Resolution Demands $125 Billion Annual Global Health Fund and Reparations for Slavery and Climate Harm

This resolution, inspired by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, is essentially a massive, detailed policy blueprint demanding the Federal Government completely overhaul its approach to global health and international economic policy. It starts by laying out the brutal reality: millions of people, mostly in poorer nations, are dying from diseases we know how to prevent or treat. The resolution argues that our current aid system is broken because it fragments local health systems and prioritizes consultants over local capacity.

The 'Accompaniment' Strategy: Building Local Muscle

The core of the proposed change is a shift to a strategy called “accompaniment,” which focuses on helping developing nations build their own robust health systems. Think of it less like a foreign aid drop and more like a long-term investment in infrastructure. This means funding the “Five S’s” locally:

• Staff: Supporting the training and reliable payment of local doctors, nurses, and community health workers, ensuring they stay put.
• Space: Building and equipping physical infrastructure, from local clinics to hospitals.
• Stuff: Making sure they have the necessary supplies, technology, and equipment.
• Systems: Investing in the management side—supply chains, data tracking, and patient referral systems.
• Social Support: Funding resources that help people actually get to care, like transportation or nutritional support.

If you think about it, this is about ensuring that a hospital in a low-income country functions like a real, self-sufficient hospital, not just a temporary project reliant on foreign consultants.

The $125 Billion Price Tag

To make this strategy work, the resolution sets a massive financial goal: increasing annual global health spending up to $125,000,000,000. This figure is cited as the amount needed to finally meet the long-standing United Nations target of spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Income on development aid. For U.S. taxpayers, this is the biggest number to watch. It represents a significant new financial commitment, one that would dramatically reshape the federal budget’s foreign spending priorities. The idea is that this money will close the universal health coverage funding gap in low-income countries and ensure essential medical tools are treated as global public goods, meaning big pharma can’t lock up life-saving treatments with expensive licensing fees.

Stopping the Economic Drain

But the resolution argues that just throwing money at the problem isn’t enough because developing nations are constantly being drained of wealth by unfair global systems. This section is where the resolution gets into international economic policy, demanding the U.S. use its power to stop the financial bleeding. This includes supporting debt cancellation for low- and middle-income countries, pushing for a UN tax convention to crack down on tax avoidance and illicit financial flows (the kind that move wealth out of poor countries and into offshore accounts), and making institutions like the IMF and World Bank more democratic so lower-income countries have a real say. This is a direct challenge to the current global financial order, which could impact private lenders and large corporations that rely on the status quo.

The Call for Reparations

Perhaps the most sweeping and politically charged demand is the assertion that the Federal Government has a duty to issue reparations for historical harms. This isn't just a suggestion; it’s a specific call for apologies, financial awards, and guarantees against future harm. The resolution demands reparations for three major areas: the institution of slavery and resulting racial discrimination; the harms caused by colonialism and imperialism; and the disproportionate impact of climate change on the Global South, given the U.S.’s historical responsibility for emissions. Implementing reparations for these complex, multi-generational issues would be an undertaking of unprecedented scale, likely sparking intense debate over scope, mechanism, and cost, far beyond the scope of a typical health bill.