What's The Point Of Taking Anti-Aids Meds?

[C10H15N]

I applaud your responsibility and the steps you have taken to protect yourself and your partners.

 

Having said that, OP's question about who should pay for your meds is well taken.  Truvada costs about $1500 a month retail.  That's before we get into doctor visits and blood testing and all that that goes along with PrEP.

 

And there are cheaper alternatives you could use to protect yourself that you have chosen not to.  You could use condoms, you could restrict your numbers of sex partners.  You've decided not to, which is fair enough.

 

But unless you're paying the $18,000 per year (which I certainly couldn't afford), then you're asking others to subsidize your choice.  Is that fair? 

 

I personally think that PrEP is a fantastic step forward.  I'm thrilled that guys now can take this step to protect themselves from HIV.  I look forward to the day when people suffering sickness and death from AIDS is a distant memory, and I think PrEP is going to be a big part of that.  But I can also see the other side of the argument too.

Before PrEP, I kept myself neg by practicing safer sex and in some cases dumb luck. The availability of preventative meds, insurance coverage, and being young enough to still fuck and enjoy a few years of barebacking have influenced my decision. I have no real influence over the drug cost and no qualms with the morality of using my health insurance for recreational purposes. My insurer obviously would rather pay for prevention than treatment. Fair? I've never found anything in life to be fair. If circumstances were to change to make prep unavailable or too expensive, then I would adapt my sexual behavior to keep my risk of infection at a level I can live with.

[cam1972]

One thing I've decided when discussing things online is not to read into people's intentions but simply to go off what was actually said.  It's really easy to get defensive and then everything can quickly degenerate into your standard variety internet shouting match (which really is boring).

 

Take his use of the word "deviant".  That's a loaded term, to be sure.  But what was he referring to?  Homosexuality generally?  Promiscuity?  Bugchasing?  Barebacking?  All of the above?  OP didn't say, so I don't think it's fair to make assumptions.

 

And in a strictly objective sense, all of those things are deviant, in the sense that they are deviations from the norm of mostly monogamous, heterosexual sex.  In that sense, we're all deviant!  And, of course, everyone is deviant in some way.  You could argue quite correctly that conservative Christians are deviants now because most Americans have no trouble with premarital sex, divorce, or homosexuality.  And I think they would be quite pleased to define themselves in opposition to mainstream society on those issues, just as people on this site define themselves in opposition to mainstream sexual mores in the opposite direction.

 

Moreover, while I do think that orientation is a morally neutral category, those other things, promiscuity, bugchasing, gift-giving, even barebacking, are not.  Hell, the moral transgression is a big part of the attraction!  But if you're going to get off on being a bad boy, you really shouldn't be surprised when people react to that.  Can't have it both ways.

I wasn't being defensive. If you would read post after post after post I've made encouraging guys not to chase and saying they don't want it, you would see I definitely don't get off on being a bad boy. Hell.. I haven't had sex in two years. I think I lost my bad boy status (if I ever had it) a long time ago. My response to the one post about making a generalization for "bible bashers" applies to the OP's post. He generalized. You can't make a blanket statement about any one group in society. I've never seen so much diversity as I have in the "gay community". Hell... In the poz community. What can be said about one person doesn't apply to all. We are all different. No one is alike. For example: You say for you, the moral transgression of barebacking is a big part of the attraction. Not for me. I don't even give that a thought. I just love skin on skin fucking. Has nothing to do with it being a social taboo. I don't give thought to the PC crap that has overtaken the world. I don't give thought to what Christians or Muslims say about homosexuality or barebacking. That's not what makes it appealing to me. If it is for others, cool All that said, I would normally agree with you in regards to not being able to read intent and tone in a written message. But just as I can't truly say what his intent was (even tho I have my opinion), neither can you. That also goes both ways. But I'm not here to argue that. Or argue period. I just gave my two cents' worth. I respect yours and agreed with it. And still do. But for someone to come on here and make statements about how we are costing others when I didn't chase it nor wanted it and can't do anything about that burden for others other than stopping my meds... I'm not going to be made to feel like shit about something that took too damn long for me to accept in the first place. I'm not surprised at his post. You spend any given amount of time on this site, and you are surprised by nothing on here. I'm definitely not having a shouting match but merely expressing my view points. And since intent and tone can't be read in text, I will state that I am neither upset or angry in this post. Or any others I have made. I am merely stating why I said what I said. And responding to your statements.

