Features

The One and Only... · #1

I'm sure you all remember my abhorrancy of the WHO. Remember the article I posted talking about the WHO's questionable methods of analysis and blind fervor attacking a free-market in health care? Maybe, maybe not.

In any case, I will explain why I hate the WHO with a passion that goes far beyond their opinion on the market.

The WHO claims that "six diseases - malaria, tuberculosis, and so on - together account for 90 percent of all deaths from infectious diseases among people under 44. Every year 11 million people die unnecessarily of these diseases." Now, I'm going to assume that is credible. They futher claim that "it would cost between $4 million and $220 million to prevent these deaths." Again, I'll assume they are correct. That's pocket change in terms of politics, so it would obviously be well worth the effort.

Of course, the WHO itself takes in $1 billion annually from the taxpayers. So why is it not devoting its resources to saving these lives? I don't know. Apparently, solving these lives is not nearly as important as "exclusive conferences and... campaigning for the use of seatbelts and against smoking."

Sound somewhat hypocritical? It should. Because for all the moaning in the WHO about the plight of the poor in the developing nations in the world, they will not even devote between 0.4 and 22% of their budget to helping them.

This is why I hate government.

(All quotes taken from In Defence of Global Capitalism; an excellent read, BTW.)

AChimp · #2

Has it occurred to you that their budget is probably already devoted to other things, hmm?

The One and Only... · #3

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

Has it occurred to you that their budget is probably already devoted to other things, hmm?

Yes. I already stated that - their budget is devoted to arbitrary things like smoking regulations and campaigning for the use of seatbelts.

Surely you see what is more important.

camacazio · #4

I don't think it should be their job to campaign the importance of seatbelts. You have to be stupid to be in a car without wearing one. I also don't think that the "modern" world should get involved at all in developing countries--too much "giving" makes a country incapable of doing much but recieve. I don't know what that money would go to, then, but since it's easier and less expensive to deal with campaining for idiots than to cure exotic diseases in countries the organization has no direct involvement with, they pick the path of least resistance to still say they made a difference.

kahljorn · #5

The only problem with this is that we solve the problem of disease in a third world county and they end up suicide bombing americans left and right. They aren't really particularly "Thankful" for it, and alot of countries would hate us for it, as if by solving their problem of disease we eternally indebted themselves to us and thus own their souls for slavery.
Their county should start spending money to solve the problems instead of lavishing themselves with big houses and the largest limosein in the known world. Fuckers.

mburbank · #6

See, I thought it was DR. Who you hated, and I couldn't see why,

Zhukov · #7

I cry myself to sleep over the miss-allocation of the worlds resources.

If the WHO switched to stoping diseases, would you hate them still OAO?

The One and Only... · #8

No.

I think foreign aid could be used tactically, but the way we hand it out now really doesn't help much.

JenMacca · #9

Not that it has anything to do with this thread at all really, but I hate it when I do a search for The Who (the band), and get all kinds of sites about the World Health Organization. Couldn't the WHO have been more original than stealing The Who's name? Bastards. :-p

KevinTheOmnivore · #10

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Sound somewhat hypocritical? It should. Because for all the moaning in the WHO about the plight of the poor in the developing nations in the world, they will not even devote between 0.4 and 22% of their budget to helping them.

This is why I hate government.

And how much do private HMOs spend of their annual budget on providing health servicres to the American people? Compare that to how much they spend on advertising, as well as lobbying to prevent unfriendly legislation. This isn't something indicative of government OAO, this is how ALL large bureacracies function.

mburbank · #11

"If the WHO switched to stoping diseases, would you hate them still OAO?"

A little, but if they really want to make his good books, they'd need to find a way to make a significant profit stopping diseases.

camacazio · #12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I cry myself to sleep over the miss-allocation of the worlds resources.

Me to comrade.

Zhukov · #13

In your face one and only! In your fucking face!

Let's sing a song Comrade!

I supose that I had better point out that I would still dislike the WHO.

The One and Only... · #14

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

And how much do private HMOs spend of their annual budget on providing health servicres to the American people? Compare that to how much they spend on advertising, as well as lobbying to prevent unfriendly legislation. This isn't something indicative of government OAO, this is how ALL large bureacracies function.

BWAHAHA!!! You're going to tell me that they cannot devote even 0.4% of their cash to ending 90% of all deaths caused by illness?

The WHO is a manipulative organization that will not admit it tortures the numbers to get a good turnout. You people think corporations are bad, but they are nothing compared to this mockery.

El Blanco · #15

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

And how much do private HMOs spend of their annual budget on providing health servicres to the American people? Compare that to how much they spend on advertising, as well as lobbying to prevent unfriendly legislation.

Actually, that is insignificant next to what they spend on legal expenses (60%). What could all of thatr money do towards helping the American people?

kellychaos · #16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I supose that I had better point out that I would still dislike the WHO.

Oh, I don't know. They had a few good songs but after Peter Moon died, it was all downhill. :squeezebox

JenMacca · #17

KEITH MOON!!!! *NOT* PETER MOON!!!!! Peter Townshend, Keith Moon.....not too hard to remember.....okay sorry I'm touchy when people screw up things like that about my fave bands...heh....

Perndog · #18

PETER MOON, KEITH TOWNSHEND.

kellychaos · #19

Quote:

Originally Posted by JenMacca

KEITH MOON!!!! *NOT* PETER MOON!!!!! Peter Townshend, Keith Moon.....not too hard to remember.....okay sorry I'm touchy when people screw up things like that about my fave bands...heh....

I'm sorry but when did I ever say I gave a shizzle about the Who or your opinion of them? I'll wiggle your butt-plug when I need the latter.