• 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!

Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

kerussll said:
Is it your assumption that more people have breast cancer than AIDS? Because that is wrong. In 2010, 1.5 million people were diagnosed with breast cancer worldwide. In 2009, there were 2.6 million new cases of AIDS and 1.8 million deaths from AIDS. (Compare to 0.5 million deaths from breast cancer) There are almost 17 million children orphaned by AIDS now.

Any way you look at it (infection rates, cure rates, death rates, age of people affected, children affected) AIDS is clearly the worse disease. It's not logical that you are outraged more money is going towards AIDS research.

Breast Cancer Statistics Worldwide | Worldwide Breast Cancer

Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics

WHO | Cancer
Click to expand...

The American tax payer is not responsable for the world. Here is the stats for America.

•About 1 in 8 U.S. women (just under 12%) will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime.
•In 2011, an estimated 230,480 new cases of invasive breast cancer were expected to be diagnosed in women in the U.S., along with 57,650 new cases of non-invasive (in situ) breast cancer.

U.S. Breast Cancer Statistics

Now lets compare that to AIDS cases per year and as you see the amount of AIDS diagnosis per year is minuscule in comparison.

HIV incidence



Year

Estimated new HIV infections




2006

48,600



2007

56,000



2008

47,800



2009

48,100


The estimated amount of new infections each year, calculated with mathematical modelling.4


So the question is why does AIDS get over four times the research funding That breast cancer gets? Does anyone care to float a theory on that and attempt to justfy the disproportionate spending?

Like they say in the infomercials, " But WAIT, theres more".


The Domestic HIV/AIDS Budget

Care: The largest component of the federal AIDS budget is
health care services and treatment for people living with
HIV/AIDS in the U.S., which totals $15.6 billion in the FY 2013

So we the American taxpayer are on the hook for 3 billion a year for AIDS research and another 15.6 billion to support people with AIDS after the are diagnosed with the disease. If you add up all the spending on all the other diseases I doubt you would reach this number. Anyone get my point yet?

Here I will throw this in as a sample of spending on other diseases vs AIDS for your reading pleasure

2010 Spending
(in millions)
Cancer type

Lung

$247.6

$246.9

$281.9



Prostate

285.4

293.9

300.5



Breast

572.6

599.5

631.2



Colorectal

273.7

264.2

270.4



Bladder

24.1

25.9

22.6



Melanoma

110.8

103.7

102.3



Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma

122.6

130.9

122.4



Kidney

43.4

45.2

44.6



Thyroid

14.6

14.7

15.6
 
We should have contained and isolated it when it was first discovered, but we didn't, and now it's a huge problem. Because of that failure we have to spend tax money on developing better treatments for it, as well as educating people on it. It is a very real threat to national health which can't be taken lightly.
 
Surtr said:
We should have contained and isolated it when it was first discovered, but we didn't, and now it's a huge problem. Because of that failure we have to spend tax money on developing better treatments for it, as well as educating people on it. It is a very real threat to national health which can't be taken lightly.
Click to expand...

We know exactly what causes AIDS and exactly how to not contract AIDS. 99% of those that get it did so with the same disregard for personal safety as someone who steps out in front of a speeding bus. We owe them nothing.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Yes. At a minimum we should continue to fund prevention education to younger people.

I've struggled with saying this but I'll go ahead and do it. In certain circles outside of the US its suspected that HIV is the result of a covert US bio-warfare research program that turned out to be worse than imagined, incurable, contagious, terminal and spread to millions of innocent people worldwide. I'm not saying I agree with that assertion as obviously there is no proof. However, with the history of the Tuskegee Experiment; the fact that during the Cold War there were understandably various covert research projects going on (heck, as recently as the Clinton Administration there was a covert research program that tried to make enemy soldiers homosexuals on the battlefield Air Force Considered Gay 'Love Bomb' Against Enemies | Fox News ); the fact that aids is a relatively new disease where unlike cancer, diabetes or heart disease that are as old as humanity itself, people only started getting aids in the 1970s and the new scientific field of genetic engineering, nothing would surprise me. If we caused it, and I doubt if we did we'd ever admit it, we have a responsibility to help cure it.
 
I believe Sawyer is just expressing his frustration with the way a lot of things in his world view fell apart.

Instead of a broad sweep of personally preventable disease such as obesity, smoking, drinking, risky behaviors like skydiving, bike riding, mountain climbing, I suppose the list could go on and on...

No he picks one thing and then holds up children being 'robbed' of funding because tax dollars are going to AIDS.

