Should the government fund the World Health Organization?

Yes, but only relative to the amount that other countries contribute

Yes, but decrease the amount

It depends on the circumstance.

No, the government should not fund any non-governmental organisations.

The World Health Organization (WHO) should receive funding from all United Nations recognized countries. However, a country should be allowed to either restrict or stop funding entirely. Should a country choose to restrict funding, a formal process must be developed so as all countries understand the reasoning for it.

After a full investigation is conducted on how WHO handled the COVID crisis, we should adjust our contribution accordingly.

Yes, but only if there is serious reform.

I don’t have enough information

Yes but in proportion to what other countries are supporting and economically where the government stands.

i need to learn more about this topic

Drastically reduce or end funding for as long as non-communist countries continue to have diplomatic relations with China (PRC) (instead of Taiwan (ROC) and recognize it's government as the sole legitimate government government of all China, and allowing people with PRC passports or passports with PRC visas and stamp, to enter the borders of non-communist countries

Yes, and fund national and local programs as well

we should contribute to the WHO, but also dramatically increase the percentage of our spending domestically

Not enough information for judgement, so I will remain neutral right now.

No, and imprison Bill Gates for crimes against humanity

Yes but in proportion to what other countries are supporting and economically where the government stands in terms of debt

Yes but not to the detriment of healthcare in our own country.

Yes and no for this topic.

Yes as the WHO is what informs the World about viruses, diseases, and gives us recommendations for it. Highly recommend it!!

You should contribute the same as other country's and fund local programs more

Everyone should be funded equally

We should only contribute comparable to everyone else, but this would be so that we have more funding for national and local programs.

Yes, but only after thorough investigation rules out any corruption without the WHO.

Keep the same amount.

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

No, and fund national programs instead.

Yes, and not just proportional to each country's ability to contribute, but additionally to supplement/substitute the contribution from nations unable to do so

Yes, as long as bureaucratic corruption is dealt with.

No! It is corrupt and partisan as shown by the covid-19 "pandemic"/abuse

No. We should also have nothing to do with the WHO.

It depends on how much the WHO needs and how much other countries contribute.

Keep the same amount

No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations

don't have enough knowledge to say

Not informed enough on this topic

Don’t know enough

No, the US should focus on domestic priorities. Countries with the means to, and countries that contributed to the problems (eg through poor decolonization plans) should increase their contributions.

Yes, though we should monitor how the funds are spent and investigate whether any bias towards our enemies like China exists.

Yes, but decrease the amount relative to what other countries contribute to the World Health Organization.

Yes but base our funding on statistics and data and we need to influence other countries to contribute more as well.

yes this public health organization is responsible for research and they write about recommendations to help protect public health

I think the WHO is amazing but remove funding for transgender surgeries and elective abortions (abortion in which the mother’s life and health aren’t in danger I also think kids who have been SAd should have the option since they likely won’t be able to carry it anyways)

It can contribute to it but shouldn't fund it. The amount contributed should be proportional to that of other countries.

No. because the WHO is globally and the FDA can support the American people by itself. Essentially Funding the W.H.O is a waste of tax payer money.

Yes, the US should fund half or more of the program to have leverage over International Health politics

Any foreign investments should be highly evaluated, highly transparent, and be made a public national vote with ongoing financial reports and updates on expense usage to eat national public in an highly transparent and communicated manner.

yes but it should not be a main way of healthcare or a priority for the US, instead helping other countries.

The government should pay for worldwide healthcare to be better and also focus on local and national healthcare.

I want other countries to have access to medical care, however I fear WHO is from a colonial standpoint and not a global prospective. Healthcare is a human right

Yes, but first responsibility should be the health of our own nation which has countless health issues from obesity to general drug/substance abuse

Yes, but only when the WHO reduces corruption, such as by rejecting corporate donations. Encourage the WHO to investigate environmental causes of poor health, such as pollution and food scarcity.

Yes, the United States has the ability to help so many countries that really struggle economically with health issues.

The government's focus should be on US policies and programs. We should contribute globally to the WHO, but the main focus should be on our population and what's best for Americans. It would be better if we set the example on the world stage rather than pour money into these organizations.

The government should help fund the WHO, but as it is part of the UN other powers and wealthy nations such as China and Russia should fund it as equally as the US. The US should not be the highest contributor.

National, state, and local programs should be prioritized but US should contribute to WHO funding in coordination with CDC to promote health worldwide and better respond to pandemics

Yes but decrease the amount while supporting national and local programs that work better with the money instead. Offer to increase contributions back up if WHO fixes some of its issues.

Make someone who is actually healthy teach about it. The current health ministers are obviously not that healthy.

Only if there are major changes and overhauls to the current organization to prevent a country from abusing and corrupting information.

Yes but only after signing upon an agreed upon treaty through the U.N. dictating support of countries through population and wealth.

No, because it is secular and promulgates lies, such as the denial that Gender Dysphoria, which leads to Transgenderism, is a mental ailment.

I think yes the untied states should help out, but we should be more worried about ourselves than putting that much money for other countires.

Some kind of investigation needs to be done to show exactly where the funding is going and how much influence the contributors have to the actions of the WHO.

Yes, But they should not Put too much Funds because if they do, They need to get the money back and they will just raise the Tax's.

Yes, as long as they can ensure that American politics will not begin to influence global public health decisions.

I think the amount funded should go to the World Health Organization, national programs and local programs because the governments money is going to the military instead of the people.

Yes, sending a small amount of money to the World Health Organization makes sure we keep on top of health and disease control in not only America but all over the world

No, abolish all funding and sever all ties to it and any other global organisations, especially those that plot the destruction of liberty and the creation of a one-world order.

I believe the government should fund the World Health Organization as part of a sustainable strategy to protect both national and global health. The WHO plays a critical role in coordinating global responses to health crises, which ultimately safeguards public health and prevents costly outbreaks from reaching our borders. However, funding should be tied to clear, measurable outcomes, ensuring transparency and accountability in how the money is used. By investing in global health through the WHO, we strengthen the infrastructure needed to address future pandemics and support U.S. leadership in shaping international health policy. This approach not only protects our country but also contributes to a healthier, more resilient world.

yes and increase the ammount but if it is taken for granted and they act as if we are not helping pull back and focus on national and local programs instead.

Create new organizations that focus on Local, national, regional and federal. The other states can have WHO. US should have it's own. USA is special and deserves to be treated as such.

Only if every other major power is paying an equal amount that prevents the US from leveraging funding over the WHO’s programs

The WHO should establish how much money it needs to operate then each country member should give a set percent of that money.

We should contribute as long as our sovereignty is still recognized and we are working towards actual global health goals.

No, because they are not only ineffective but they have been proven to have been corrupted by Fauci, the Gates’, and big pharma, resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of individuals to profit the pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, but there should be more emphasis on national and local programs to provide better health care for American citizens

Dr Fauci was the BIGGEST MISTAKE & Covid killed thousands of people that did not need to die. Sometimes I think Covid was just a HUGE LIE.

Yes, but funding the US’s healthcare should be priority since our healthcare isn’t free for our citizens