Comments
By lateforwork 2026-01-233:013 reply China will fill this gap as well: https://www.hematologyadvisor.com/news/china-donates-500m-to...
By pfisherman 2026-01-2313:521 reply They are currently eating our biotech lunch. Between cuts to NIH, chaos at FDA and CDC, and China’s intensive investment and buildout of their biomedical infrastructure the US is going to be getting lapped soon. Ask a biotech VC about it.
But who knows, maybe if we keep the tariffs for another 10 years we can host the chemical manufacturing facilities that produce the drugs their biotechs sell to us after ours are no longer competitive.
By _DeadFred_ 2026-01-2317:351 reply Moderna is now curbing vaccine trials because of US policy. Ironic that the same crowd that insists “healthcare companies want to keep you sick” is now cheering policies that reduce access to one time, preventative solutions in the form of vaccines.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
By pseudohadamard 2026-01-248:36 It's OK, the med beds will cure everyone so the US won't need vaccines. And if they don't, you've got the rapture to look forward to, so it's a win/win.
China is likely to use its influence to push "TCM" further into the narrative. Not that the US national health agenda is exemplary in its use of evidence and scientific knowledge at the moment either.
Sad all round.
(Edit - downvoters, do you not agree that this is likely, or do you think that it's OK?
If the former, it's been done before so it seems very likely to me. If the latter then I have to say I agree with this take in scientific american - "To include TCM in the ICD is an egregious lapse in evidence-based thinking and practice."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...)
Traditional Chinese Medicine and International Classification of Diseases - for people who didn't click the link
By pseudohadamard 2026-01-248:371 reply TCM is mostly used by people in China too poor to afford standard medicine. If they've got the money, they go for non-TCM. That's all, nothing to do with the evil CCP bogeymen.
While this seems true and may be true within China, the Chinese government does push for this to be accepted around the world by pressuring for its inclusion in WHO documents, and is trying to open up new markets for TCM “Pharma” in poorer nations.
I consider that quite evil as it’s not evidence based and undermines actually good, useful medicine. Just as I would/do consider anyone trying to increase take up of homeopathy in poorer parts of the world to be evil.
In the case of China and TCM there appear to be nationalist and financial motives.
By pseudohadamard 2026-01-254:521 reply It's not necessarily bad, these probably aren't hard figures but a GP once told me that of the cases he gets, if you do nothing much then 70% will get better by themselves, 20% will stay the same, and 10% will get worse (may have misremembered the numbers there). A lot of people just need a bit of reassurance and something to make them feel like they're doing something and they'll be OK, for which very affordable TCM is fine. Albert Schweitzer was once asked why he was OK with witch-doctors (as they were called then) practising outside his hospital, and he said they treated the stuff they could and sent the serious cases to him. It was an arrangement that worked for both sides.
By Nursie 2026-01-268:33 I think that promoting quack medicine as if it was legitimate is a problem in itself.
Beyond that, some of the remedies are actively harmful, and we know that alt medicine practitioners have often kept people away from vital treatment.
By platinumrad 2026-01-233:191 reply I haven't seen them push it internationally. There's just occasionally official support for highly questionable studies claiming that it was real all along.
Edit: It's dumber and worse than I thought.
They have previously pressured the WHO to include TCM remedies in its literature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...
By platinumrad 2026-01-233:291 reply It's very stupid, but I don't think it's going to have any international effect outside of countries like Singapore and Taiwan with signifiant populations of highly superstitious older ethnic Chinese. It's not like TCM doctors are being sent to Africa.
You said it, so I had to look it up:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/10/chinese-traditiona...
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3326972/ho...
https://rhinos.org/tough-issues/promotion-of-traditional-chi...
It actually is like they're sending TCM doctors to Africa!
I had no idea...
By platinumrad 2026-01-233:401 reply Thanks, we live in an ever stupider world than I thought. I do wonder about the prevalence and traction, and whether it's mostly ingredient sourcing rather than "treating" locals.
