Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 May 2000 21:11:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
434 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Tracey wrote:
> Mike Stanley wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > > None of these diseases have infected, and will kill, a quarter of the people
> > > in many African countries. Why is almost everyone ignoring this fact? These
> > > people are the reason we should try to find a cure. I doubt many of them have
> >
> > I'm not ignoring it. I just don't (personally) think they figure into my
> > own "how should the government that is funded by MY tax dollars spend my
> > money" equation, at least not more prominently than those "in need" in the US.
>
> So what you are saying is that you don't care that 250,000(1) people around the
> world get infected by HIV/AIDS every month? What makes you think that what
> goes on in other less developed parts of the world will not affect the USA?
> This is a viral plague- one that does not (typically) agree to any border
> or population. The only principles it follows are ecological ones.
>
> The US was/is a major cause of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The Reagan
> administration had it's chance to do something early on that could have
> drastically slowed down the spread of the virus(2). We should help
> pay for it now.
Whoa, now wait just a minute. The US a CAUSE, simply because "action" (i.e. public
money used to help develop drugs that the Private drug companies are profiting from)
wasn't taken fast enough? Think that statement through a bit more.
Africa had it's chance to do something to slow the spread in the 80s, and still isn't
doing much of anything. It seems to have originated there too. They should help pay
for it now.
Final point - demand that drugs be handed out simply because they are needed, and
damned the cost, and one of 2 things will happen:
1 - you'll bankrupt the public government (due to these VERY expensive maintenance
drugs being needed longterm, and the government agreeing to the price)
2 - drug companies will simply stop putting any money into research for something
they won't gain the R&D back from (due to the government basically saying "we won't
pay that much, we'll figure out a way to FORCE you to sell them to us for less), and
the next plague/disease/whatever will go unchecked a LOT longer.
Neither of which will help any other situation.
Note, I haven't said whether I am FOR or AGAINST the US paying for other countries'
drug supplies, nor whether they deserve it or not. I'm just playing devil's
advocate.
> -chris
>
> 1- about the number of people who live in Las Vegas, NV, that's a bunch
> 2- http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1990/ad900215.html
> http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1988/ad880042.html
> http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1988/ad881374.html
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) So what you are saying is that you don't care that 250,000(1) people around the world get infected by HIV/AIDS every month? What makes you think that what goes on in other less developed parts of the world will not affect the USA? This is a (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
