Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

3200 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes

 @9FJ82JNagreed…2yrs2Y

Think back to 2020 when the COVID pandemic hit & if there wasn't a WHO to help internationally how would we have been allowed to vaccinate people without Authorisation, the simple answer we wouldn't people wouldn't have been safe if they went on several flights only to get sick within a few hours.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No

 @B6W3N5DIndependent from Arizona  disagreed…1wk1W

The World Health Organization (WHO) doesn’t just affect people’s lives outside of America. It also affects American lives. Having funding for research on how to treat or cure diseases and illnesses previously thought to have been incurable or untreatable will help everyone’s life expectancy and quality of life to go up.

 @9F9ZDSV from California  disagreed…2yrs2Y

People who answer no to the position of the world health need help. The word health can impact many lives.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No, fund national and local programs instead

 @9FNY7SPdisagreed…2yrs2Y

Funding WHO helps provide research and information gathered by other countries which can assist the US.

 @9GWK6BN from Pennsylvania  agreed…2yrs2Y

The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress. Open-air markets with bats, where the virus supposedly came, are common across China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting gain-of-function research on the Coronavirus, and several members of their staff were hospitalized with "flu-like symptoms" just before the outbreak of Covid-19; the Chinese government has kept the nature of their illness a complete secr…  Read more

 @9FN53SQRepublican from Florida  agreed…2yrs2Y

By allocating funds to local healthcare initiatives, governments can address specific health needs and tailor interventions to local communities.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes, and increase the amount

 @9FQ9FHLRepublican from Texas  disagreed…2yrs2Y

These "experts" have consistently been wrong at worst, and liars at best. Additionally, the United States is a sovereign entity, not subject to unelected pseudo-governments.

 @9NGT558 from Rhode Island  disagreed…1yr1Y

They have nothing to do with the Constitution, they are appointed not elected, and are given far too much piwer in our country.

 @9GWK6BN from Pennsylvania  disagreed…2yrs2Y

WHO tried to help bury the Covid Lab Leak theory, they are likely complicit in some way in the development of Covid-19.

 @9FN53SQRepublican from Florida  disagreed…2yrs2Y

funding should only be increased if the organization demonstrates a commitment to being more accountable for its actions and decisions.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No, it has shown to be ineffective

 @9FSK3GM from Pennsylvania  disagreed…2yrs2Y

The World Health Organization has done many things for the healthcare industry, including the reduction of the spread of COVID-19. They have given the general population great advice for different diseases, such as how to prevent and treat them, among other things. The WHO should continue to exist and provide the world with advancements in healthcare.

 @9FJ82JNdisagreed…2yrs2Y

The WHO has proven to fight against pandemics in the face of overwhelming odds its reliability remains superb & if we didn't have the WHO back then how can they treat suffering Africans, or Asians with little to no economies proving to be high?

 @9FLGZ38 from Missouri  disagreed…2yrs2Y

The WHO has proven to fight against pandemics in the face of overwhelming odds its reliability remains superb & if we didn't have the WHO back then how can they treat suffering Africans, or Asians with little to no economies proving to be high?

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

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

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

 @8J3KPZPDemocrat from Missouri  answered…5yrs5Y

I dont understand the question

 @EmmaDerGroße from Minnesota  commented…10mos10MO

the question is should we continue to support WHO. WHO is a organization formed by the UN to help fight against disease. WHO also gives out the most reliable health studies for free to doctors and citizens alike. WHO was the main force when it came to fighting COVID-19.

governments part of the UN are expected to give funds to WHO, and the question states on should we increase, decrease, etc on funds to the WHO.

for me personally, I believe that we should give WHO more funds to prevent another COVID

 @8J35PVGfrom Maine  answered…5yrs5Y

 @8NLXPX3Independent from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

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.

 @3VVX7XPDemocratanswered…5yrs5Y

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

 @7BK2VZ6Republican from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and the World Health Organization should be dissolved

 @EmmaDerGroße from Minnesota  asked…10mos10MO

why do you believe so?

WHO is very important to all people like you and me across the entire world

 @8JFLWNV from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 @6HDD83RRepublican from California  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

 @B6W4HBSIndependent from Arizona  answered…1wk1W

Yes, but only if the US government gets to specify what the money goes towards that way it is not squandered

 @9LF5SCS from New Jersey  answered…1yr1Y

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

 @9D3RPBQfrom Guam  answered…2yrs2Y

 @9DTR2T2Independent from Louisiana  answered…2yrs2Y

 @9D9TN4F from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

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

 @8FC772F from Virginia  answered…5yrs5Y

 @8GRG222 from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 @8NB8279 from Alabama  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 @8MS85BCDemocrat from New York  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 @LGarceau7 from Kansas  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 @8GLW8NG from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

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

 @9DX79WD from Kentucky  answered…2yrs2Y

 @9DRHX76  from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

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

 @9DGB99H from New Jersey  answered…2yrs2Y

 @9DC6LL3Republican from South Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

 @95YL9NP from South Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @8VJ4347from Guam  answered…4yrs4Y

 @B6X4TG5Progressive from New York  answered…6 days6D

We don't depend on WHO as largely as other countries, it is still important to properly maintain health in the world but we shouldn't be funneling a large amount of money into it.