But would those dollars go to children's diseases?

Should we wheel those coming into the ER with over the limit blood alcohol to the side because they should not have drunk so much?

His insistence that because some druggies and gays are the stereotypical examples those who contract the disease because their life partner, straight or gay, had unprotected sex and brought the disease home.

Belittle that fact all you want, but it still is a fact.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
We know exactly what causes AIDS and exactly how to not contract AIDS. 99% of those that get it did so with the same disregard for personal safety as someone who steps out in front of a speeding bus. We owe them nothing.
Click to expand...

That's an overly simplistic, and highly moronic view of the situation.
 
notquiteright said:
I believe Sawyer is just expressing his frustration with the way a lot of things in his world view fell apart.

Instead of a broad sweep of personally preventable disease such as obesity, smoking, drinking, risky behaviors like skydiving, bike riding, mountain climbing, I suppose the list could go on and on...

No he picks one thing and then holds up children being 'robbed' of funding because tax dollars are going to AIDS.

But would those dollars go to children's diseases?

Should we wheel those coming into the ER with over the limit blood alcohol to the side because they should not have drunk so much?

His insistence that because some druggies and gays are the stereotypical examples those who contract the disease because their life partner, straight or gay, had unprotected sex and brought the disease home.

Belittle that fact all you want, but it still is a fact.
Click to expand...

I asked a question in my previous post. Can any of you justify spending over four times as much on AIDS than on breast cancer which one in eight women will get in their lifetime. This does not even count the 15.6 billion we spend keeping drug addicts, crack whores and gays that refused to wear rubbers alive. Look at the pie chart I posted, there is only 1% of people with AIDS that do not fall into these categories.Apparently you have no answer for that so you choose to make me the subject of your post instead.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on which problem is more prevelant. Part of AIDs prevention comes with access to condoms. Rich or poor you can always have sec with a whore. There are also kids born with it to think about.
 
Contageous diseases, transmittable diseases, are of vastly greater health concern than fatal illness.

A person with cancer cannot deliberately or inadvertantly kill 1, 10, 1000, 10000000 other people. A person with a transmittable disease can. Can kill a billion people. And 10,000,000s of millions dying from such diseases historically dwarf death counts by war and genocidal civil conflicts.

It is likely that of the enourmous numbers of deaths and loses by HIV/AIDS started with 1 person. Who has now killed millions. Certainly unknowingly.

THAT is why HIV/AIDS is so critical to fine a vaccination or cure for.

The OP's opinion is that those people all deserve to die = literally wants them to die to stop some of those people's "lifestyle." In his view, any person who does not only have sex with a virgin - tested by physical examination (female) or double blind polygraph tests (if male) - is more evil than a serial child rapist-murderer who if caught is only put to death summarily or imprisoned for life - while a 15 year old who has sex with another 15 year old then both should be put to death by slow, torturous death by disease. Why does he say so? "Because they deserve it!"

So his solution to HIV/AIDS is that everyone in the world must stop having sex. And stop using illegal drugs. And stop involving in any sporting event involving possible blood. And all persons including nurses and doctors must stop using needles. ANYONE who doesn't, deserves to executed by slow, terrible deaths. And then, he believes, HIV/AIDS wouldn't be a problem.

And, of course, then I suppose anyone that goes outside in the risky conduct of not wearing a HEPA rated breathing filter also deserves to die of influenza.

I want to keep this on point of the OP's reasoning.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I asked a question in my previous post. Can any of you justify spending over four times as much on AIDS than on breast cancer which one in eight women will get in their lifetime. This does not even count the 15.6 billion we spend keeping drug addicts, crack whores and gays that refused to wear rubbers alive. Look at the pie chart I posted, there is only 1% of people with AIDS that do not fall into these categories.Apparently you have no answer for that so you choose to make me the subject of your post instead.
Click to expand...

That you continue to keep framing the disease around crack whores and gays is the telling part for me.

That you dodge all the other diseases more or less caused by risky behavior.

That you see a disease, breast cancer which has a history of massive spending for the cure... we are both old enough to remember a woman being told she has breast cancer was told to go home and make preparations for her family, or undergo horrific 'treatments' that more than likely added 6 months of poor quality life and massive medical bills.

NOW a woman can expect a bit of discomfort but to continue her life. It doesn't break the family bank.

The two diseases are in vastly different phases of treatment. I know this because I know two breast cancer survivors, one of which I never saw sick and didn't know until her 6 months cancer free check-up.

