There was once a James Cagney film in which a Russian citizen makes a comparison between Capitalism and Socialism. "In capitalism, each person is allowed to have as many cars as he wants, regardless of how many cars others have. In socialism, no man is allowed to have two cars until every single man has at least one." The comparison here is stating that in a capitalistic world, the rich prosper and poor suffer in a "free for all" society.
The world's health supply is much the same.
The more developed countries, such as the United States and Western Europe, have a much more beneficial life style when it comes to health. These are richer countries, so when they need it, healthcare, food, medical supplies, and clean water are available to them, while the the poorer parts of the world, such as Africa and the Middle East, are not as fortunate. So basically the richer parts of the world get to be healthy and the poorer parts do not.
While help is givin to the poor parts of the world by the richer parts, by aid groups such as the World Health Organization (WHO), there is only so much that can be done. Is there enough medicine, food, and clean water to share with the world? A country that is not economically stable cannot take care of its people.
This is the base principle for health control (or lack there of) in the developing parts of the world.
But by raising awareness perhaps this will change and the poor will receive aid from the rich, rather than just turn away. If a developing nation is has a healthy population, then it can grow in other aspects as well, and one day become a developed nation, thus making this a more developed and safer world for all.
Troy O'Grady
However there are many developed nations where the poor still suffer, i.e. the U.S. Still I see your point, the poorer countries can receive aid from the richer ones and the overall health of the world can improve. ( I think that is what you are saying)
ReplyDelete