Hacker News Reader

Comment by imgabe | Hacker News Reader

> The point is that global health is also about access to a drug, not just existence.

And that point is irrelevant to whether or not we should develop new drugs.

> Countries that receive aid typically do not have functional governments.

Maybe they should work on fixing that, or just dissolve the country and get absorbed into a functional country if they can't manage to create a functional government on their own.

View on HN

Market size affects revenue and thus investing decisions. Pharma is a high-risk world.

Do you think a dysfunctional gov has a higher chance of fixing itself with widespread disease?

We’ve been providing foreign aid for, what, like 70-80 years now? Have the dysfunctional governments fixed themselves yet? How long should it take? 100 years? 500 years?

Maybe providing aid is just propping up dysfunctional governments by doing their job for them and it would be better in the long run if they were allowed to collapse and be replaced with something that was forced to be functional.

It’s globally useful to eradicate/reduce disease in a region irrespective of whether or not the region’s government becomes stable. Viruses and bacteria mutate and do not care about borders.

I have no fantasies that aid will magically make countries stable.

If it is globally useful then the burden should be spread equally among all the countries on the globe. If the US is providing this service, other countries should compensate us for it.

Again, the US is not an outlier on foreign aid, especially now.

> Maybe they should work on fixing that

It’s not an either/or. While we figure out the practical solutions to corruption in impoverished nations, we can /also/ do other work to improve the situation in Earth. And, in doing so, we will make solving the impoverished/corruption problem easier to fix.

We don’t have to figure out a solution to anything in other sovereign nations. Nor, can or should we really impose any functional, non-corrupt government on people who are unable or unwilling to do it themselves, unless you’re willing to go back to full-blown colonialism. The people in the country need to figure it out themselves and decide they want to have a functional government and make it happen. We can’t do it for them.

You’re conflating national building with mitigation of disease. I agree: medical aid is not a substitute for local medical infrastructure and can threaten its development. But aid is not guaranteed to do that. Also, disease is intrinsically bad.

So, which country is the US going to be absorbed by?

You're saying the US is simultaneously non-functional but also responsible for providing free healthcare to every other country?

If we're non-functional, where is all the foreign aid providing free stuff for us?

C'mon other countries, give us free stuff. It will be great for your soft power, and prevent us from doing terrorist attacks on you.

Why do you keeping making posts implying the US provides the bulk of international aid when that is demonstrably not the case (on a % of GDP basis or total dollar amount)?

If it’s not a significant amount then why is it such a catastrophe if it stops?

I don't think the US is responsible for providing free healthcare for other countries. It should start doing that for its own people, though. That would be a big step towards being a functional country. Or maybe just not have legislation called "One Big Beautiful Bill". The US is a joke.

You are getting a lot of free stuff, because you own the dollar. That keeps you afloat so far, but I don't think it will last for much longer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com