• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California goes broke, halts $3.5 billion in payments

Are you in the position to quantify the cost of increased spread of HIV? If not, than i do not see the point of your first comment, other than subjectiveness...

Uh, that was the point.

You responded to an argument that NEP programs should be cut by extolling their virtues. I pointed out that that's a completely irrelevant point without more information.
 
Uh, that was the point.

You responded to an argument that NEP programs should be cut by extolling their virtues. I pointed out that that's a completely irrelevant point without more information.

The benefits of HIV reduction are implied though, as it is quite difficult to argue short run costs vs long run costs in regards to a disease that is progressively spread through dirty needles.

here is something to ponder:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/AIDS/Documents/SA-3-OverviewSEPsCA.pdf

A study of 81 cities around the world compared HIV infection rates among IDUs in cities that had SEPs to cities that did not. In the 29 cities with SEPs, HIV infection rates decreased by an average of 5.8 percent per year.

How much exactly is a 5.8% decrease in HIV worth in tax payers money?

In the 52 cities without 1 Bluthenthal, R. Syringe Exchange Program Diversity and Correlates of HIV Risk: Preliminary results from the California Syringe Exchange Program Study. Presentation to the California Department of Health Services, Office of AIDS, April 22, 2003. Sacramento, CA. Office of AIDS 3 January 2008 California Department of Public Health SEPs, HIV infection rates increased by 5.9 percent per year. The study concluded that there is strong evidence that SEPs lead to lower levels of HIV among IDUs

Economic studies have predicted that SEPs could prevent HIV infections among clients, their sex partners, and offspring at a cost of about $13,000 per infection averted.4 This is significantly less than the lifetime cost of treating an HIV-infected person, which is estimated to be $253,196.5 One estimate suggested that a national program of syringe exchange would have saved almost 10,000 lives by 1995

Would you be so kind as to provide the aggregate cost of these programs in the state of California, that way we can further this discussion?
 
You know what would suck though, if a chick who shoots up contracts HIV (unknowingly) because she began sharing needles due to the abolishment of the local NEP.

I have no sympathy for someone who shoots up. I especially have no sympathy for someone who is so sloppy about their habits that they endanger themselves.

Then the next time she sells her ***** to a Jon without wrapping it up, he brings HIV home to his wife.

I have even less sympathy for the slag who sells her body and the reject loser who thinks that ****ing a prostitute is safe under any condition.

The Jon eventually feels guilty, and tells her which causes the wife to go off and screw the milkman (without wrapping it up)...

We all know the tune...no sympathy.

I know i know, "if people did not do heroin and cheat on their spouses, this would never happen." If my aunt had balls she would be uncle Vickie.;)

I don't see the point.

NEP's are proven to reduce HIV spread in their area. Yes people still share needles from NEP's, but not all of 'em.

Perhaps HIV is Darwin's way of telling us some people should be cut out of the gene pool and they will do so by their own stupidity.
 
Just put a 100% real estate tax on Beverly Hills and they can pay off their debt.
 
Just put a 100% real estate tax on Beverly Hills and they can pay off their debt.

Maybe they should have a celeb stupidity tax. Brittany Spears alone would prob. cover the shortfall.
 
I have no sympathy for someone who shoots up. I especially have no sympathy for someone who is so sloppy about their habits that they endanger themselves.



I have even less sympathy for the slag who sells her body and the reject loser who thinks that ****ing a prostitute is safe under any condition.



We all know the tune...no sympathy.



Perhaps HIV is Darwin's way of telling us some people should be cut out of the gene pool and they will do so by their own stupidity.

Draconian punishment for all those who's actions i do not agree with! *sarcasm*

I don't see the point.

It is hard to grasp the concept when personal beliefs conflict with self interests.

BTW, who cares what you have sympathy for:confused: Do you care if i have sympathy St. Judes patients?
 
Last edited:
The benefits of HIV reduction are implied though, as it is quite difficult to argue short run costs vs long run costs in regards to a disease that is progressively spread through dirty needles.

here is something to ponder:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/AIDS/Documents/SA-3-OverviewSEPsCA.pdf

LOL at whatever idiot researcher who thought that was a reliable testing method. Let's try to brainstorm a possible factor that could skew this study. Hmmm.....could it be that cities that are developed enough and have the money to implement things like SEP's are just generally more likely to have lower HIV transmission rates than cities like Cape Town or Mumbai? :lol:

How much exactly is a 5.8% decrease in HIV worth in tax payers money?

Assuming that's true, why don't you tell me? You're the one arguing that it's worth it.

Would you be so kind as to provide the aggregate cost of these programs in the state of California, that way we can further this discussion?

Why the **** would I do that?
 
Draconian punishment for all those who's actions i do not agree with! *sarcasm*

Not funding a social program is a "draconian punishment?"

edit: Also, weren't you a Ron Paul guy?
 
Draconian punishment for all those who's actions i do not agree with! *sarcasm*

Who, pray tell, is handing out any kind of punative action here? If the slut and the lecherous dog aren't willing to maintain their own health, how does it suddenly become the State's problem and the tax payers' burden to do it for them?