[tallslenderguy]

there's much cognitive dissonance involved in glorifying having hiv and then taking mediation to repress said hiv. do you want hiv or not? clearly you don't because you take medications to suppress it. almost all of you rely on insurance to pay for your medications meaning the rest of us are funding your deviant lifestyle with our taxes and insurance premiums. 

I'm only guessing, but given your screen name I'm making the assumption that the "deviant lifestyle" you refer to is "chasing"?  IDK.

 

Other's have already made some great points about your use of the word "deviant." Also, if you are going after the cost of barebacking, it's fair to also bring in practices/lifestyles that lead to diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity. I'm a critical care nurse and I can count on one hand the number of HIV+ patients I have cared for. I cannot begin to count the number of people I have cared for who have preventable diseases related to diet and exercise. But others have noted this too.

 

The "truth" is we would be hard pressed to find a person who does not have some practice or habit that is not healthy. Heck. look at the cigarette culture of the first half of the 20th century. Alcohol is a known carcinogen. 

 

I think more focus needs to go on the profitability of sickness. I think it's a little mercenary how "civilization" still makes huge profit from things like war and sickness.  I'm all for paying the scientist or doctor who spends years learning to be able to help sick people. I'm not as sure I'm in favor of paying a corporation profits made on the backs of these people. As already noted, the cost of HIV meds is far lower than the price tag (i.e., there's a lot of profit added in).  Why?

 

I think we miss the boat in society when we allow profitability to control the supply or development of meds or the provision of healthcare.  When I say "profitability," I do not refer to the wage earned by the scientist or caregiver, I refer to the people who hire these people and then make a profit from their labors. I think our taxes would be better spent paying the scientists and caregivers the same amount, but removing the people who exploit scientists and caregivers to make a profit. 

[NGE1992]

In my country we have public healthcare, so what is the diference between getting infected (assuming is not fortuitous or uder your control) HIV and smoking-related cancer if both are covered by the public heathcare and are both preventable?

Edited February 7, 2016 by NGE1992

[milkass]

 

There are so many things to take issue with in the OP's statement. But I'll take on just two. First: a lot on here didn't ask for the bug. Didn't chase and never wanted it. But they got it anyway. Being on here gives those people a little bit of a sense of belonging. Not judged for having what they didn't ask for. Until posts like these pop up. So of course they are going to take the meds. Why wouldn't they? Second: There are individuals on here that don't glorify HIV necessarily. They just enjoy bareback sex. Horses of a different color.

 

 

 

Obviously I'm not talking about people who didn't intentionally catch HIV. 

 

 

[milkass]

Thanks for whoever it was that clarified "deviance" ... there's nothing essentially wrong with being a deviant. But you know I mean if cannot afford to pay for the costs of your deviance then it's like saying to society "hey ... i'm gonna  go out and have this awesome carefree sex life and you are going to pay for it"

 

It's true you can make analogies with welfare moms and obese people etc ... but I mean what's your point? That you are ethically comparable to an obese welfare slob? Being a sloth should not be subsidized by society but Imean eating disorders can be complex. Eating is a necessary part of life and it's easy to overeat / under-eat if you have depression or anxiety issues metaolic issues, some fat people are perfectly healthy. I'm not saying it's good to be overweight, but eating addiction is a thing and I'm not convinced that your insatiable need to have random cum up your ass is really comparable .... smoking yeah but I mean smokers at least pay taxes on their cigarettes whille they are alive ..catching HIV intentionally safe in the knowledge that there is a medical safety net would be like if tax payers were paying you to smoke...

[milkass]

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously I'm not talking about people who didn't intentionally catch HIV. 