By Nursie 2026-01-237:15 According to those sources above, they're not only 'treating' locals but starting up training centres. It seems to be about exporting culture as well as opening up new markets for TCM 'pharmaceutical' companies.
No doubt ingredient sourcing is in the mix too.
I believe it’s ok due to shortfalls (namely, rigidity) of evidence-based thinking and practice, which leads to pretty depressing outcomes for a lot of people when it comes to medical practice. With western medicine it seems as though people are driven to mental illness, premature death, and bankruptcy. I’d also love to medicines that focus on fixing people instead of making a profit and I believe TCM narratives are more aligned with that viewpoint.
By Nursie 2026-01-244:00 There must be a name for this sort of fallacy of thinking.
“A isn’t perfect therefore I choose to believe in B.”
Where A is an evidence-based discipline with some shortcomings and B is unevidenced woo. I’d rather something that works and can be proven to work over a good narrative, myself.
Several of your criticisms there also only apply to the American way of running a health system, that’s a choice that’s not taken everywhere.
By aprilthird2021 2026-01-233:122 reply Why would they do that? Genuinely makes 0 sense to me. Even India with its nationalist authoritarian govt doesn't push Ayurveda on the global stage (for domestic customers though it's obv a big business whose magnates have close ties w the govt)
Because they've done it before?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...
By aprilthird2021 2026-01-2320:12 Wow, that is crazy. TIL
It just seems like such an undermining move to prop up an industry that anyways relies on distrust of established scientific and medical systems
By SanjayMehta 2026-01-233:501 reply 1. What does nationalism and authoritarianism have to do with anything? By gratuitously sticking these words into your argument you undermine your credibility as a neutral commentator.
2. Even if they didn't push it, the west has been stealing ("appropriating" in liberal speak) Ayurvedic remedies for years. Take turmeric for example. The GoI had to sue to keep turmeric patent free.
By aprilthird2021 2026-01-236:253 reply 1. Because both states are nationalist and authoritarian, and both states have an alternative medicine practice that's culturally tied to them. It's a pretty good analogy imo, and it helps to understand how such a state would act by having an anlogue to compare it to
2. Ayurvedic and TCM largely refers to those things which haven't undergone clinical trials to understand their efficacy as prescribed medicines. Anything from that sphere which is clinically proven to work and is dispensed as prescription medicine just becomes part of medicine. It's not about "stealing" or whatever, it's about whether people should be given proven effective medicines or hopefully effective medicines, the former being what we should promote globally
By disgruntledphd2 2026-01-2310:25 > Ayurvedic and TCM largely refers to those things which haven't undergone clinical trials to understand their efficacy as prescribed medicines.
Interestingly enough, RCTs of acupuncture (with sham needles) show pretty large effect sizes for many treatments but only in China, which is super weird. The most likely explanation is that the blinding doesn't work (which is a perennial problem in basically all RCTs), but it's interesting nonetheless.
By lateforwork 2026-01-2317:061 reply > clinical trials
Keep in mind that the Western system is not perfect either. Many good natural medicines are ignored by western countries because they have not undergone clinical trials. Why haven't they undergone clinical trials? Because that takes large amounts of money and no one is going to make that investment unless they can patent the molecule.
Of course, natural medicines that have been in use for hundreds if not thousands of years are not patentable, so no one will do a clinical trial for them. As a result, when you go to a doctor in a western country they are completely ignorant about natural medicines and will only prescribe drugs pushed by big pharma.
By aprilthird2021 2026-01-2320:141 reply > Why haven't they undergone clinical trials? Because that takes large amounts of money and no one is going to make that investment unless they can patent the molecule.
The Ramdevs and Patanjalis of the world could easily afford to do this and would boost their sales 100x if they could. They already sell unpatentable remedies and powders with great profit (but decamp to Western hospitals when they are actually sick)
By lateforwork 2026-01-2321:471 reply We don't have to look at TCM or Ayurveda. Let's consider a simple, well-known, natural molecule: magnesium. Go to Amazon and search for product reviews for magnesium and magnesium l-threonate supplements. You'll see tons of people using magnesium effectively for muscle tightness, and insomnia. Yet doctors never recommend it, and are confused when told that it works for you. Why is this? It is because big pharma is not pushing it. There are no major clinical trials going on for it in order to prove that it is safe and effective for these purposes. Why? Because it is not patentable.
