the size of its population.

If they actually do something

dunno loves x

The question will be debated, asked and voted on via Liquid Democracy.

Fund both national and local alongside.

Who military

Charity should fund it

No, but launch an investigation into potential corruption within the organisation

Yes but in additon with national and local programs as well

Who security

depends on its effectiveness

No, it has shown to be corrupt

The state should be abolished and this should be up to the communes.

Yes but decrease the amount and invest into funding national and local programs instead.

Yes but decrease the amount and fund national and local programs instead.

Yes, so long as the organisation continues to support the wider health of individuals irrespective of financial background; stops supporting nations that privatise healthcare

Yes, but make sure they address their clear pro-China bias

The government should not exist or fund anything at all