Draconian punishment my ass. You don't know the meaning of the words because you can't even differentiate between your emotional hyperbole the reality of personal responsibility.

It is hard to grasp the concept when personal beliefs conflict with self interests.

Wait...aren't personal beliefs what drive self interest? How do you arrive at the idea that those are in conflict? Do you know what you are saying or are you just being emotional over the heroine whore and her johns?

BTW, who cares what you have sympathy for:confused: Do you care if i have sympathy St. Judes patients?

Not really because St. Jude's doesn't rely on you to take care of their patients. If you were required to fund a program of St. Jude's that you disagree with, then I might consider your opinion on St Jude's patients something of worth. Until then....
 
Last edited:
Not funding a social program is a "draconian punishment?"

edit: Also, weren't you a Ron Paul guy?

What does a "Ron Paul" guy mean? I never did understand the guy because I found it hard to sit through one of his whiney little speeches.
 
What does a "Ron Paul" guy mean? I never did understand the guy because I found it hard to sit through one of his whiney little speeches.

I seem to remember Goldenboy ranting about the Fed and talking about how Ron Paul would cut all spending out and bring America into the golden age of freedom.

That makes his support for the liberalest of liberal social programs all the more hilarious.
 
I seem to remember Goldenboy ranting about the Fed and talking about how Ron Paul would cut all spending out and bring America into the golden age of freedom.

That makes his support for the liberalest of liberal social programs all the more hilarious.

All the Ron Pauligans did was parrot the most asinine bulleted talking points about isolating ourselves, cutting the government down to minimal operations, and screech hyperboles describing the government as some monstrous entity that was sitting over the Constitution with a magic eraser to take out the Bill of Rights one by one.

The difference between a normal person and a Ron Pauligan is a paranoid LSD trip.
 
LOL at whatever idiot researcher who thought that was a reliable testing method. Let's try to brainstorm a possible factor that could skew this study. Hmmm.....could it be that cities that are developed enough and have the money to implement things like SEP's are just generally more likely to have lower HIV transmission rates than cities like Cape Town or Mumbai? :lol:

What does that have to do with the fact that HIV spread was reduced in SEP/NEP cities? Are you arguing that a decreased rate is is negligible because HIV spreads fast in non developed cities?

Weak tactic though. Are we to assume you are the authority on HIV research?:roll:


Assuming that's true, why don't you tell me? You're the one arguing that it's worth it.

AKA cover and run. Yes, the cost of the programs completely underscore their benefits...

Why the **** would I do that?

I would not want to do this either if it were plausible that the benefits of these programs far outweigh the costs, being that i was skeptical of that programs effectiveness.

Why the **** did you bother to reply to me in the first place?
 
Not funding a social program is a "draconian punishment?"

edit: Also, weren't you a Ron Paul guy?

Do the ramifications of cheating and shooting up with dirty needles warrant a death sentence? If you answer yes, then i believe it is a Draconic opinion.


BTW, what does my support of Ron Paul have to do with this debate? Completely irrelevant, but i do understand why you feel it necessary. When you cannot refute, attack!
 
What does that have to do with the fact that HIV spread was reduced in SEP/NEP cities? Are you arguing that a decreased rate is is negligible because HIV spreads fast in non developed cities?

Weak tactic though. Are we to assume you are the authority on HIV research?:roll:

No, I'm someone who once took a course on statistics and understands the concept of correlation v. causation. I would suggest you do the same.

AKA cover and run. Yes, the cost of the programs completely underscore their benefits...

I would not want to do this either if it were plausible that the benefits of these programs far outweigh the costs, being that i was skeptical of that programs effectiveness.

Why the **** did you bother to reply to me in the first place?

Because you made a completely fatuous argument. All I pointed out was:

Whether or not something is generally a net positive is not the same as whether or not something is economically efficient.

And 20 posts later, I see that you're still missing the point.
 
I seem to remember Goldenboy ranting about the Fed and talking about how Ron Paul would cut all spending out and bring America into the golden age of freedom.

That makes his support for the liberalest of liberal social programs all the more hilarious.

I do not like the Fed, mostly because they are a monopoly which undermines the market system. Not sure what that has to do with this topic though.

Secondly, Ron Paul never stated he would cut all spending, only Federal spending that was unnecessary. We are arguing about a state program, of which the states have all the authority to devise whatever program they see fit IMO.
 
Do the ramifications of cheating and shooting up with dirty needles warrant a death sentence? If you answer yes, then i believe it is a Draconic opinion.

Death is indeed a draconian punishment for cheating. However, you're conflating jallman's belief that these programs should not be funded with an actual imposition of said punishment. If jallman had stated that he believes cheaters should be forcibly injected with HIV, then your statement would have made sense.

BTW, what does my support of Ron Paul have to do with this debate? Completely irrelevant, but i do understand why you feel it necessary. When you cannot refute, attack!

It adds nuance and flavor.