This is absolute nonsense.
Doctors test for deficiencies in vitamins and minerals and recommend cheap effective supplements to address them and other conditions all the frickin time.
My partner is currently taking completely unpatentable iron supplements for a deficiency and I am taking cheap, unpatentable psyllium husk for gut health and cholesterol management, both on the advice of our (Western, evidence-based) doctors.
This meme that ‘western’ doctors are only interested in peddling expensive pharmaceuticals and don’t look ‘holistically’ at patient health, or recommend cheap, effective treatments … it’s just not true at all.
By lateforwork 2026-01-2413:391 reply It is absolutely true for certain conditions. If you have insomnia and go to a doctor they want to put you on Ambien CR for the rest of your life. There aren't even any reliable tests for magnesium deficiency. Psyllium husk for cholesterol? Never heard a doctor mention that, all they recommend is statins. Your experience is clearly different from mine. The notion that Western doctors recommend natural medicines when possible is extraordinary. If they did, naturopathic doctors will not have jobs.
‘Western’ doctors generally recommend things that work and are proven to work. They don’t always get it right but in general that is at least the driving idea. Psyllium husk is a source of dietary fibre and has been shown to to absorb cholesterol from bile as it passes through the digestive tract, hence it can be recommended as an evidence-based first attempt at reducing levels. Statins are likely to be an escalation from there if it doesn’t help.
Magnesium blood tests exist - https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/magnesium-blood-...
Naturopathic ‘doctors’ have jobs because the credulous believe they’re something other than quacks. Naturopathy is a grab bag of unproven, alt-med bullshit and should be regarded as nothing more than charlatanry.
Your view of western medicine is nonsense driven by antipathy. Yes, there are problems with money from big Pharma corrupting the system. That doesn’t mean any of the woo-woo alt systems are any more real. They’re all far worse because they don’t even start with an evidence base.
By lateforwork 2026-01-2415:00 > Your view of western medicine is nonsense driven by antipathy.
The same could be said about your view of natural and traditional medicine.
> ‘Western’ doctors generally recommend things that work and are proven to work.
That's true of traditional medicine as well. The difference is how they are proven. Western medicines prove using a double blind study. It is expensive and you can't get funding for such studies unless an investor is assured of returns for their investment, which is only possible for novel, patentable medicines. And that means many natural medicines that work are ignored by the Western system. Traditional medicine on the other hand prove that something works not using double blind studies but 100s years of actual experience.
An example is magnesium. Doctors don't know that it works for muscle tightness and insomnia because no one has done a double blind study on it with thousands of patients. And nobody will because magnesium is not patentable. And so they prescribe Ambien CR, a very harmful and addictive drug. It is a very broken system, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge those limitations. (And no, no reliable tests exist for magnesium deficiency but that's a side point.)
> Naturopathy is a grab bag of unproven, alt-med bullshit and should be regarded as nothing more than charlatanry.
Yeah.. this attitude is the problem.
> They’re all far worse because they don’t even start with an evidence base.
They do, perhaps not in a way that satisfies you, but they do. The evidence is based on 100s of years of experience.
By SanjayMehta 2026-01-2313:13 [flagged]
By pfisherman 2026-01-2316:272 reply I don’t know what this comment is, but it is totally missing and underselling Chinese capability in biotech. They are not coming to push TCM. They are coming to dominate high end drug discovery and development. Perhaps they are looking to dominate both the high end and the low end bro science segments of the health market…
By Nursie 2026-01-243:45 I didn’t claim that Chinese biotech isn’t great. I am sure that like most Chinese research, engineering etc it is world class.
But there is evidence from all around the world that the Chinese government is actively pushing TCM, that they push it with the WHO, and that they are actively trying to open up markets for TCM “pharmaceuticals” and practice in African and other nations.
I put links in some of the sibling comments showing this.
