Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 May 2000 23:30:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
856 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
[snip]
> > [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.
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 insurance, and parking, I can take one hell of a lot of cabs
and still be ahead of the game costwise.
> 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.
As do the majority of people. However, life sometimes deals you a really bad
hand.
[snip]
> 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.
I guess in a sense I am pro insurance regulation. If it weren't for insurance
regulation, the insurance companies could discriminate against the poor, those
in ghettos, etc. by refusing to offer policies. Also, insurance regulation has
forced auto insurance rates lower (In NJ in particular).
[snip]
> > > 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?
In the beginning we did, and we still do.
In a sense, we were attempting earmarking. Our point was that, since we are
paying 10% of the taxes into the Federal Budget, how could the government
refuse to fund research on a disease that was killing us? It was taxation
without representation. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party.
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.)
We were not trying to take advantage of the system, we were trying to get the
system to realize that we even existed.
> > 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 is exactly what I meant.
> > > 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 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Say on, brother! I'm 29 and have never had a license, nor have I ever really wanted one. Regretably, circumstances will soon force me to sell out to The Man, but I've done just fine--and saved many dollars on insurance--without a car up to (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) 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? (...) Wow. I'd heard that about NYC inhabitants, but...wow. European friends (...) (24 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
