Perhaps the American taxpayer could be incentivized to continue financially supporting the DR Congo in other ways? Maybe they could apply to become a protectorate or somesuch. You can't have your sovereign cake and eat it, too.

In other words: if a country cannot actually exist without being propped up by another, at some point it may be better for everyone to just break the illusion. Like someone complaining that they can't afford to live in a nice apartment in Brooklyn anymore because their trust fund got cut off; in the long run, it's better to base expectations around reality.

This is the type of short-sighted ignorance that will ultimately doom us.

The unspoken mission of USAID and the CDC is to deal with these issues "over there" before they get "here."

Think all these HIV drugs now on the market were tested on American or Europeans?

Containing Ebola where it happens is of value to the world; if the places where it happens can't contain it, the consequences of spread are pretty costly for everywhere it ends up.

The article says they're looking for $25M or so. If any cases make it to the US, that much money will only cover a small number of patients. In 2014, $1M covered two patients. [1] Much better to spend the money on containment overseas than not spend it overseas and have (more) cases arrive here. It's also much better for the country where the outbreak is occuring. If said country could manage the response on its own, that would be great, but outside help in outbreaks is a good thing anyway --- there's valuable exchange of information between doctors and nurses from different areas in addition to filling the need for additional capacity for care.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/cost-...

Two things:

First, what you propose may work only if happenings in other countries don't affect the US, which I very much doubt.

Second, in most of these countries, it is actually the drip-feed of supposed western "help" that props up corruption and prevents any real change. The "aid" is a form of control, not actual help.

If western nations wanted to actually help, they would support the Grand Inga dam project [1] to actually lift people out of poverty. Instead, they oppose it on environmental grounds, never mind that their industrialization was built on the back of massive pollution.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Inga_Dam

You have a good point except slightly misguided.

The rich wants more tax breaks so they can gobble up more money and own more assets at US citizens expense.

How’s that sound?

This is a bad take, even if we step away from your comparison of a body of millions of people to a someone living in Brooklyn with a trust fund.

> Perhaps the American taxpayer could be incentivized to continue financially supporting the DR Congo in other ways? Maybe they could apply to become a protectorate or somesuch. You can't have your sovereign cake and eat it, too.

We weren't asked about the abrupt change. I am sure that the average taxpayer supports maintaining lives overseas at minimal costs. She also probably wants pandemics not to infect her children on US shores.

> In other words: if a country cannot actually exist without being propped up by another, at some point it may be better for everyone to just break the illusion.

On a geopolitical sense, this is absurd. Just consider Poland: do they wish Ukraine didn't exist because of the amount of resources they expend on Ukraine's defense?

Wow, magas are really something