“Charity begins at home”.
This is the rarely-questioned assumption that many hold regarding aid, whether
medical or otherwise. Evidence of how ingrained this is in the American psyche
is seen no more clearly than when the nation stumbles upon tough economic
times. Those following the GOP primary debates recently may have noticed a
resounding commitment to reassess and reduce foreign aid given out by the US.
The same sentiment has been echoed by Congress (both sides of the isle) during its
many rounds of stalled budget talks. Now, foreign aid is a nuanced category that
includes everything from disaster relief to military support. I would like to
focus on development aid: the funds that go directly towards improving the
health and general welfare of people in low-income countries. There are a lot
of problems here as well, but the fact remains that the US is responsible for helping
fund major projects that combat disease around the world. The question is,
would it perhaps be better to slash our development aid budgets in order to
focus on our own citizens? After all, people are in need of medical aid right
here at home; shouldn’t we help them first before worrying about foreign countries?
I would like to offer a firm ‘no’. I believe that if we are able to set aside a
certain amount of dollars for healthcare aid, it should go to wherever it can
do the most good, regardless of the nationality or geographical proximity of
the recipients. To me, GlobeMed represents this commitment by partnering with
groups in countries with the most dire needs, not just with local American
organizations. After all, a dollar in Kenya goes a lot further than a dollar in
the US when it comes to reducing disease.
Back to politics. In 2000,
The United Nations came out with the “Millennium Development Goals”; these were
eight objectives with the aim of improving global welfare, including “Combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases” and “Eradicate extreme poverty and
hunger”. As part of these goals, rich countries were asked to donate at least
0.7% of their GNP (Gross National Product) as development aid. While a few of
the Scandinavian countries have surpassed this goal, as of 2009 the United
States remains in the bottom five of the twenty three richest countries,
pledging a mere 0.21%. The percent of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that we
spend on all types of foreign aid is around 1%. Most Americans do not know this
low number; they believe the percent GDP we are spending is around 25%, and wish
to see it taken down to a “mere” 10%. If only we could have such a reduction—to
ten times our current foreign aid budget! This discrepancy in knowledge makes
it easy to see why politicians who pledge cuts to aid budgets are receiving
widespread popular support. Budget proposals submitted by the Senate, the
House, and Obama himself all outline reductions to virtually every development
aid program currently in effect. And the problem extends beyond the US
government: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (an international
organization that is the single largest source for grant money to fund action
against those diseases) just announced that it would not be able to issue any
more grants until 2014. While part of that decision was based on corruption
allegations (regarding less than 1 percent of its budget), it seemed that donor
countries were all too eager to pull funding. This pattern of healthcare
isolationism is simply unethical. Of course we could provide better social
services for Americans if we cut our development aid budget. But what would be
a paltry sum in the States could have positive effects orders of magnitude
greater in the developing world. A government may have a duty to serve its citizens,
but we all have a duty to do the greatest good with whatever money we have.
Surely there is a better way to get the 1% GDP that would be saved by cutting
our foreign aid budget.
There are two solutions
to this problem in America. The US could start giving more money as official
federal development aid, or US citizens themselves could begin to make up the
difference with private donations. Ideally, both will be done. Already, private
donations in the US as a percentage of GNP are unusually high for a rich
country (though not nearly enough to make up the amount needed to reach our
0.7% UN quota). This is an encouraging trend, and private donations are
something tangible that is in the power of every American. On the federal
level, it all comes down to an implementation of GlobeMed's own goal of recognizing
the equal value of human life regardless of where a person happens to live. Let
charity begin wherever it is needed most—and continue until healthcare is
accessible to everyone.
Jason Kirschner
No comments:
Post a Comment