I do not like the Fed, mostly because they are a monopoly which undermines the market system. Not sure what that has to do with this topic though.

Secondly, Ron Paul never stated he would cut all spending, only Federal spending that was unnecessary. We are arguing about a state program, of which the states have all the authority to devise whatever program they see fit IMO.

Of course, but in my experience, the vast majority of Paulites like to style themselves as libertarians. This isn't quite a libertarian program.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm someone who once took a course on statistics and understands the concept of correlation v. causation. I would suggest you do the same.

Then put up or shut up. Specifically state the flaw in the study.


Because you made a completely fatuous argument. All I pointed out was

LOL, which was?



And 20 posts later, I see that you're still missing the point.

It is accepted that SEP/NEP's reduce the spread of HIV, of which the cost of doing so is fractional to the total benefit of the given state. Your talking out of a paper ***. So prove it or be gone!
 
Death is indeed a draconian punishment for cheating. However, you're conflating jallman's belief that these programs should not be funded with an actual imposition of said punishment. If jallman had stated that he believes cheaters should be forcibly injected with HIV, then your statement would have made sense.

If it could have been preventable, as my exagerated example concluded, then those who were partaking in those actions would not have the death sentence. Besides, my response was in regards to Jallman's "Darwinism" statement.



It adds nuance and flavor.

But is about as relevant as my breakfast this morning.

Of course, but in my experience, the vast majority of Paulites like to style themselves as libertarians. This isn't quite a libertarian program.

Anarchists mascarading as libertarians give true libertarians a bad name. You would be absolutely correct if it were a federally mandated program. Also, Jallman has all the right to disagree, but his disagreement does not constitute the program as ineffective in terms of its goal, and cost efficiency.
 
Then put up or shut up. Specifically state the flaw in the study.

Uh.....

LOL at whatever idiot researcher who thought that was a reliable testing method. Let's try to brainstorm a possible factor that could skew this study. Hmmm.....could it be that cities that are developed enough and have the money to implement things like SEP's are just generally more likely to have lower HIV transmission rates than cities like Cape Town or Mumbai?

No, I'm someone who once took a course on statistics and understands the concept of correlation v. causation.

If that doesn't explain it for you, I'm not going to bother going any further.


LOL, which was?

?? Read the ****ing post.

"Whether or not something is generally a net positive is not the same as whether or not something is economically efficient."

It is accepted that SEP/NEP's reduce the spread of HIV, of which the cost of doing so is fractional to the total benefit of the given state.

Link?

Your talking out of a paper ***. So prove it or be gone!

I don't need to, nor am I trying to, prove anything. You're doing a fine job of that yourself.
 
All the Ron Pauligans did was parrot the most asinine bulleted talking points about isolating ourselves, cutting the government down to minimal operations, and screech hyperboles describing the government as some monstrous entity that was sitting over the Constitution with a magic eraser to take out the Bill of Rights one by one.

The difference between a normal person and a Ron Pauligan is a paranoid LSD trip.

Wow, way to underscore the topic!

You are either borderline delusional, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in regards to Dr. Paul and libertarian philosophy.
 
If it could have been preventable, as my exagerated example concluded, then those who were partaking in those actions would not have the death sentence. Besides, my response was in regards to Jallman's "Darwinism" statement.

Let me get this straight - If someone dies, and that death was preventable, then that means that everyone who did not try to prevent that death instituted a "Draconian punishment" on the dead guy?

:rofl

Also, can you clarify what you meant when you said this:

The above posts basically outlines why i am against UHC in the US. People here live really unhealthy lifestyles (smokers, over eaters, extreme sportsman, extreme dieters, etc...), and if they dont care about their health, why should someone else foot the bill when reality checks in?

...

As much as i disagree with you on some social policies, you speak the truth. I want to live a long and prosperous life, but i dont want to spend even a % of that time working to pay for someone who has no desire to do the same.

Y'know, it's funny, because that sounds kind of exactly like what jallman said.

I can't wait to hear this explanation.
 
Uh.....





If that doesn't explain it for you, I'm not going to bother going any further.




?? Read the ****ing post.


I don't need to, nor am I trying to, prove anything. You're doing a fine job of that yourself.

You cannot claim that a level 200 course in statistics and an opinion is sufficient to prove the study false. You fail until you can prove it.

Whether or not something is generally a net positive is not the same as whether or not something is economically efficient.

Then prove it is either net negative or inefficient. You have yet to do either, but instead attack me and my source.
 
Let me get this straight - If someone dies, and that death was preventable, then that means that everyone who did not try to prevent that death instituted a "Draconian punishment" on the dead guy?

:rofl

Also, can you clarify what you meant when you said this:



Y'know, it's funny, because that sounds kind of exactly like what jallman said.

I can't wait to hear this explanation.

Quit cherry picking my posts. It was addressed to Jallman's "Darwin" comment, and nothing more.

As far as my statement is concerned, i am referring to a nationalized program, not a state program.

In case you have yet to receive the memo, i believe in states rights:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom