Should taxpayers fund AIDS drugs?

[Iceweasel]

aha, the true hate mongers are the leftists.

while this can be found in the same thread:

If you can't find anything hateful on the left, you are part of the problem.

 

[L.K.Eder]

aha, the true hate mongers are the leftists.

while this can be found in the same thread:

If you can't find anything hateful on the left, you are part of the problem.

clean your own house first. it is amazing how you can complain about hate from the left while your rightwingbuddies call for mass mutilation of whole segments of the population, because they hate those segments.

 

[Iceweasel]

aha, the true hate mongers are the leftists.

while this can be found in the same thread:

If you can't find anything hateful on the left, you are part of the problem.

clean your own house first. it is amazing how you can complain about hate from the left while your rightwingbuddies call for mass mutilation of whole segments of the population, because they hate those segments.

My house is clean, vacuumed yesterday. I'm a poster here, like you, and speak for myself. My comment about leftists is based on many years of talking to them, they can't tolerate different opinions and regularly demonize anyone singing a discordant note. When that's your modus operandi, expect some incoming.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is interesting question. No because not just smoking can cause lung cancer. Whereas, AIDS can only be through unprotected sex and the sharing of needles....obviously blood transfusions also, but not as common now.

The geniuses here in the Obama regime have decided it's okay for all homosexuals to donate their blood at the blood bank. Never mind if it is tainted with HIV.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Your posts show a deep and abiding hatred of the English language.

no. my posts show a deep and abiding disgust with bigots.

Everyone is a bigot, unless they are agreeing with you.

again, no. you're a bigot if you repeatedly post disgusting bigoted posts/threads.

i'm sorry you don't like being called what you are. if you don't like it, stop being a bigot.

No, this is a bigot:

View attachment 60081

no, wackadoodle.

it is not bigotry to be intolerant of bigots.

sorry. get over it.

jillian is the definition of bigotry. There isn't a conservative alive she likes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right demonstrates its hatred of everything and everybody they don't like.

They cannot win an election behaving like that.

Yes, the government should find AIDs and other research.

 

[OldLady]

Deflection fail. Cancer is natural. AIDs is natural. Death is natural.

You are as strange as Damaged Eagle. Just saying.

AIDS is not natural. One fag screwing another one in the ass is not natural.

Enough of that, all of you! A female friend of mine caught it in the early 90's from a boyfriend who had been a drug addict, and who KNEW he was positive but continued screwing whoever would have him, without using protection and without mentioning he was HIV positive. He was like a biological weapon. He should have been arrested or something. In Africa, where millions continue to die from it, it is not spread by "fags," as you so sweetly term them.

Maybe we had better stop paying for all drugs used to treat STD's--syphilis, gonorrhea (why do all these STD's have to be so hard to spell?), herpes...if sexual transmission is the issue. Serves 'em right, eh?

Most of AIDS is spread by gay male sex. I posted the evidence earlier for unbelievers. That's not to say some can't go on to give it to females.

Do you want to stop paying for treatment of diabetes or heart disease caused by poor eating choices? Various cancers caused by smoking? STD's? Those are all personal choices we make, as well. If you say yes, fine. You probably won't have a very big following because a lot of us are overweight and occassionally slip up on the careful sex thing, but hey. If you want to stop paying ONLY for AIDS treatment because the patients are predominantly homosexual, that's just hateful.

It's hateful to speak for others so you can talk down to them.

I take care of myself, exercise, eat good and have done so all my life. You see, I believe I am the best one to take care of myself, not you or the medical profession (that practices no prevention) or especially the government. So NO, I don't like paying for everyone's piss poor decision making. If I fuck up and need medicals or treatments I don't expect/demand that others pay.

Insurance would be a lot cheaper without government calling so many shots, especially if, like autos, good drivers could get better rates. Why should I have to pay a drunk's constant car bashing insurance rates?

Once again, when forced to spit it out and make your position clear, you make a point I don't necessarily agree with but at least I understand. I was not speaking down to you; that is entirely in your head. And I agree with you about the functioning of bureaucracies, by the way. Did you know that the government doesn't HAVE to function in a bureaucratic model? They just continue to choose to because they are so tied up in bureaucratic top heaviness that it won't end until it is forced to -- but no one is 'in charge' of them to make them.

 

[Conservative65]

The far right demonstrates its hatred of everything and everybody they don't like.

They cannot win an election behaving like that.

Yes, the government should find AIDs and other research.

What product does the government make or service do they provide that creates revenue in order to fund such things? They don't. They must first take it from someone.

Liberals have won elections my marginalizing their opponents. Funny how that's OK when you do it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Con65 does not understand that business is about profit and government is about service.

 

[Iceweasel]

AIDS is not natural. One fag screwing another one in the ass is not natural.

Enough of that, all of you! A female friend of mine caught it in the early 90's from a boyfriend who had been a drug addict, and who KNEW he was positive but continued screwing whoever would have him, without using protection and without mentioning he was HIV positive. He was like a biological weapon. He should have been arrested or something. In Africa, where millions continue to die from it, it is not spread by "fags," as you so sweetly term them.

