Should we care or should we not?

[tallslenderguy]

On 2/1/2024 at 9:02 AM, Cutedelicategay said:

My question is specifically for the western world where medical science has progressed and preventative medicines are now widely used.

Should we as a society still need to take the burden of providing HIV medications to new HIV infections?

As a healthcare professional on a critical care unit, i have witnessed that easily 85% of the patients we care for on our unit have diseases related to diet and 'lifestyle.'  As others have noted, given your rationale, these too would have to be included. The reality is most of these diseases are preventable and caused by what we eat and lack of exercise.  i'm talking evidence based stuff here, i have a computer full of published medical journal studies on the topic and have certification through Cornell University on reversal and prevention of disease process through diet. 

Not pinging on you. Most people have little to no idea about how deadly the Standard American Diet (SAD lol) is. i also have studies on healthy cultures that have progressed and copied the Western diet and now have the diseases  to go with it.  Thing is, most of us are just doing what comes natural, eating to satisfy our appetite, not for our health. When i tell my patients they can likely reverse their type two diabetes, they light up until i explain why they have it and what foods they love that causes it.  Suddenly, insulin doesn't seem so bad or expensive. 

[Phallarchist]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:02 PM, Cutedelicategay said:

It's a burden on tax payers

Yes, male homosexual behaviour is now subsidized by many governments. Were it not, many of us, perhaps a majority, would be dead, or dying in horrible ways. As a group, we have become permanent government dependents.

It only makes sense if you accept that homosexuality is a disorder like diabetes or multiple sclerosis and that the treatment regimen is somehow both frequent unprotected rectal penetration with multiple partners and expensive drugs to mitigate the disastrous health effects of said rectal penetration. I'm not complaining, because the accommodation serves my narrow interests, but the situation is objectively absurd.

[UKFFBBBtm]

 

PrEP can cause damage or issues with the kidneys and therefore some people can't take PrEP, there are also lots of other reasons that people might not be able to take or want to take PrEP.

Based on your argument these people should be denied HIV medication.

In the UK whilst we have the NHS, PrEP was only available from the NHS for a select few for many years whilst usage trials were being completed. If you weren't lucky enough to get on the list you had to buy it privately. If you couldn't afford it, some charities were providing it, but it was few and far between.

Thankfully PrEP became free on the NHS for high risk people. I have a bi friend who was denied PrEP for about a year because he wasn't deemed high risk enough. 

However based on your aargument anyone that can't afford it and isn't deemed high risk to get it for free should be denied HIV meds should they contract it because PrEP was available and its not the health care system fault that they're not eligible or able to afford it.

I see you're based in Canada and health care is similar to the UK so society does pay for it rather than insurance in the US, so let me spin it slightly differently. Why should society pay via NHS or Canada equivalent for child birth and all associated medical costs to raising a child? Either it was an unexpected pregnancy and therefore should be denied as there are many forms of contraception to prevent it, or it was a planned pregnancy and therefore why should society pay for the child?

[UKFFBBBtm]

Actually your argument can be stripped back further. 

Why should we be providing PrEP and HIV medication for free or at a discount, cost absorbed in taxes, when condoms exist.

It's not the fault of all the other people in society not engaging in risky sex so why should society foot the bill for any sexually transmitted disease because the person could have worn a condom.

Maybe you need to think before you type out a ridiculous post next time.

[hntnhole]

Ahhhhhh .... you know everything, don'tcha ..... Thanks !!!  Is your middle name Encyclopedia ??? 

[hntnhole]

17 hours ago, VersGuyAnon said:

The problem is many people don't have the benefit of education about HIV

Agreed.  That issue however, applies to many illnesses.  We all know that excess drinking, unhealthy eating habits, smoking, etc will impact our health, yet many just do it anyway, for whatever reason (or lack thereof). 

As I see it, caring for our health, with public school classes required in how to accomplish that, should be a requirement in all public schools, with materials in further depth included the older the kids get.  Private schools that accept public funding should also be held to the same standard, or lose the dough. 

"Private" schooling financial grants from the Government ( i.e. taxpayers), and when religious/cultural taboos are peddled right along with arithmetic, reading, writing, those private institutions can either accept the money and the requirements to get it, or bleed they're supporters for the money.  It's a cast-in-concrete "either-or" situation.    

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

why should society foot the bill for any sexually transmitted disease because the person could have worn a condom.

Thanks for your perspective, UKFFBBBtm,

Because as a Liberal Democracy, we citizens of the US agree that everyone gets to apply their freedoms in whatever way they want to, absent inflicting harm upon others.  

I realize that you're not in the US, but you're more than welcome here on BZ, as is everyone else in the world.  If a more repressive Government existed here, this very form, so valuable to many of us, would surely not exist.  

Following your logic, a drunk person could have taken a taxi, instead of driving home him/herself, getting into an accident and killing someone.  A thief could have chosen an empty house to rob while the inhabitants were away, instead of one when the family is at home, living their lives, and winds up harming (or worse) a resident of that house when he/she is discovered.  

Liberal Democracies tend to follow the "When all do better, the Nation does better" principle, and healthcare-for-all is a crucial component of that foundational premise.

 

[ellentonboy]

I just wonder how some of these people who are SO against funding HIV and other STD medications would feel if the "shoe was on the other foot" and they were the ones infected?  Talk about hypocrites.  They should be ashamed of themselves..........I won't call them out by screen name because I value my time here, but you can't show any compassion for fellow BZ members? Idiots.....

[hntnhole]

24 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

I won't call them out by screen name

That's probably best - since many of us can discern the same thing on our own.  No point in picking fights, right? 

