Should taxpayers fund AIDS drugs?

[xotoxi]

This is because on the BBC earlier, they had item about an AIDS drug. There was some LGBT man on saying he thinks it's a "scandal" that they can't get this drug for free on the British NHS.

I think this is correct, that they should pay themselves for it.

There's a very good Breast Cancer drug that NHS said that they couldn't afford, so women have to pay for it themselves, which is what I call a scandal.

Breast Cancer is not the fault of the women, they don't cause their own cancer.

AIDS is the fault of the people who get it, by their lifestyle and by not using condoms and sharing needles.

poor dear. so much hate in you.

if you smoke and get cancer that's your fault too.

if you're a fat pig and get heart disease, that's your fault too.

if you're an alcoholic and get cirrhosis that's your fault.

shut up, idiot.

You are devoid of manners. You are therefore not worth even thinking about. I only correspond with people who show manners and are cordial, you possess neither.

I have been cordial, yet you seem to have overlooked my question.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Let the idiots DIE. Its natural its nature.

Including the babies?

The one with AIDS chose to have them. Again, as I've said before, people make choices in life then expect others to foot the bill. Not anymore.

Would you advocate an abortion in this case?

probably for the woman to just slit her throat or jump off a cliff and end them both since neither is worthy of treatment of consideration...........................

so who is really the idiot? Does not seem as if any of this was thought through.

Oh no, that person sneezed, throw them in the pit to die, they must deserve it for something they did at some point in their life

I don't know why they don't just come out and say that every homosexual should be executed, along with every Muslim, every immigrant, and every black person.

I don't know why you make these comments, nobody has said to execute these peoples. Regarding the gays and the AIDS drug, my OP says that if the breast cancer drug for women isn't free, then why should the AIDS drug be free?

We can't be saying that gay men with AIDS are more important than women with breast cancer, to suggest such a thing is both monstrous and degrading to breast cancer patients.

Can you understand? I hope so.

 

[jillian]

[...

why would i be polite to you? your posts show nothing but hate.

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

The mother has it, too, otherwise it can't be passed along.

So the babies should die or the women should be forced to have abortions?

Let her have the baby but don't force us to pay for the expensive medications. Why should we?

right.... you're pro life until the child is born. then f'em.

no doubt you think that's moral.

but i tell ya what... stop asking me to fund your insane wars and subsidize your corporate and agriculture businesses.

You can't read. I said let the mother give birth. YOU don't have the right to make me pay for the kid though. So you can stuff your morality. And trying to drag every objection to America you have won't make you look more reasonable.

i read just fine.

you don't fund anything for *me*. but please keep stamping your feet.

When did I claim I funded you? I pointed out how stupid the comments were from an asshole on the internet and you understand that as foot stamping? You can't think.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This is because on the BBC earlier, they had item about an AIDS drug. There was some LGBT man on saying he thinks it's a "scandal" that they can't get this drug for free on the British NHS.

I think this is correct, that they should pay themselves for it.

There's a very good Breast Cancer drug that NHS said that they couldn't afford, so women have to pay for it themselves, which is what I call a scandal.

Breast Cancer is not the fault of the women, they don't cause their own cancer.

AIDS is the fault of the people who get it, by their lifestyle and by not using condoms and sharing needles.

poor dear. so much hate in you.

if you smoke and get cancer that's your fault too.

if you're a fat pig and get heart disease, that's your fault too.

if you're an alcoholic and get cirrhosis that's your fault.

shut up, idiot.

You are devoid of manners. You are therefore not worth even thinking about. I only correspond with people who show manners and are cordial, you possess neither.

I have been cordial, yet you seem to have overlooked my question.

Yes you are cordial. I'm sorry, what was your question again

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

[...

why would i be polite to you? your posts show nothing but hate.

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.

 

[xotoxi]

Lucy...should a smoker who gets lung cancer not be allowed to have their treatment funded?

Huh? No one should stop them from seeking help by donations if that's what you mean.

You didn't answer the question.

Try again.

I did. It's still there. Find a grown up to explain the words to you.

I interpret your answer as meaning that you don't think that taxpayers fund should be used to treat ANY person for ANY disease.

Fair enough.

 

[Silhouette]

This is because on the BBC earlier, they had item about an AIDS drug. There was some LGBT man on saying he thinks it's a "scandal" that they can't get this drug for free on the British NHS.

I think this is correct, that they should pay themselves for it.

.

I've got news for you....we already DO pay for HIV/AIDS expensive medication. Each HIV patient becomes quickly indigent and goes on the dole. When that happens, the average of $500,000 per patient as they linger and finally die is picked up by the taxpayers. So, their teaching boys in school to give anal sex a try "because it's good, normal, healthy...etc." is a matter of national importance. The HIV rate in youngsters ages 13-24 is skyrocketing since the big gay marriage/youth promotion push.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Lucy...should a smoker who gets lung cancer not be allowed to have their treatment funded?

Huh? No one should stop them from seeking help by donations if that's what you mean.

You didn't answer the question.

Try again.

I did. It's still there. Find a grown up to explain the words to you.

I interpret your answer as meaning that you don't think that taxpayers fund should be used to treat ANY person for ANY disease.

Fair enough.

I never said this

 

[xotoxi]

I have been cordial, yet you seem to have overlooked my question.

Yes you are cordial. I'm sorry, what was your question again

You mentioned that a patient with breast cancer should have their treatments paid for because they did not bring the cancer onto themselves, but that you don't think that AIDS medications should be pair for with taxpayers funds because risky behaviors are the cause for the disease.

Do you think that a smoker who has lung cancer should be denied taxpayer funded treatment?

 

[Iceweasel]

Lucy...should a smoker who gets lung cancer not be allowed to have their treatment funded?

Huh? No one should stop them from seeking help by donations if that's what you mean.

You didn't answer the question.

Try again.

I did. It's still there. Find a grown up to explain the words to you.

I interpret your answer as meaning that you don't think that taxpayers fund should be used to treat ANY person for ANY disease.

Fair enough.

When did I say anything like that? AIDS is 100% preventable these days, not so much when they let homosexual blood into the blood banks out of political correctness. It's like demanding we all pay for your damage from smacking yourself with a hammer. Knock yourself out!

 

[xotoxi]

Lucy...should a smoker who gets lung cancer not be allowed to have their treatment funded?

Huh? No one should stop them from seeking help by donations if that's what you mean.

You didn't answer the question.

Try again.

I did. It's still there. Find a grown up to explain the words to you.

I interpret your answer as meaning that you don't think that taxpayers fund should be used to treat ANY person for ANY disease.

Fair enough.

I never said this

I was talking to ICEWEASEL in that response.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have been cordial, yet you seem to have overlooked my question.

Yes you are cordial. I'm sorry, what was your question again

You mentioned that a patient with breast cancer should have their treatments paid for because they did not bring the cancer onto themselves, but that you don't think that AIDS medications should be pair for with taxpayers funds because risky behaviors are the cause for the disease.

Do you think that a smoker who has lung cancer should be denied taxpayer funded treatment?

How is AIDs like cancer?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I have been cordial, yet you seem to have overlooked my question.

Yes you are cordial. I'm sorry, what was your question again

You mentioned that a patient with breast cancer should have their treatments paid for because they did not bring the cancer onto themselves, but that you don't think that AIDS medications should be pair for with taxpayers funds because risky behaviors are the cause for the disease.

Do you think that a smoker who has lung cancer should be denied taxpayer funded treatment?

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.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Huh? No one should stop them from seeking help by donations if that's what you mean.

You didn't answer the question.

Try again.

I did. It's still there. Find a grown up to explain the words to you.

I interpret your answer as meaning that you don't think that taxpayers fund should be used to treat ANY person for ANY disease.

Fair enough.

I never said this

I was talking to ICEWEASEL in that response.

Oh

 

[mdk]

Does this include all STD's or just AIDS?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Does this include all STD's or just AIDS?

At the moment just AIDS, if we include all STD's it'll get too confusing.

 

[mdk]

Does this include all STD's or just AIDS?

At the moment just AIDS, if we include all STD's it'll get too confusing.

Why just AIDS though? It isn't really that confusing, no more funding for cures for all STDs.

 

[Iceweasel]

Does this include all STD's or just AIDS?

At the moment just AIDS, if we include all STD's it'll get too confusing.

Why just AIDS though? It isn't really that confusing, no more funding for cures for all STDs.

The problem is that AIDS is a very complicated fatal disease so very expensive to research and fund. If you don't have it and your partner doesn't have it, you can't get it unless you screw around. If you want to screw around the consequences should be on you and not the rest of us.

 

[mdk]

Does this include all STD's or just AIDS?

At the moment just AIDS, if we include all STD's it'll get too confusing.

Why just AIDS though? It isn't really that confusing, no more funding for cures for all STDs.

The problem is that AIDS is a very complicated fatal disease so very expensive to research and fund. If you don't have it and your partner doesn't have it, you can't get it unless you screw around. If you want to screw around the consequences should be on you and not the rest of us.

AIDS isn't the death sentence that is used to back in the 80's and 90's. Oh, I totally agree with you when it comes to promiscuous behavior. AIDS research should still be funded though.