By wuschel 2026-01-2317:19 Hi, would there be a a way to contact you? I have an email in my profile. Would love to exchange some thought on that.
China is not only a strong player in biotech. Their capability in chemical R&D and market transfer is very strong, too both in small and industrial scale. And let’s not speak about electronics …
By FridayoLeary 2026-01-233:142 reply [flagged]
By garte 2026-01-2312:46 Look up why it was called SARS-2 in the beginning (and most of all what SARS was) and you're going to understand a lot more why they reacted how they did...
By tokioyoyo 2026-01-233:37 I mean, it’s “Not A Good Thing” for the US. Chinese people are proud of their accomplishments in the past couple of decades, and deservedly so. Now they can do the whole realpolitiks as well.
Sure, I don’t agree with lots of their stuff, but I’d rather a guy who doesn’t flip flop his mind every 4 years.
More evidence that Carney’s speech marks the end of American global “leadership”
I didn't need Carney's speech to mark that, Jan 6 2025 was the date.
I'd posit that Jan 20 2017 marked the beginning of the end.
It's a daily challenge to keep track and not spiral into despair. It's not just that one man, it's that so many citizens love him. It truly boggles the mind.
December 12, 2000.
The US might have had a president who was knowledgeable about technology and dedicated to solving climate change.
Who might have chosen differently about invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
I'm sure Gore would have made mistakes, but it's hard to see a path where he wasn't a better president (for the US and for the world) than W Bush.
By stockresearcher 2026-01-2317:421 reply > The US might have had a president who was knowledgeable about technology and dedicated to solving climate change.
might have had? Ha, you should read up a bit on Jimmy Carter.
> A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.
That was him when he put solar panels on the roof of the White House, which Ronnie Ray-Gun removed and sent to a museum.
By ethbr1 2026-01-2319:44 It wasn't intended as an exclusionary statement.
Yep. He made a mistake in conceding as he could have won that battle:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections200...
Yes and no. It would have been corrosive to democracy to fight too hard. Gore cared more about the country than his own ambition.
See: Trump
Insisting that the proper process is followed, when that process is known to be good, is fighting the good fight. Sure, the fight would've been corrosive, but I don't think the burden of moral responsibility for such a thing is on the defenders.
By ethbr1 2026-01-2516:57 If Gore had fought harder and won, Gore would have been president but democratic legitimacy and belief in the voting process would have been damaged (in half the country).
If Gore had fought harder and lost, Bush president and same.
The public wouldn't have believed / understood voting recount nuances: longer battle in courts = less faith in voting.
So it came down to weighing the corrosion of the voting process against goodness of Gore v Bush as president.
I don't think in 2000 anyone (including Gore) could have predicted that W's (and Cheney's) choices would be as poor as they were.
Completeley agree. It's such a stark contrast between Bush senior and junior, too-- GWB put the US on such a bad trajectory (middle east interventionism, surveillance state, etc.), altough 9/11 probably deserves a lot of blame for it.
I also blame the republicans for turning elections more and more into polarized shit slinging personalized attacks instead of policy based arguments, and I'd argue that this really took off in the Clinton era, and then got really bad under Obama/Trump.
By pstuart 2026-01-2313:47 I think that in the scheme of things GHWB was the most qualified and "best" of their offerings I've seen in my many years.
By boogieknite 2026-01-2316:41 mccain seemed quite respectable and i liked the spirit of his campaign reform efforts. they were probably more strategic than altruistic. on the other hand palin seems like shed fit right in with the clown show conservatives trot out now
It does indeed, and I agree that is a good alternative date but a lot of people still had the excuse that they did not know how bad it could get. For the re-run they knew exactly what to expect and still voted for it.
I wish you were wrong but you aren't.
The big question is how far until we bottom out, and what does "recovery" look like. The fact that the political divide has grown so that realities do not converge is rather terrifying.
By jacquesm 2026-01-2318:13 The scala of possible outcomes here is so broad it is terrifying. The best the rest of the world can hope for is that it will remain contained but I think we are already seeing plenty of evidence that will not be the case.
