The author summarized a counterargument thus: "The argument comes down to this: Doesn't it seem absurd to pay $23,000 to buy drugs to get one year of good health for an African with AIDS, when you can get the same amount of wellness for 1,000 Africans for the same cost?" He ably argued against it, but isn't there a more basic argument?

That is, doesn't it seem absurd to pay for drugs to marginally improve the health of Western children, when the same amount of money would save countless lives and bring about vast improvements in the health of African children? The marginal utility of a health dollar spent in Africa would seemingly dwarf that of one spent in the U.S.

If we put the responsibility for healthcare on the government, and also promote world government via the United Nations, then yes, we will have to rank the cost of our healthcare against the cost of saving Africans.

For Americans, that's tantamount to outlawing healthcare!

Now if we factor the increase in global warming into the cost of saving a life ....

and I think my argument was probably unconsciously planted in my mind by the Unicef box I carried around on Halloween. Basically it explained that $.25 would feed a child for a day, etc. It made for interesting reading while I gorged myself on candy.

If you really believe that, then you'll stop feeding your children and mail all that money to Africa... where it would probably end up in the pockets of some corrupt pollitician.

Africa has *many* problems that can't be solved by simply throwing money at them.