Maybe we had better stop paying for all drugs used to treat STD's--syphilis, gonorrhea (why do all these STD's have to be so hard to spell?), herpes...if sexual transmission is the issue. Serves 'em right, eh?

Most of AIDS is spread by gay male sex. I posted the evidence earlier for unbelievers. That's not to say some can't go on to give it to females.

Do you want to stop paying for treatment of diabetes or heart disease caused by poor eating choices? Various cancers caused by smoking? STD's? Those are all personal choices we make, as well. If you say yes, fine. You probably won't have a very big following because a lot of us are overweight and occassionally slip up on the careful sex thing, but hey. If you want to stop paying ONLY for AIDS treatment because the patients are predominantly homosexual, that's just hateful.

It's hateful to speak for others so you can talk down to them.

I take care of myself, exercise, eat good and have done so all my life. You see, I believe I am the best one to take care of myself, not you or the medical profession (that practices no prevention) or especially the government. So NO, I don't like paying for everyone's piss poor decision making. If I fuck up and need medicals or treatments I don't expect/demand that others pay.

Insurance would be a lot cheaper without government calling so many shots, especially if, like autos, good drivers could get better rates. Why should I have to pay a drunk's constant car bashing insurance rates?

Once again, when forced to spit it out and make your position clear, you make a point I don't necessarily agree with but at least I understand. I was not speaking down to you; that is entirely in your head. And I agree with you about the functioning of bureaucracies, by the way. Did you know that the government doesn't HAVE to function in a bureaucratic model? They just continue to choose to because they are so tied up in bureaucratic top heaviness that it won't end until it is forced to -- but no one is 'in charge' of them to make them.

At no time have I hidden my beliefs, you didn't interrogate me and find secret treasures I had stashed away. Of course government is bureaucratic, there's no getting around it. It has to be that way because it's employment and security first, the job is secondary. Private companies run on profits, not security. I trust the profit motive far more than I trust the security motive.

There's NO reason for government to do what the private sector can do better. So no, taxpayers should not fund AIDs drugs. Especially when it's preventable in the first place!

 

[Conservative65]

Enough of that, all of you! A female friend of mine caught it in the early 90's from a boyfriend who had been a drug addict, and who KNEW he was positive but continued screwing whoever would have him, without using protection and without mentioning he was HIV positive. He was like a biological weapon. He should have been arrested or something. In Africa, where millions continue to die from it, it is not spread by "fags," as you so sweetly term them.

Maybe we had better stop paying for all drugs used to treat STD's--syphilis, gonorrhea (why do all these STD's have to be so hard to spell?), herpes...if sexual transmission is the issue. Serves 'em right, eh?

Most of AIDS is spread by gay male sex. I posted the evidence earlier for unbelievers. That's not to say some can't go on to give it to females.

Do you want to stop paying for treatment of diabetes or heart disease caused by poor eating choices? Various cancers caused by smoking? STD's? Those are all personal choices we make, as well. If you say yes, fine. You probably won't have a very big following because a lot of us are overweight and occassionally slip up on the careful sex thing, but hey. If you want to stop paying ONLY for AIDS treatment because the patients are predominantly homosexual, that's just hateful.

It's hateful to speak for others so you can talk down to them.

I take care of myself, exercise, eat good and have done so all my life. You see, I believe I am the best one to take care of myself, not you or the medical profession (that practices no prevention) or especially the government. So NO, I don't like paying for everyone's piss poor decision making. If I fuck up and need medicals or treatments I don't expect/demand that others pay.

Insurance would be a lot cheaper without government calling so many shots, especially if, like autos, good drivers could get better rates. Why should I have to pay a drunk's constant car bashing insurance rates?

Once again, when forced to spit it out and make your position clear, you make a point I don't necessarily agree with but at least I understand. I was not speaking down to you; that is entirely in your head. And I agree with you about the functioning of bureaucracies, by the way. Did you know that the government doesn't HAVE to function in a bureaucratic model? They just continue to choose to because they are so tied up in bureaucratic top heaviness that it won't end until it is forced to -- but no one is 'in charge' of them to make them.

At no time have I hidden my beliefs, you didn't interrogate me and find secret treasures I had stashed away. Of course government is bureaucratic, there's no getting around it. It has to be that way because it's employment and security first, the job is secondary. Private companies run on profits, not security. I trust the profit motive far more than I trust the security motive.

There's NO reason for government to do what the private sector can do better. So no, taxpayers should not fund AIDs drugs. Especially when it's preventable in the first place!

The only reason many want the government to do what the private sector can do better is they can demand taxpayers fund it for them instead of going out and earning it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

weaseled, business is for profit, government is for service.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

We taxpayers already fund the cost of AIDS drugs when the drug companies take deductions from their taxes for the cost of research and manufacture. Those are taxes the government forces the rest of us make up.

