The American taxpayer is funding these efforts to help those around the world, yet I'm left wondering if all those with AIDS here at home are being helped to the extent that they need it. Shouldn't we focus our efforts and funds on more or less eradicating AIDS (as much as possible) at home before taking on the rest of the world's problems? We're funding 67 percent of the initiative around the world, but, as our presenter said, we "need a shared and sustained global response." It seems like the effort is a focus of the United States. Maybe other countries will attempt to share the burden as well instead of relying almost completely on the United States to fix this global problem.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Reflection Post Week One
With the United States paying $63 billion over six years to fight AIDS around the world, I was left wondering why other countries are pitching in to help the effort following our Wednesday lab experience learning about AIDS in Washington and around the world. The largest of the public health initiatives being pursued by the United States government is one that doesn't even focus solely on efforts here at home.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is certainly a tension between foreign assistance and domestic needs. But how are we going to generate the "shared and sustained global response" the PEPFAR representative talked about if we scale back our contribution? Remember, our funding contribution through PEPFAR isn't replacing other countries' HIV/AIDS funding: no one was funding such efforts prior to PEPFAR.
ReplyDeleteThe point you raise is a good one, though: How do you think the U.S. should decide whether to spend its finite resources at home vs. abroad? How is this decision influenced by globalization, the economic crisis, and our status as a global superpower?
We need to cut our funding to show other countries the dire need for them to step up and offer assistance. Hopefully that will generate the global response - basically shocking other countries into giving more by allowing them to see how much need their is once we cut our contributions.
ReplyDeleteI personally think we should focus solely on our needs at home first. Fix the problems here and then try to take on the issues of the world. We tend to bite off more than we can chew; we don't have the resources to support everything and everyone that we do. Or privatize the industry - research, giving, etc. That's more by belief in a smaller government and belief that the private sector is more effective at research and work than the bureaucracy of the federal government.
It is harder for us to cut funding now because of globalization. As we all become more interconnected as a world, we almost are forced to have more of stake in the success of other countries. As the only world's superpower, we're looked to as the ones that need to lead the world, lead the effort to fix the problems of the world. However, as our economy continues to struggle, we shouldn't be using our tax dollars to save the world. We should be cutting taxes to ease the burden of the people struggling to get by day by day.