For a more focused point, sticking to just one here:
> we’re tired of funding the world’s defense
Reads like "The outrageously high R&D costs of modern weapons systems are being subsidized across many customers. This must end immediately!"
What other business wants fewer customers to spread R&D across, or less revenue from fewer units sold?
Are we instead discussing how much the US spends internally on defence, then exports the largest military in the world to protect the country and her interests? Because not only is that an example of America choosing to spend her own money instead of being coerced by other nations, but the guy that just ran a snatch'n'grab on a foreign leader was enabled by that same policy. Forgive my disbelief that he'll dismantle that system any time soon.
By myrmidon 2026-01-2314:04 I think this is a scarily prevalent view, and I strongly disagree.
Regarding defense: The US is not the world policeman and never really has been. Police enforces higher laws-- but the only law the US enforces is its own, which sometimes becomes very obvious (e.g. Hague invasion act, or inaction when there's only humanitarian gain, like civil wars in Africa).
Regarding research/drugs: Why would you think the US is owed anything here? Drugs are (typically) not gifted to rest of the world for free. The view that high healthcare prices in the US "pay" for medical advancement is pure propaganda BS: You pay such high prices because you allow the industry to extract so much from you, not because of any kind of altruism.
Don't get me wrong: I don't blame the US for doing things wrong-- I believe the last half century was largely mutually beneficial for US and its allies, but the notion that the US is owed by its allies or even the world is almmost absurd to me; you don't accrue credit by acting in your own interests.
By ks2048 2026-01-234:35 "funding the world’s defense" - where do you think that money goes?
Not downvoting, but boy is this off the mark. America was the only country to invoke Article 5 of NATO. America has benefited greatly from brain drain, what you call "funding the world's research". Pharma is something like the 7th or 8th largest export for the US.
Military misadventures in the Middle East, trickle up economics, prioritizing corporate profits over things like low cost healthcare, good jobs, or a solid industrial base... These are all products of American culture and politics, not imposed by any other country.
Appreciate your response. I’m just frustrated, because while I vote one way (in California ) for liberal policies, the rest of the country seems to vote another. Americans are a varied group and we all get lumped together with these idiots. I thought it was stupid when we dismantled USAID but I’m powerless to stop it.
By sxyuan 2026-01-234:23 I get the frustration. I hope though that the opinion of the people who matter the most - i.e., your friends and family, and not random Internet strangers - will be based on who you are as a person, not on your identity as an American. Don't worry so much about the noise on social media, it's part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
At the same time, there are things you can do besides voting. Maybe you already know or do these things, but just putting it out there... You can call your representatives (and they might actually listen, if you're a Democrat in California), you can donate to candidates in other races if you have the means (there are probably going to be some pretty consequential senate races this year), you can join a protest (peacefully, and especially if you don't have any dependents).... And who knows, maybe none of these things will make a difference in the end, but I think the bottom line is that if you truly care about some of these things that are happening right now in the US, it's better to find ways to act on your convictions than to stay frustrated and fume online.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for your feedback. I didn’t vote for this administration, I think they’re idiots, and yet I still get blamed for them. It’s exhausting.
By thatguy0900 2026-01-234:17 I suppose we'll see in the coming years whether funding the world's institutions gave us more back than we spent or not
I sympathize with your frustration but your understanding of how things hang together is way off the mark.
You do not seem to understand how America's position in the world has been used to benefit the country in a massive way post world war II. You can throw that position away, that's your privilege, but the result will be a much smaller economy in which your costs for various items will go up rather than down because a lot of money will no longer flow to the USA.
The amounts you are paying for healthcare, medication etc are not coupled to that but are coupled to your broken political system. You could fix that easily enough but neither the democrats nor the republicans have ever followed that path because you (plural) have been deluded into thinking that that is socialism.
Reducing the USA's standing in the world is not going to fix your political problems but is going to harm your economy in a massive way. The position you are taking here is not consistent and whether you voted for Trump or not is not relevant because it effectively carries water for him: this is precisely the kind of thing that an uninformed Trump supporter would say.