[Cutedelicategay]

I have already made my intentions clear when I posted this question initially. No matter how we all collectively think in countries like Canada where health care is universal there is a huge divide in the society in order to bring some sanity to our health care system. Health care never becomes an election issue however changed done after leads to a lot of issues.

Case and point I hear no clear policy from the Armed Forces whether a member on Prep is deployable or not. It was very clear however now it has gone into Grey area. 

Again I apologize if this question is something that shouldn't be discussed here. Health care has been discussed a lot in Canada nowadays.

I request the moderators to lock this question and/or delete it.  I do not want to make members here agitated for no reason. I asked the question in the appropriate LGBT politics however I would like to get this closed so noone can answer.

[UKFFBBBtm]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

Thanks for your perspective, UKFFBBBtm,

Because as a Liberal Democracy, we citizens of the US agree that everyone gets to apply their freedoms in whatever way they want to, absent inflicting harm upon others.  

I realize that you're not in the US, but you're more than welcome here on BZ, as is everyone else in the world.  If a more repressive Government existed here, this very form, so valuable to many of us, would surely not exist.  

Following your logic, a drunk person could have taken a taxi, instead of driving home him/herself, getting into an accident and killing someone.  A thief could have chosen an empty house to rob while the inhabitants were away, instead of one when the family is at home, living their lives, and winds up harming (or worse) a resident of that house when he/she is discovered.  

Liberal Democracies tend to follow the "When all do better, the Nation does better" principle, and healthcare-for-all is a crucial component of that foundational premise.

 

You took my quote out of context, I was using the OP logic against them, why should we foot the bill for anything when there is already preventative measures in place that's essentially what the OP was saying and I was pointing out the parallels that could be applied to the same logic.

I don't agree with OP and I don't think anyone should stop funding anything that would remove people's freedoms, as long as you're not hurting anyone else and it's within the law then people should do what they want. 

[brnbk]

On 2/1/2024 at 12:02 PM, Cutedelicategay said:

I know this maybe a touchy question for some but that's not the intention at all. 

My question is specifically for the western world where medical science has progressed and preventative medicines are now widely used...................It's a burden on tax payers for someone's risky behaviors...................Please be respectful in your responses.

To answer this question, we need to first respect history and begin, by taking a good look at it. Medical sciences originated, and was practiced in the East(Egypt, India, Americas -Inca, Maya) for at least 3500 years before the West got a whiff of it. Asia and the Americas had made breakthroughs in medicine and invention, while Europe learnt and copied them. I am not suggesting that someone of Asian or American descent is necessarily more civilized than someone who traces their origins to Europe, as the reasons for the Asiatic origins of Civilization rather than European can be explained by the wonderful Truism - Necessity is the mother of Invention - White people lived in Europe and did not face the diverse climatic conditions that Asians and Americans had to conquer, and which required invention and medicine. In the past 250 years with the large scale migration of the Westerners into what was Eastern lands due to imperialism and colonization,  the West adopted Medical Science and indeed became a pioneer in it. This was largely funded by the gold of the Indians and the colonies, almost much of it was mercilessly looted and helped the newly arrived European tribes to Americanize themselves and establish themselves into someone else's homeland. To add insult to Inquisition, native American tribes where systematically diseased out by the invading European tribes and eventually marginalized in their own Continent, without any compensation for their land, gold or civilization.  

The reason why I mention the history and tried to follow the money trail, is to make sure we understand that no "western government" – by which I think u mean the governments of US and Canada etc., – deserve any kind of opportunities to make money from medicine, diseasing people etc., as they have already made enough money through it. The wealth of the colonies was created by murder, loot and pandemica of its natives  

It is a well established fact that Aids became a full global crisis simply because the Republican and right wing government lead by Regan did not show any initiate to try to deal with this issues as the group that was predominantly affected in the United States by AIDS where gay men. HIV/Aids was seen as a punishment from the white Christian god who disapproved of sodomy and was initially even named "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency". I doubt if the government would have been so slow to act  if pregnant  women suddenly faced a health crisis, say in prenatal health; would the US government be blaming the inherent sinfulness of Women or even mother Eve, for it? or actually work  within doctors to find a solution. The only reasons gays where treated differently from other citizen groups of the United States was because homosexuals where considered a threat to the established white family order of the US. Gay man when choosing to pursue the homosexual lifestyle in an assertive fashion threaten the social order of the United States. The operative word is in an assertive fashion i.e. refusing to follow the well established hypocrisy of the past of doing ones duties and having children, raising white christian children so as to create more WASP individuals. 

 

AIDS is not anyone's fault. least of all Aids victims. No human being is to blame for the harms done by a Virus. Gay men did not choose to become HIV positive. HIV is a virus and gay men are not to blame for it. Actually in Africa its straight people who are predominantly HIV positive. There are no sane arguments for the non treatment of HIV AIDS. the only arguments that favor a price for HIV Aids treatments are those rooted in plain bigotry towards gay or a Nazi like attitude towards human beings and medical science. The poor are human, with a christian soul and deserve treatment, just like anybody else. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4 by brnbk

[brnbk]

On 2/3/2024 at 3:39 PM, hntnhole said:

I ask again:  Why are we limited to only one "upvote"?  tallslenderguy's comments deserve at least a dozen (per respondent).

Unfortunately, I believe there are limits to the amount of reactions one can do in a day . I am getting an error message "Sorry, you cannot add any more reactions today." 

 

[hntnhole]

I think the way you "earn" the ability to offer more reactions is to reply to more comments (I mean text) from other guys, and/or create more of your own threads.  Keep at it - it may take a little while, but it's not a tough nut to crack.

 

Edited February 5 by hntnhole

[hntnhole]

23 hours ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

You took my quote out of context

In that case, my apologies.