 

 

I'm not going to defend smoking but smokers do pay a massive tax on cigarettes.. in australia for example 70% of a pack of cigs goes straight to the government ... and insurance companies will ask you if you are a smoker as well .... you don't pay a tax every time you risk getting HIV by having bareback sex 

Edited February 7, 2016 by milkass

[milkass]

Ok... We don't like the generalizations made about gay people, right? So why do you feel the need to be hypocritical and make a generalization about "bible bashers"? I guarantee you that the vast majority of obese people never step foot in a church nor read a bible. While I agree with your point, I don't think pinning it on "bible bashers" is a fair thing to do. Are there Christians who are obese? Definitely. Is every obese person a Christian? No. Is every Christian obese? No. Is every gay person poz? No. Did every poz person chase? No. So generalizations aren't beneficial to an argument. They take away from the real issue. Attacking others only takes us down to other attackers level. And does nothing to encourage tolerance.

I agree. Whole heartedly. But I think there's a better way of doing it than attacking people. I don't believe for one minute the OP had any good intentions for posting. His statements make it out that everyone on here wanted the virus. To put it in a term everyone will understand: bullshit. That said, I have felt from the beginning that those who chase or deliberately infect have self worth issues. Or don't have any regard for their well being or anyone else's. I have found from experience that if you try to educate a chaser, more often than not, he just moves on to someone else that will infect him. I've also found that they can be extremely uneducated. They think it's a pass to fuck with anyone they want with no fear. That is a foolish notion since it cuts your pool of men who are willing to fuck a poz guy down quite a bit. I've had far less sex since being poz than I did before being poz. And they also don't think of the ramifications of being poz when it comes to one's health. But while I think education is key, I still believe it's something deeper emotionally or mentally. But again, I don't think the OP had any of this kind of conversation in mind when he posted. He was purely attacking. While I don't dwell on having HIV every moment of every day, I don't need some asshat coming on here and making me feel even less human for having it.

 

Thanks for posting that. You have a very well rounded perspective. I know exactly what you mean about trying to "educate people". You are 100% correct that I should not generalize. I think I just overreacted when I saw some rather nihilistic thread titles. Sometimes I get the sense that it is more of a fantasy than a reality. I hope it is to be honest. 

 

Apologies for being disrespectful. 

[subbytch]

I applaud your responsibility and the steps you have taken to protect yourself and your partners.

 

Having said that, OP's question about who should pay for your meds is well taken.  Truvada costs about $1500 a month retail.  That's before we get into doctor visits and blood testing and all that that goes along with PrEP.

 

And there are cheaper alternatives you could use to protect yourself that you have chosen not to.  You could use condoms, you could restrict your numbers of sex partners.  You've decided not to, which is fair enough.

 

But unless you're paying the $18,000 per year (which I certainly couldn't afford), then you're asking others to subsidize your choice.  Is that fair? 

 

I personally think that PrEP is a fantastic step forward.  I'm thrilled that guys now can take this step to protect themselves from HIV.  I look forward to the day when people suffering sickness and death from AIDS is a distant memory, and I think PrEP is going to be a big part of that.  But I can also see the other side of the argument too.

 

Yes, it's quite fair. 

We're paying across the board to subsidize others, from education, to transportation, to defense. That's part of society -- substation -- doing more together than any of us could do on our own.

The research is clear that most people, even with the best of intentions, aren't able to use condoms consistently. We're stopping more new infections by making HIV+ people undetectable AND by making HIV- "incapable" of seroconverting, as daily PrEP is as near to 100% effective in  stopping HIV.

Whatever near-term expense doing both of these entail, it saves money over the long term, lowering the numbers of new people converting, saving lives in the process. Plus? It makes it so people can fuck without condoms, increasing pleasure. Double-plus? People are getting checked out for STDs at regular intervals, probably more often than before.

 

I don't find any merit in either the OPs initial argument or your response. 

[subbytch]

I'm not going to defend smoking but smokers do pay a massive tax on cigarettes.. in australia for example 70% of a pack of cigs goes straight to the government ... and insurance companies will ask you if you are a smoker as well .... you don't pay a tax every time you risk getting HIV by having bareback sex 

 

Do you pay a tax every time you shake someone's hand? Decide not to wash your hands? Go outside without a mask? Decide to forgo a flu shot? No, you say?

