Should the government fund the World Health Organization?

WHO should refocus on building health through systems change

It's concerning how centralised WHO is despite serving such a range internationally. Alongside the UN, it shouldnt play a political part in who is treated or experimented with and shouldn't be influenced like that by any nation.

All governments should pay enough into the UN that no extra money is needed from charity .

I think there should be a set amount countries should be expected to contribute. I think the government should meet the set amount.

Yes but only relative to the amount that other nations contribute. Savings should be reinvested in national and local programmes.

Should Brazilian president as shown for counts as relatives issues by Australia prime minister hadn't heard from changes by amounts

Yes, but decrease the amount to preserve our economy, while still maintaining good relations with other organisations and countries.

The UK's funding of the WHO seems driven by international relations and security, reflecting the country's commitment to global cooperation and enhancing its standing on the world stage. While the WHO does provide benefits, such as coordinating responses to global health crises, it is far from perfect and often subject to political influences. Given the UK's own health challenges, it can feel like the funding serves the organization and global optics more than direct benefits to UK citizens. This focus on the spectacle of international involvement can appear misaligned with pressing domestic health needs.

Yes, $5 billion is a tiny amount for that kind of responsibility, but like the NHS probably needs a good overhaul to reduce waste

Stuck on this one, as on the one hand they provide a lot of net benefits for the world, but on the other hand I can't forget how they downplayed COVID around January 2020, they could've prevented a lot of deaths yet

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.

Depending on state of budget

Decrease the amount and fund more national and local programs instead

dunno loves x

I don’t want to have to give money to countries that their own people don’t step up and help. I still believe our country should help European countries.

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

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

As long as the money is proportional to what other countries pay and there is a strong say in how it is spent.

Keep current system

Need to focus on our own healthcare system first.

All countries should pay an equal amount

I need to do more research on this topic

Fund the NHS first

Yes, as long as it goes to countries that actually need it

Yes, but only at a rate which is deemed affordable. There should also be a cap on how much the UK Government can spend on the WHO.

No WHO should have more funding but its funding should be given anonymously so that they are less likely to downplay any serious outbreaks for political allies

No. We cannot elect the people as it's a globalist entity, so therefore it's undemocratic and unaccountable.

No, Until signs of corruption Decrease

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

WHO failed to warn of covid in a timely manner

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

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

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

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

Fund both national and local alongside.

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.

The government is a spook

Don’t know.

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

Decrease amount and increase funding for national and local programs

Not when it’s loyal to CCP China

Yes but it should be based of the size of population per country.

Yes, but only if reforms to the WHO are made

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.

Don’t know luv

Yes, the UK should contribute with official development assistance with 10% of the GDP being used to fund the World Health Organisation

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

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 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

Each country should pay a % based on GDP.

No, abolish the WHO with immediate effect.

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

Only countries that need it

Who military

Charity should fund it

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

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

Yes, but not in its current state

Yes, but the organisation should be reformed

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

How accountable do you think global health organizations should be to the public or to the countries that fund them?

Do you think you would feel safer in a health emergency with an international health organization taking charge, or do you trust local governments more?

How would you balance the role of private donations versus government funding in global health organizations like the WHO?

In what ways could cutting funding to global health organizations, like the WHO, impact future outbreaks of illnesses like COVID-19?

The UK should commit to a massive increase in its funding of the World Health Organization (WHO), while simultaneously advocating for a more transparent and democratically accountable global health system that is free from the influence of private interests, thereby ensuring that global health is treated as a public good and not a hierarchical extension of a few powerful nations.

How important do you believe it is for countries to work together to fight global pandemics, rather than each nation acting alone?

What do you think sounds more valuable—spending money on global health initiatives or addressing local health problems first?

Should wealthy nations contribute more to global health efforts to support poorer countries, or should every country be responsible for their own health system?

How do you think global health organizations, like the WHO, can affect your personal life and health choices?

If you could decide what health problem the WHO focused on next, what issue would you choose and why?

Do you think more attention should be given to diseases in wealthier countries or those that affect mainly developing nations?