Login

Proposal: For the Sake of the Poor, Abolish the World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) has become a staple part of the international scene, with the organization going into areas that have been plagued by disease and offering treatments, and helping to promote better cultures of health. At least, that's what we have been told.

But the WHO seems to be much better at wasting taxpayers' money than effectively using it to fight off disease. As Fred Roeder and Bill Wirtz write for the Foundation of Economic Education, we'd be much better off without the WHO (though we can keep the band around).

"The WHO's travel expenses for one year are $200 million according to the Washington Post, which means that every single staffer racks up a total of $28,500 per year. Because surely, when you're fighting smoking instead of Ebola, better do it in a business-class seat...

In March of 2017, the Associated Press reported that the World Health Organization spent more for the travel of 7,000 staffers than it did for countering malaria, tuberculosis, fighting AIDS and hepatitis, and on tackling mental health and substance abuse."

Now tell me how spending more on travel than on disease treatment is helping anyone but these bureaucrats? It simply is not, and that money could be better used elsewhere, at a foundation like Doctors without Borders.

There may be a time and place for international relief, but shouldn't we be judging policies and programs by their results and not just by intentions? It seems pretty clear to me that the WHO is failing miserably, and that defunding it would be the best option for all involved (minus the bureaucrats, of course). Instead of governments extorting their citizens, maybe the people could choose charities to donate money towards, and then the best will survive?

Just a suggestion, maybe we should give it a more thorough consideration.

Stories