Blog 3: Obama's Global Health Reform

            President Obama is working to create a Global Health Plan that not only targets AIDS victims, but victims of other diseases as well. This foreign policy, called the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief, was originally put into effect by George W. Bush during his presidency. Obama wants to spend about 63 million dollars over the next six years trying to reduce the pandemics in various regions of the world. In a statement he gave at the White House he says, “We cannot simply confront individual preventable illnesses in isolation, the world is interconnected, and that demands an integrated approach to global health.” This statement meaning, that while the original policy was effective, something that seeks a more global approach is needed.  With the 63 billion dollars, he plans to use 51 million to fight AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, and the rest is targeted at other health priorities. The main goal of this redrafted policy is to hopefully address more health threats than just AIDS in an attempt to save more lives in more locations.

            The plan has potential to be a successful one but it does leave a couple of holes to fill. The first thought is that with this increase, where will the extra money be coming from? The money could potentially be coming out of American pockets in the form of higher taxes. While it is for a rather great cause, it will anger a lot of people if that were to happen. There is also the question of what exact treatments will be provided and what decision making process will go into picking countries to receive this help. It is necessary to help everyone that is in need but that isn’t possible on simply 60 billion dollars over the course of 6 years. As a strong supporter of the Obama Campaign, I think it is important to know what you are supporting so I think asking these questions are good. Hopefully with the release of new information, this policy will have a clearer understanding in regard to its intentions. For now it does have a bit of mystery that could leave room for disappointment in the future. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/health/policy/06medical.html