By mancerayder 2026-01-2314:092 reply I believe you're deluded into believing that 'we' are deluded. French and British TV news have little snippets of anecdotal dummy Americans being paraded around to make the entire country look stupid. It's not the entire country that's stupid - we DO have a socialized healthcare system called Medicare - it kicks in when you're retiree age. A Yougov poll from July 2025 showed:
59% of U.S. adult citizens support “Medicare for all” (27% oppose, 14% not sure)
So are "we" voting against our own interests? Have you considered that neither party, including the Democrats we're supposedly too foolish to vote for, support this. The political system is infiltrated with a large amount of money which we call "lobbying". This lobbying is illegal in the major democracies in Europe, leaving the impression that "Americans are voting against their own interests."
Hope I've made a better case than BBC or French TV5!
By ta9000 2026-01-2317:43 Exactly. The Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but they still carry water for the billionaires. Neither party represents what people really want (Medicare for all, at least as an option, lower defense spending, etc)
I have lived for many years on the border of the United States and Canada, have many friends on both sides of that border (probably more in the USA) and I don't watch French or British TV news.
Your 'socialized healthcare' is a very weak version of it, there is no other country where medical issues can spiral out of control financially in the way they do in the United States.
I know the political parties are as corrupt as they get but that is your problem to fix, even so Trump's talking points, that the USA has been financing the rest of the world are plain bullshit.
By mancerayder 2026-01-2319:12 I've lived in a few countries including the UK and France, by the way. And I don't think any Canadian would compare their healthcare system to either of those countries, they'd rather use the U.S. insurance system than be given paracetamol while waiting a few weeks to get a CAT scan. In fact, according to Gemini googling 'Canadian healthcare wait times':
Key Figures & Trends (from Fraser Institute & CIHI reports, late 2025): National Median Wait: ~28.6 weeks (down slightly from 30 weeks in 2024). Longest Waits: New Brunswick (~60.9 weeks), PEI (~49.7 weeks). Shortest Waits: Ontario (~19.2 weeks). By Specialty: Neurosurgery (49.9 weeks), Orthopaedic Surgery (48.6 weeks) were longest; Oncology (Radiation 4.2, Medical 4.7 weeks) shortest. Diagnostics: CT (8.8 weeks), MRI (18.1 weeks).
That's pretty bad. In the U.S. you wait one week for an MRI and it's paid for, minus copay, by your insurance if your insurance is good. The U.S. healthcare is pretty great if you a) work b) work in a place that gives you good healthcare or c) are old enough to qualify for Medicare. It also depends on which state you are in, since the state laws differ on healthcare (Texas and New York are not the same).
But I don't think your point is fact-finding, it's hating on the U.S. or provoking.
I know the political parties are as corrupt as they get but that is your problem to fix, even so Trump's talking points, that the USA has been financing the rest of the world are plain bullshit.
Not sure the point of this angry statement.
By croon 2026-01-2310:34 NATO is/was a major contributor to the success of the dollar and US economic activity. It was never a cost center, it's a core enabler. Whoever thinks otherwise is setting the US up for an epic owngoal.
By array_key_first 2026-01-238:02 The military is basically a jobs program. We do it because it pumps money into the economy and gives us our own little socialism. It's our little New Deal kingdom.
I mean, I like living in the country that everyone wants to come to for an education and work. We're giving that up.
Not everyone wants to come to the US, get real. There is no way I would leave Europe for the US. Absolutely zero chance.
And that's not even considering the direction the US is heading, I mean in it's current state.
By croon 2026-01-2311:52 Its current state is worse than a year ago and even worse than 10 years ago, etc. As a fellow European, it's a fact that the US for many decades have attracted global top talent for both universities and industry. That definitely hit a hard reversal during the current term with the war on universities/education as well as immigration policies though.
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with GP.
By ottah 2026-01-2318:24 Pedantic
By ta9000 2026-01-234:01 Did you vote for this mess? I sure didn’t, I live in a state with almost 50 million people and feel like we’re powerless to stop this nonsense.