THAT progress didn't come cheap and didn't happen this week... it started decades ago and now we reap the benefits.

You need better examples... :peace
 
is
sawyerloggingon said:
If you want to debate my motive take it to the basement. This thread is about should we be spending limited resources on a disease that is extremely preventable instead of diseases that are not in any way shape or form your fault. I concentrate on childhood Leukemia because children are such innocents. You imply that I hate gays because I think AIDS gets a disproportionate amount of limited resources thus I hate gays. I could turn this around and say why do you deny limited funds from reaching innocent sick children? Why do you hate children? See how stupid that is? You want to make this thread about me instead of the subject, like I said go down to your basement world and give me hell but up here discuss the issue at hand. Now have a good evening, I am off to cozy up on the couch with my wife and watch a movie. Get on with your life assuming you have one.
Click to expand...


NO, that is NOT the reasoning you gave. You never MENTION proportion of spending in your OP. Not one word of it, no hint of it. You wrote, specifically, that people with HIV/AIDS deserve to have the disease because they 1.) are promiscuous, 2.) gay or 3.) drug abusers - and that a vaccine should not be found to punish their "lifestyle" by getting the HIV/AIDS you say they deserve.

YOU declared in your OP your motives were your reasons. Thus, this thread's primarly topic

There is NOT ONE WORD of proportions of spending whatsoever in your OP. Zero, none, Nada. Discussing what you wrote in your OP of this thread you started is 100% relevant here. Those are the words YOU wrote as THE topic of this thread. Words you now try to pretend don't exist and claim QUOTING your OP MESSAGE is a personal attack. If so, it is your own words doing the attacking.

In your OP you declared your motives were your reasons. Therefore, your motives ARE THE primary topic of this thread and THE most directly relevant topic.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Instead of insulting me tell me exactly where I am wrong. The fact that you have to resort to personal insults means you can't tell me where I am wrong.
Click to expand...

You want others to suffer and die because it costs the state money. It's the height of selfish bastardry, and the fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
True enough, Bush increased AIDS spending in Africa by billions, just one of the many things I did not like about him
Click to expand...

Those damn promiscuous and homosexual Africans?'

You are aware it is generally considered fact that most contagious and communicable diseases originate from outside the 48 continental United States, aren't you? Most influenzas - one of the world's great killers historically - comes mostly from Chinese pig farmers because pigs can transmit such diseases to humans. And that AIDS came from elsewhere too.

Maybe you should propose banning all International travel and machine gun nests at the borders.
 
Surtr said:
You want others to suffer and die because it costs the state money. It's the height of selfish bastardry, and the fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Well put, but also he wants it as punishment for sinful lifestyles.
 
joko104 said:
Well put, but also he wants it as punishment for sinful lifestyles.
Click to expand...


So to be consistent he also supports "sin" taxes such as a higher tax on alcohol, right???
 
joko104 said:
Contageous diseases, transmittable diseases, are of vastly greater health concern than fatal illness.

A person with cancer cannot deliberately or inadvertantly kill 1, 10, 1000, 10000000 other people. A person with a transmittable disease can. Can kill a billion people. And 10,000,000s of millions dying from such diseases historically dwarf death counts by war and genocidal civil conflicts.

It is likely that of the enourmous numbers of deaths and loses by HIV/AIDS started with 1 person. Who has now killed millions. Certainly unknowingly.

THAT is why HIV/AIDS is so critical to fine a vaccination or cure for.

The OP's opinion is that those people all deserve to die = literally wants them to die to stop some of those people's "lifestyle." In his view, any person who does not only have sex with a virgin - tested by physical examination (female) or double blind polygraph tests (if male) - is more evil than a serial child rapist-murderer who if caught is only put to death summarily or imprisoned for life - while a 15 year old who has sex with another 15 year old then both should be put to death by slow, torturous death by disease. Why does he say so? "Because they deserve it!"

So his solution to HIV/AIDS is that everyone in the world must stop having sex.
Click to expand...
And stop using illegal drugs. And stop involving in any sporting event involving possible blood. And all persons including nurses and doctors must stop using needles. ANYONE who doesn't, deserves to executed by slow, terrible deaths. And then, he believes, HIV/AIDS wouldn't be a problem.


And, of course, then I suppose anyone that goes outside in the risky conduct of not wearing a HEPA rated breathing filter also deserves to die of influenza.

I want to keep this on point of the OP's reasoning.
Click to expand...

You never heard of rubbers I guess.
 