 @B6WY6TT from Indiana  answered…6 days6D

I think our government should contribute to funding th organization, but we shouldn't have any obligation to pay for most of it

 @B6W4HFC from Missouri  answered…1wk1W

I believe that we should concentrate on making our country better first, instead of other countries. I believe we should help out as much as we can, but still make our own country the priority. We can't help other countries if we can't help ourselves first

 @B6VJRSD from Oregon  answered…1wk1W

If the WHO was doing a good job specifically focusing on health than I would agree, but the current actions the WHO is doing I majorly disagree with

 @B6TP2T9 from Texas  answered…1wk1W

Yes, and increase the amount to seize control of it and enforce our health standards across the world

 @B6TJZC5 from Texas  answered…2wks2W

Countries should contribute payment equal to the amount others contribute other resources. If other countries aren't doing anything, you shouldn't have to keep paying.

 @B6TBVQ6 from California  answered…2wks2W

yes but only if we have spare money after were done with out internal and external affair it should be one of the last things we donate or invest into

 @B6SR6KM from Texas  answered…2wks2W

Yes, but the investment should be categorical not organization based so if the WHO is not delivering on promises the funds can be invested into other global health initiatives.

 @B6SPXK3Independent from Idaho  answered…2wks2W

the government should fund the World Health organization, but it should also push for reforms such as increasing transparency, streamlining decision making, and ensuring funding is sustainable and equitably distributed.

 @B6RMJBZDemocrat from California  answered…2wks2W

Yes, we can continue contributing but we should work on local programs, especially in rural America.

 @B6QVC9S from Kansas  answered…2wks2W

Yes, as long as the World Health Organization and its motives are monitored and made publicly available to view

 @B6QT9VW from Texas  answered…2wks2W

does the government have to do everything? if the world health organization has anything to do with the government then yes, if not, then no

 @B6Q6RDH from Virginia  answered…3wks3W

I think we should put a little bit of funds into the World Health but for the most part we need to fund national and local programs more.

 @B6PWMV7 from California  answered…3wks3W

Yes but allow citizens to regulate what they do and vote on food bans for the health for current and future generations.

 @B6P82ZZGreen from Oklahoma  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but on the stance that we cannot pay more money for certain political or religious interests to be inappropriately inflated or emphasized.

 @B6P79D8 from Illinois  answered…3wks3W

The government should fund W.H.O, it is an important thing to promote health and to deal with dangerous things that can cost a human life. Health is important, without W.H.O, there wouldn't be cures for diseases, and cancer, etc. It's good to fund the organization to help those who study to overcome dangerous health hazards for the better future for the youth who are still growing.

 @B6N8R44 from Virginia  answered…3wks3W

Other countries besides the US should also fund the WHO, but the allocation of the budget that's used responsibly needs to be done.

 @B6N3YYH from Missouri  answered…3wks3W

I think that yes we should but I also think that everyone else should help because it involves our whole world.

 @B6L9YMH from Texas  answered…4wks4W

Trump has long charged that WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus covered up China’s responsibility for the Covid pandemic

 @B6L2ZSRProgressive from Virginia  answered…4wks4W

I think the UN should be an independent governing body that acts as a federal government for the whole planet therefore funding for the WHO falls on the UN governing body

 @B6KW65L from Colorado  answered…4wks4W

It depends on how large the current issue is on how much the government should contribute. EX: higher lethality gives more funding.

 @B6KJ38C from Illinois  answered…4wks4W

Somewhat, because it will benefit us in the future but it should be decreased. Additionally, people should work to try and make a living not expect the to be handed everything for free.

 @B6K548VNo Labels from California  answered…4wks4W

it should be compliant with the issues that America has. For instance we should try to improve relations within residents in the US rather than funding so much to the world health organization. To improve the things happening in the US rather than improving the world.

 @B6HTNJK from Tennessee  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, and fund foreign organizations intent on maintaining the health and living conditions of citizens outside of American borders.

 @B6GGJ2QNo Labels from Georgia  answered…1mo1MO

We should focus on our own nation and only fund other countries if there is something like a new and deadly disease.

 @B6GFHL7  from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes but it should be relative to our wealth compared to other countries wealth per capita, interdependence on international trade and those other countries reliance on our support with efforts on those countries to decrease dependence overtime as conditions improve
.

 @B62C67RIndependent  from Ohio  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but I don’t know much we are spending but I would think increase it because the United States is not healthy at all right now. But that could be because the World Health Organization is ineffective so I don’t really know.

 @B66H4Q8 from Virginia  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only to the amount that other countries contribute AND the money saved should go towards funding national and local programs.

 @B63W8XC from Utah  answered…2mos2MO

No, if our US Government doesn't get any control over the organization, I don't think we should be funding it as a standard thing. If we want to fund specific events or programs, that would seem more reasonable. Otherwise, we have no control over how they spend the money given to them.

 @B63V9DM  from Texas  answered…2mos2MO

No, use those funds to develop a government subsidized healthcare system that competes in a market with private insurance providers

 @B5XBPFN from New York  answered…3mos3MO

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.

 @B5WDD24 from North Carolina  answered…3mos3MO

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

 @3GBWB4VNo Labels from Minnesota  answered…3mos3MO

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

 @B4Q58V2  from Florida  answered…5mos5MO

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

 @B4KLCSB from California  answered…5mos5MO

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

 @B3XZH2Z from Ohio  answered…6mos6MO

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)

 @B3T5NFY from Georgia  answered…6mos6MO

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

 @B3MR3N8 from North Carolina  answered…6mos6MO

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.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...