 

Congrats, you are now at risk of catching a cold or a flu. And you are -far- more likely to catch a cold or a flu than you ever are for catching HIV. (Statistically speaking.) And the impact on society in lost wages, medical care, and, yes, even death, is freakishly high for some colds and flus, higher than from HIV. 

 

So, I'll tell you what. When you are advocating for a tax on people who get colds and flus -- because they obviously didn't protect themselves using all the methods known to modern science -- then I'll get on board with a tax on people who get HIV. In the mean time, I'm going to keep taking my PrEP, which my taxes (and Giilead's co-pay program) already pay for AND getting my flu shot every year. 

You can continue to be sanctimonious.

[RideMyBlkDik]

Yes, it's quite fair. 

We're paying across the board to subsidize others, from education, to transportation, to defense. That's part of society -- substation -- doing more together than any of us could do on our own.

The research is clear that most people, even with the best of intentions, aren't able to use condoms consistently. We're stopping more new infections by making HIV+ people undetectable AND by making HIV- "incapable" of seroconverting, as daily PrEP is as near to 100% effective in  stopping HIV.

Whatever near-term expense doing both of these entail, it saves money over the long term, lowering the numbers of new people converting, saving lives in the process. Plus? It makes it so people can fuck without condoms, increasing pleasure. Double-plus? People are getting checked out for STDs at regular intervals, probably more often than before.

 

I don't find any merit in either the OPs initial argument or your response.

Excellent response to this topic. We can all benefit from clear thinkers like you. Thank you.

[subbytch]

Excellent response to this topic. We can all benefit from clear thinkers like you. Thank you.

 

Thanks.  

 

Though I see I wrote "substation "   instead of "subsidization" in part of my reply. lol.

People forget what civilization means. Irritates the hell out of me.

[milkass]

Do you pay a tax every time you shake someone's hand? Decide not to wash your hands? Go outside without a mask? Decide to forgo a flu shot? No, you say?

 

Congrats, you are now at risk of catching a cold or a flu. And you are -far- more likely to catch a cold or a flu than you ever are for catching HIV. (Statistically speaking.) And the impact on society in lost wages, medical care, and, yes, even death, is freakishly high for some colds and flus, higher than from HIV. 

 

So, I'll tell you what. When you are advocating for a tax on people who get colds and flus -- because they obviously didn't protect themselves using all the methods known to modern science -- then I'll get on board with a tax on people who get HIV. In the mean time, I'm going to keep taking my PrEP, which my taxes (and Giilead's co-pay program) already pay for AND getting my flu shot every year. 

You can continue to be sanctimonious.

 

Actually I work so I pay cost price for antibiotics when I get a flu once every second year. I remember the last time I paid $64. So even if your analogy wasn't absurd it would still not be applicable. 

[lungfucker]

If your doctor is prescribing antibiotics for the flu, which is a viral disease, s/he's an idiot.  Antibiotics only work on bacterial diseases.

[travelingbutthole]

This discussion is a lot bigger than just HIV.

It goes to the core of the universal vs insurance funded healthcare debate.

 

The use of the word deviant was unfortunate as it implied a position of moral superiority.

I would argue that letting people die for financial reasons is not just immoral but inhuman but lets take that element out of the equation and look at it from a financial point of view.

 

The UK has the NHS that provides me with the meds for no direct cost but I do pay taxes so I do pay indirectly.

According to the internet Atripla costs the NHS approx £630/$900 and month.

Not cheap but it is about half the cost of the same medication in the US system.

 

The big picture is quite interesting.

Forbes puts the annual cost of employer subsidised healthcare for a family of 4 at over $24'000 to the US economy.

The same 4 people costs the UK system the equivalent of $11'500.

This fact is at odds with the idea that financial competition always brings the best service and lowest prices.

 

I truly believe that healthcare should function outside of any profit based system but isn't it logical to create a system of universal healthcare seeing as it would save the US $1'062'750'000'000 a year?

 

Data courtesy of 30 minutes rooting through Google.