Surtr said:
You want others to suffer and die because it costs the state money. It's the height of selfish bastardry, and the fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Theres only so much money to go around and spending 18 billion a year on AIDS takes money from other diseases that people get through no fault of their own. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
 
notquiteright said:
That you continue to keep framing the disease around crack whores and gays is the telling part for me.

That you dodge all the other diseases more or less caused by risky behavior.

That you see a disease, breast cancer which has a history of massive spending for the cure... we are both old enough to remember a woman being told she has breast cancer was told to go home and make preparations for her family, or undergo horrific 'treatments' that more than likely added 6 months of poor quality life and massive medical bills.

NOW a woman can expect a bit of discomfort but to continue her life. It doesn't break the family bank.

The two diseases are in vastly different phases of treatment. I know this because I know two breast cancer survivors, one of which I never saw sick and didn't know until her 6 months cancer free check-up.

THAT progress didn't come cheap and didn't happen this week... it started decades ago and now we reap the benefits.

You need better examples...
Click to expand...
:peace
Click to expand...





Childhood leukemia


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


Childhood leukemia is a type of leukemia, usually acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), that affects children. The cure rate of childhood leukemia is generally higher than adult leukemia, approaching 90%, although some side effects of treatment last into adulthood. The older aggressive treatments of cranial irradiation and anthracyclines (such as doxorubicin) caused increased risk of solid tumors, heart failure, growth retardation, and cognitive defects.[1]

Leukemia is a hematological malignancy or a cancer of the blood. It develops in the bone marrow, the soft inner part of bones where new blood cells are made. When a child has leukemia, the bone marrow produces white blood cells that do not mature correctly. Normal healthy cells only reproduce when there is enough space for them. The body will regulate the production of cells by sending signals of when to stop production. When a child


Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects women more than men. The disorder is most commonly diagnosed between ages 20 and 40, but can be seen at any age.

MS is caused by damage to the myelin sheath, the protective covering that surrounds nerve cells. When this nerve covering is damaged, nerve signals slow down or stop.

The nerve damage is caused by inflammation. Inflammation occurs when the body's own immune cells attack the nervous system. This can occur along any area of the brain, optic nerve, and spinal cord.

It is unknown what exactly causes this to happen. The most common thought is that a virus or gene defect, or both, are to blame. Environmental factors may play a role.

You are slightly more likely to get this condition if you have a family history of MS or live in an part of the world where MS is more common.


Parkinson's disease most often develops after age 50. It is one of the most common nervous system disorders of the elderly. Sometimes Parkinson's disease occurs in younger adults. It affects both men and women.

In some cases, Parkinson's disease runs in families. When a young person is affected, it is usually because of a form of the disease that runs in families.

Nerve cells use a brain chemical called dopamine to help control muscle movement. Parkinson's disease occurs when the nerve cells in the brain that make dopamine are slowly destroyed. Without dopamine, the nerve cells in that part of the brain cannot properly send messages. This leads to the loss of muscle function. The damage gets worse with time. Exactly why these brain cells waste away is unknown.

Satisfied?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Theres only so much money to go around and spending 18 billion a year on AIDS takes money from other diseases that people get through no fault of their own. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Viruses mutate. Thats how it got out of animals and into humans in the first place.

Mutations also lead to changes in modes of transmission.

Right now, HIV isnt easy to catch. Unprotected sex and direct blood contamination are the only vectors.

Let it run wild and it could eventually become airborne or waterborn, like the flu, transmissible by casual contact.

Then we'll have a real problem.

Its not just the "irresponsibles" problem.

HIV is "trying" to find a better vector as we speak. It is one of the fastest mutating viruses.
 
What if...? said:
Viruses mutate. Thats how it got out of animals and into humans in the first place.

Mutations also lead to changes in modes of transmission.

Right now, HIV isnt easy to catch. Unprotected sex and direct blood contamination are the only vectors.

Let it run wild and it could eventually become airborne or waterborn, like the flu, transmissible by casual contact.

Then we'll have a real problem.

Its not just the "irresponsibles" problem.

HIV is "trying" to find a better vector as we speak. It is one of the fastest mutating viruses.
Click to expand...

Best argument yet.
 
I addressed that dodge.

YOU didn't address why AIDS and not the dozens of other diseases like diabetes, smoking, drinking...etc... remember that post of mine?

The problem with picking any other disease is do you really think the money diverted from AIDS will go to the one you think 'means more'?

I was not attacking you on this... I was agreeing with you.

As you said you couldn't have been more wrong about a Willard Win.

You are just as wrong here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom