Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 May 2000 16:48:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1011 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > ED: My name is Lar, not LAR. By spelling it or capitalizing it
> > in a way that I don't choose, you are...
When I first read this I just knew (incorrectly) that it would end with
something like "infringing on my trade dress." Oh well. Hey Lar, do you
prefer Lar or Larry?
> [snip a bunch of insurance discussion - I plead ignorance - I haven't owned a
> car in 18 years]
Wow. I'd heard that about NYC inhabitants, but...wow. European
friends of mine don't understand this, but transportation is foolishly
important to me. I've owned my own car since I was eighteen. I don't forsee a
time prior to when I can leave this world that I won't own a car.
> > Which is flawed, but your point is valid. In fact, when responsibility cannot
> > be established, it is reasonable to expect that someone gets stuck with it.
> > You prefer a system in which that someone is whoever happens to have the
> > deepest pockets rather than making any effort to assign responsibility.
If something bad happens to me, and no one can be found at fault, or no one
_is_ at fault, I want to take care of myself. I don't want to be a ward of the
state. I want to be a man.
> My point again, is that even
> though someone knows the risks involved, they are not always morally nor
> financially responsible for the risk taken.
At some level they are.
> When did I say I wanted insurance companies regulated? Please cite.
I'm not going to try to prove to you that you want insurance companies
regulated...but don't you? I would have figured from other stuff that I've
read, that you would be pro regulation in this case.
> But to your argument, those insurance companies would do
> very well. Prudential Pre-First Accident Insurance. They
> would have cheaper rates, they could dump any customer anytime
> they wanted. The customer would then have to go to a higher
> rate insurance company.
Yeah, I was thinking that Larry's claim might be wrong. In a free economy,
there are many niches and if an insurer can survive providing that kind of
insurance, then more power to them. I see no problem with that, if that's the
kind of coverage that people want.
> > YOU get to
> > decide how my money is spent because you give more to political lobbies and
> > act up on TV for the benefit of the media? What kind of priority scheme is
> > that?
>
> Its the kind of priority scheme that was needed to get any Federal Aids
> Reasearch funding in the first place.
Was it? In '90 and '91 I lived with a gay man for almost two years and read
some of the issues of The Advocate that he got. They were fond of pointing out
that homosexuals made considerably over the mean income. If that's the
case, and one in ten people are gay -- which they also supported, then why not
just have the gay community fund the research? Surely with more than 1/10 of
the national (or world-wide) economy available you could have mobilized
considerable effort on your own. Instead the effort went into lobbying for
your bit of the treasury. (And this sounds like I might be faulting you
(plural), which isn't the case. I blame the system, not the people who take
advantage of it.)
> But as to your question:
> - "You're all in favor of personal choice when it comes to what YOU want to
> do, but not for anyone else, eh?"
>
> Never said that, I'm in favor of free choice for all. But choices should be
> made for the benefit of all.
This presents an interesting perceived paradox. What do you mean? Should I
have free choice? Or should I be forced to do what's best for all? You might
mean (and if so, I agree) that I should have ultimate freedom, but should (in
an unenforcable sense) work to guide my (global)community toward something
better.
> > That's the whole point of this entire thread, everything else is a side
issue.
Sometimes the side issues are more interesting to beat than the old grey mare.
> What criteria do you use to do cost benefit analysis of medical research?
> Until the research is complete, the costs cannot be analyzed. Neither can the
> beneficiality of the research.
That was my question too, but I bet there are economic models that can be
applied based on past examples and our knowledge of systems and epidemiology.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) the (...) For research of course one can't use pure cost/benefit analysis. There has to be risk and potential analysis also. Also, some amount of basic research must continue, so that you don't purely allocate money by ranking all the possible (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: [snip] (...) a (...) Then you'll never understand the freedom of not owning a car, not having that responsibility. WHen I need a car, I rent one. But for the cost of car payments, NYC car (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Sorry if you were offended by the all caps Lar, didn't even realize I typed it that way (6:00a.m. pre-coffee). Give me a break, if I was going to name call, I'd do a whole lot better than that. :') (...) So in essence, you are saying that, (...) (24 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
