6 ms·

USAID is not the sole source of administering AIDS and malaria treatments. No doubt many more people were successfully treated because those treatments exist.

• nielsbot 1y ago
  People keep saying we're the richest country in the history of the world. I think we have a responsibility to practice good old fashioned Christian compassion (with a side of soft power if that's more your thing.)
  • imgabe 1y ago
    I thought we weren't a Christian country? Either way, individuals are welcome to practice any sort of compassion they want with their own money. The government collects tax dollars from citizens under threat of violence, and their only responsibility should be to use that money to ensure the welfare of its citizens, not to engage in charity work in other countries. If citizens want to do that, have the government collect fewer tax dollars and citizens can give them to charity as they see fit.
    • yablak 1y ago
      USAID is not just charity. It is a projection of soft power that keeps many countries and world citizens looking up to the USA. It reduces likelihood of terrorist attacks on US citizens.
      • imgabe 1y ago
        Among people likely to consider a terrorist attack, USAID is widely considered a front for the CIA to meddle in other countries' governments (and this has been proven to be the case in some instances). Which, if true, makes it a bad front for the CIA, and if false, means it creates more resentment than anything else and does little to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
      • arresin 1y ago
        No more soft power please.
    • rl3 1y ago
      >Either way, individuals are welcome to practice any sort of compassion they want with their own money. The government collects tax dollars from citizens under threat of violence, and their only responsibility should be to use that money to ensure the welfare of its citizens, not to engage in charity work in other countries. Soft power is of obvious immense benefit to citizens of the United States, however you've rejected that in other comments. The argument otherwise reads like a stereotypical "Not with my tax dollars!" argument. It's always fascinated me, that. Inevitably it's always an impassioned argument, regardless of the funding subject. In this particular case, a very conservative estimate might put the number of child deaths in the tens of thousands. Reality is probably closer to hundreds of thousands at this point. I pay taxes, a lot of them. I don't get angry when my taxes are used by the government to keep disadvantaged children in hellish conditions alive. If you were to express the total cost of USAID's former budget against your tax bill as a binary choice between that and a few hundred thousand kids dying, I suspect it'd be much harder to maintain your current position. Moreover, consider that central to this issue is the abrupt dismantling of an agency which was critical to global aid flow, and amounted to a rug pull. There was no justification for that. Hopefully Sam's ASI is more compassionate than people, which frankly isn't a high bar lately. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5413322/aid-groups-say-usaid-cuts-are-already-having-deadly-consequences https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5413322/aid-groups-say-... https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/05/28/g-s1-69186/marco-rubio-usaid-death-sickle-cell-nigeria https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/05/28/g-s1-...
      • msgodel 1y ago
        It's a benefit to our government but this has mostly been used against citizens. I'm more than happy to see the "empire" die and willing to do anything I can to speed that along.
      • imgabe 1y ago
        How about we lower taxes and give money back to the people who earned it? If you want to use your money to save dying children on the other side of the world, you are welcome to do that. If other people have more pressing needs for their money they can do that too. It seems people are infinitely compassionate when spending someone else’s money.
    • nielsbot 1y ago
      Let me guess: “all taxation is theft”? Absolutely we aren’t a Christian country. I personally don’t need Christianity to tell me charity for our fellow humans is a good thing. Plus, richest country in the history of the world remember? The rich in the US enjoy their wealth at the “pleasure” of the lower classes. (And not just the American lower classes.) Those dollars they’re hoarding? Those were created by the people and have value because of the people. So, I’m all for confiscatory taxation to fund humane charitable endeavors and eliminate wealth hoarding. Someone will have to make do with one less yacht I suppose. Finally, the amount we’re taking about here is a mere pittance. Let’s cut some other wasteful spending first (Pentagon) if you’re looking for savings.
• warwren 1y ago
  The point is that a treatment existing does not mean it will be adequately administered. The biggest pool of treatable cases worldwide does not occur where the people with the most ability to pay are.
  • imgabe 1y ago
    And a treatment not existing means it will not be administered at all, adequately or not. You need to make the treatment exist first, then you can figure out how to administer it as widely as possible. You can't administer a treatment that doesn't exist.
• biophysboy 1y ago
  All of these questions are easy to answer: 1) The point is that global health is also about access to a drug, not just existence. 2) We don’t. USA’s foreign aid per capita is not that high (especially now). To mobilize private money for aid, you need a long-term, trusted infrastructure. 3) Countries that receive aid typically do not have functional governments.
  • imgabe 1y ago
    > The point is that global health is also about access to a drug, not just existence. And that point is irrelevant to whether or not we should develop new drugs. > Countries that receive aid typically do not have functional governments. Maybe they should work on fixing that, or just dissolve the country and get absorbed into a functional country if they can't manage to create a functional government on their own.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • auggierose 1y ago
      So, which country is the US going to be absorbed by?
      • imgabe 1y ago
        You're saying the US is simultaneously non-functional but also responsible for providing free healthcare to every other country? If we're non-functional, where is all the foreign aid providing free stuff for us? C'mon other countries, give us free stuff. It will be great for your soft power, and prevent us from doing terrorist attacks on you.
        • duchef 1y ago
          Why do you keeping making posts implying the US provides the bulk of international aid when that is demonstrably not the case (on a % of GDP basis or total dollar amount)?
• michaelbarton 1y ago
  I don’t disagree with your point. It’s not the US’s responsibility to supply malaria drugs. My point was that it is not for lack of an existing cure that people are dying of malaria or AIDS, in reference to the article. Personally speaking I wish the US was drastically more involved with providing aid because it can help reduce the impact of individual catastrophies happening everyday. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/04/beyond-rescue-why-humanitarian-aid-needs-government-backing-in-war-zones/ https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/04/beyond-rescue-why-huma...