By ozlikethewizard 2026-01-237:421 reply "funding the world's defence' - this kind of thinking is whats turning everyone against you. Ask the venezeulans, iraqis, iranians, nicuaraguans, vietnamese, afghanis, panamains, etc if they want your "world defence".
I didn’t support any of those wars. I wasn’t even alive/of voting age for most of them.
By ozlikethewizard 2026-01-277:39 Americans intrinsically benefit from imperialism, whether you support its constant imperialism or not (look at Yemen, Syria, Lybia for more recent examples, it truly is constant), if you do not take direct action against it you are complicit.
no offense but the US spent about a billion on the WHO. That's a lot of influence for chump change. US defense sits at only 3% of GDP compared to 8% during the height of the cold war.
The argument always seems to be that the US is getting these rough deals, but objectively what it has spent the last few years be it in terms of soft power for organizations like this or in weapons to Ukraine, a few decades ago people would have opened champagne bottles getting that much bang for your buck.
This is British "the EU is stealing your NHS money" stuff, like it doesn't work at a basic level of arithmetics. What's driving spending in the US is entitlements, literally a straight line up
No offense taken. Clearly I’ve already upset a lot of people though. It’s not just the WHO, which is “only” 1 billion apparently.
I get that it all adds up, but you're railing against 0.1% of a budget that's over a trillion dollars. Not only do household and national budgets work differently, the numbers are also so much larger that they give a sense of vertigo instead of understanding. If we compare for 0.1% of your budget, would you stress over that amount? Because I know I'm not about to panic over spending $100 annually for a safer, healthier, and more stable world
I feel like there’s a logical fallacy in your response. I’m down for cutting significantly more than $1 billion. Halving the defense department budget would be a good start.
By xethos 2026-01-236:43 In which case we disagree fundamentally on America's place in the world, and how best to lead - and that's okay. We can politely disagree (on this), and neither of us has to be an asshole, because neither view is objectively wrong
I applaud the consistency you put on display regarding the US budget though, and I gotta say you view (on this) probably should count more than mine - I'm a Canadian citizen, not American
By cosmicgadget 2026-01-234:16 Didn't downvote you, not upset, but you definitely overstepped with your use of "we".
And even if you think this is the right move, it's important to acknowledge that it's for all the wrong reasons.
By myth_drannon 2026-01-233:381 reply Why do Americans think that? It's very self centered. You will be surprised by how much Canada spends around the world. For example of an important project, Canada paid UNicef $850k to combat open defecation in Ghana.
I’m happy to spend on supporting the poor worldwide; I’m just tired of the US playing team America world police. I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.
> US playing team America world police
I always find it so weird to assume such things are done out of good heart. The US has always been dependent on their ability of world wide power projection, because that's a level that always works. Through 'America first', in the next years the US will experience a decline of beneficial trade deals and US-interest friendly foreign politics. It's net negative for everybody except China and Russia to some degree.
> I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.
That's not about foreign politics though. If you didn't want Billionaires to get richer, you shouldn't vote for one of them being the president.
By ta9000 2026-01-236:20 I didn’t.
By disgruntledphd2 2026-01-2310:30 > I’m happy to spend on supporting the poor worldwide; I’m just tired of the US playing team America world police. I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.
Then you should fix your laws. Like, until a year or two ago Medicare was forbidden from negotiating drug prices. Coupled with the absurdity of direct to consumer advertising of drugs (only allowed in the US and New Zealand), plus your massively complicated health care system, it's a recipe for disaster.
On the world police thing, I'm definitely sympathetic, but this was something your government did for a mix of selfish and altruistic reasons, and the consequences of not doing it will be bad in some ways for Americans. I do think that Europe/EU need to step up here, and it looks like we're finally doing this. I'd also note that of the current potential world police (US, Russia, China) you guys are the least worst.
By tv-12921293 2026-01-233:27 The same theater as in his first term. Now we would like to know who Bubba was and why a president can enrich himself by $9.7 billion:
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/trump-family-corruption...
