The whole thing can be summed up in this:
Although the poorest population groups in the poorest countries are left with the heaviest burden of health risks and disease, the fact that people’s life chances differ so widely is not simply a problem of poverty, but one of socioeconomic inequality.
It’s the inequality that makes people ill, see?
So we can guess what their global governance for health will be all about.
However, it’s not actually inequality that is the problem. It’s poverty. Absolute, destitution type, poverty.
As ever, if you diagnose the problem wrongly then your solutions will also be wrong. The tactics required to reduce inequality….or perhaps those that are likely to be offered here….are to tax the snot out of the rich in order to reduce said inequality. The policies required to reduce absolute poverty might be rather different. In fact, we’ve just been carrying out an experiment in this these past few decades. The imposition of that neoliberal world order, the Washington Consensus and all, has led to the largest reduction in absolute poverty in the history of our species. This is not, you might note, the same policy as taxing the snot out of the rich.
It’s therefore extremely important for us to determine whether it is indeed inequality or absolute poverty that is the cause of the ill health of those poor. And whatever the Lancet says I’m sticking with the idea that trying to live on a $1 a day is a cause of ill health rather more than the idea that living on $2 a day while someone else has $20 a day does. That is, it isn’t inequality we need to worry about it’s absolute poverty.
The policy conclusion is therefore not more tax it’s more globalisation and economic freedom.