global health vs. welfare

dear WSNers: Chase-Dunn's point on global social security echoes my own on
global health care. I would argue that health care might be easier to start 
with
since we can identify a minimal state of health to aim at in the beginning. 
I
think it would also be a smaller investment. It could increase over time.

I am wondering what sort of program of global social security or welfare 
system
(it wouldn't only be for the elderly, right?--I may be misunderstanding, so
forgive me if I am) would be at all acceptable to core states. Should the 
people
of the U.S. agree to contribute to a minimum income for a billion Indians? A
billion Chinese? What is the extent of the core's responsibility to the
periphery? What if India's population keeps growing? Are Americans also
committed to a minimum income to the people of a country that has lost 
control
of its population growth?

Randy Groves