this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
383 points (100.0% liked)

World News

45284 readers
6450 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

It is.

Its a shockingly stupid decision. Not surprising considering the administration, but incredibly stupid.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Everyone loses. That's the painful part.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 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?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

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!