Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 May 2000 03:37:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
880 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?
That's a Hobson's choice, and a really unrealistic one to boot. But if it will
get you to answer much more important questions, OK.
Assuming those are the only two possible alternative answers (which they
aren't, there are tons of others such as the ones Mike outlines in his response
to you, next post after the one I am responding to) and assuming that either we
don't fund AIDS research at all, or we fund it A #1 top priority in exclusion
to all else...
I don't care, you pick. Neither alternative is realistic, nor is either one, as
you've outlined them, a good idea. Which one is worse? Dunno, don't care.
But, if answering will get YOU to stay on point, overlooking who asked what
first (you've ducked the personal responsibility answer in the general case
general for, what, a year now?).... <flips coin> I choose A, fund a cure.
....To the exclusion of all else, let the people who have genetic defects that
could be edited out before conception (and any of a thousand other things to
possibly fund, given we're in a mixed economy and I'm stuck with government
funding of biological research) die, who cares about them anyway, they don't
vote and they don't go to posh charity balls and get on the cover of People,
and they don't give heaps of money to pols... so that people who at this point
in time darn well know better get to party on and evade responsibility for
something that's preventable with a tiny bit of care in 98.7% of the cases.
Ya, that's my answer. Happy now?
Your turn.
Oh wait, you say, you weren't talking about funding AIDS research to the
exclusion of all else, you say? Weeeellll... I wasn't talking about NOT funding
it and funding everything else. I just don't think it's important enough to be
top of the list. Neither is research into preventing people from walking off
cliffs deserving to be top of the list. Some people DO walk off cliffs through
no fault of their own, you know.
Let's see if you can connect the dots there. Or are you going to reject the
analogy as irrelevant again? You're pretty predictable, bet you do yet again.
Round we go. Yawn. Who's bored with this topic? I sure am.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