 

[Silhouette]

We taxpayers already fund the cost of AIDS drugs when the drug companies take deductions from their taxes for the cost of research and manufacture. Those are taxes the government forces the rest of us make up.

And don't forget that statistically the escalating number of HIV/AIDS patients who cost approx. $500,000 each before they die young, become quickly indigent and go on the dole. We are already paying direct costs of HIV/AIDS expansion as that culture also expands lockstep with it (correlation). The group with the most rapid incline in new HIV cases are impressionable boys ages 13-24. And no, they weren't born gay...

Then there's the indirect costs which can't even be calculated using heroics and antivirals to artificially stave off AIDS itself in the HIV patient. Doctors overprescribing antibiotics and antivirals are creating superbugs which are going out directly into the general population all the way from new strains of drug-resistant HIV to drug resistant super-staph bacteria....all so HIV boys can drag out their lives having promiscuous, not always protected sex until they finally become too sick to bend over at the waist.

What an excellent investment we're making.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, whine all you want.

The research won't stop, only grow.

 

[Conservative65]

Sil, whine all you want.

The research won't stop, only grow.

Maybe those doing the wrong things that cause them to get AIDS will, too.

 

[mdk]

AIDS research, whether you like it or not, isn't going to stop being funded and I have yet to hear a compelling argument to do so. If we are going stop funding all STDs than I would agree but I am not seeing many people making that point, only AIDS. Why?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hate and fear seems endemic in the 21st Century Conservative.

Very true.

It is almost like they ask themselves: "What would Jesus do?"...and then they do the opposite.

Thanks for pointing out that the true hate mongers are you leftists.

I don't hate anyone. Not the poor, not the working poor, not our diverse population, not even Soros or the Koch Brothers or you. I don't fear any of the above either nor do I envy the very very rich.

To deny Cruz and Trump are not hate and fear mongers is a lie or an instance of temporary insanity.

Your set uses terms such libtard, dumbocrat, leftist and pejoratives like Commie, Socialist, Statist, moron, stupid and RINO as if they were meaningful; yet they represent nothing more than their disagreement with an opinion that challenges them and cannot respond rationally.

Thus, I truly wonder what in the education or life experience created this new 21st. Century iteration of conservative.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Your set uses terms such libtard, dumbocrat, leftist and pejoratives like Commie, Socialist, Statist, moron, stupid and RINO as if they were meaningful" and they are not. 85% of America knows that.

 

[OldLady]

Enough of that, all of you! A female friend of mine caught it in the early 90's from a boyfriend who had been a drug addict, and who KNEW he was positive but continued screwing whoever would have him, without using protection and without mentioning he was HIV positive. He was like a biological weapon. He should have been arrested or something. In Africa, where millions continue to die from it, it is not spread by "fags," as you so sweetly term them.

Maybe we had better stop paying for all drugs used to treat STD's--syphilis, gonorrhea (why do all these STD's have to be so hard to spell?), herpes...if sexual transmission is the issue. Serves 'em right, eh?

Most of AIDS is spread by gay male sex. I posted the evidence earlier for unbelievers. That's not to say some can't go on to give it to females.

Do you want to stop paying for treatment of diabetes or heart disease caused by poor eating choices? Various cancers caused by smoking? STD's? Those are all personal choices we make, as well. If you say yes, fine. You probably won't have a very big following because a lot of us are overweight and occassionally slip up on the careful sex thing, but hey. If you want to stop paying ONLY for AIDS treatment because the patients are predominantly homosexual, that's just hateful.

It's hateful to speak for others so you can talk down to them.

I take care of myself, exercise, eat good and have done so all my life. You see, I believe I am the best one to take care of myself, not you or the medical profession (that practices no prevention) or especially the government. So NO, I don't like paying for everyone's piss poor decision making. If I fuck up and need medicals or treatments I don't expect/demand that others pay.

Insurance would be a lot cheaper without government calling so many shots, especially if, like autos, good drivers could get better rates. Why should I have to pay a drunk's constant car bashing insurance rates?

Once again, when forced to spit it out and make your position clear, you make a point I don't necessarily agree with but at least I understand. I was not speaking down to you; that is entirely in your head. And I agree with you about the functioning of bureaucracies, by the way. Did you know that the government doesn't HAVE to function in a bureaucratic model? They just continue to choose to because they are so tied up in bureaucratic top heaviness that it won't end until it is forced to -- but no one is 'in charge' of them to make them.

At no time have I hidden my beliefs, you didn't interrogate me and find secret treasures I had stashed away. Of course government is bureaucratic, there's no getting around it. It has to be that way because it's employment and security first, the job is secondary. Private companies run on profits, not security. I trust the profit motive far more than I trust the security motive.

There's NO reason for government to do what the private sector can do better. So no, taxpayers should not fund AIDs drugs. Especially when it's preventable in the first place!

for Chrissakes, you're touchy! The government could change its organizational model. If you don't think health insurance is inevitable, I can't think why you believe bureaucracy must be.