Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 May 2000 23:34:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
822 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> You'll get my answers once you have answered my question (which YOU have
> refused to answer and I am now asking now for the THIRD time) - Most AIDS
> victims become disabled, lose their health care benefits and become reliant on
> Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. Is it more fiscally responsible to
> fund
> AIDS research for maintenance drugs and/or a cure to keep victims alive and
> working OR to stop funding AIDS research forcing the victims to join the
> SS/Medicare/caid rolls?
I may be wrong, but I think Larry's answer to this question will be similar to
mine. If I were to agree that we should be funding SS & Medicaid/Medicare at
all (and for the most part I don't) I might agree that money spent on research
to find a cure/vaccine would be wiser spent than money on taking care of them
once they're really bad off.
As far as SS is concerned, I'd just like to be able to opt out 100%. Not some
single digit percentage like Bush may want to pretend I have some control
over. I'd be willing to sign a waiver of all benefits that I might ever
receive from SS in exchange for getting to keep all that money and invest it
myself.
> Wrong again Lar, you say "yours [i.e. my compassion] is for the rotter". Well
> Lar, I have compassion for both the deserving and rotter. I have compassion
> for all. You have compassion ONLY for those who meet YOUR criteria for
> deserving compassion, and that is unjust and inhumane.
My criteria for those who deserve compassion is relatively broad and fairly
well defined. I'd be willing to bet you _don't_ feel compassion for all (feel
compassion for child molesters put in prison who end up having the tables
turned on them?) and if you don't have compassion for some because of
something they might do (bad things) what's the difference between that and
not having it for people who "aren't deserving"?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: [snip] (...) that (...) to (...) to (...) You'll get my answers once you have answered my question (which YOU have refused to answer and I am now asking now for the THIRD time) - Most AIDS victims (...) (25 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
