• 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]

Absolutely, yes. Seeking out cures for life threatening diseases should ovveride any bizzare notions of moral prequisites. In no way is the loss of life that could have otherwise been prevented any less tragic. The fact that you seemed distressed at the mere thought of those with differing lifestyles regaining the chance to live healthily or simply to see another day is deeply disturbing.
I'd rather the liberals picked up the tab on this one, as they are the shepherds of sexuality.
 
I'd rather the liberals picked up the tab on this one, as they are the shepherds of sexuality.

2,500,000 million children have HIV/AIDS.

Not all conservatives and Republicans believe they have no right to life and deserve to die to insure that homosexuals and promiscuous people are punished.
 
<But, despite all the years of warnings about the preventable illness, new cases continue to be diagnosed each month. And, now there is a growing demographic of those infected by HIV and AIDS — older, heterosexual adults.>

Editorial: Older adults leading in new cases of AIDS in St. Lucie County » TCPalm.com

And the OPer believes they also deserve to die for it too. Millions of children, millions of heterosexuals, millions of seniors - and the OP shouts DIE! DIE! you evil people.
 
If you don't spend money on it all the Republican holies will die.
 
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.

9 year old Ryan White was not only NOT promiscuous, he was also not gay.

Of COURSE we should spend money on AIDS research and helping those with it who don't have insurance to get whatever treatment is available. YOU pay for all the HEART transplants for Cheney and HE"S making TRILLIONS on these wars. Why wouldn't you help someone who contracted AIDS?
 
9 year old Ryan White was not only NOT promiscuous, he was also not gay.

Of COURSE we should spend money on AIDS research and helping those with it who don't have insurance to get whatever treatment is available. YOU pay for all the HEART transplants for Cheney and HE"S making TRILLIONS on these wars. Why wouldn't you help someone who contracted AIDS?

Yes the poor kid would be in that tiny 1% sliver in the pie chart whereas 100% of kids with childhood leukemia would be in that piece of pie. See the difference?
 
Yes the poor kid would be in that tiny 1% sliver in the pie chart whereas 100% of kids with childhood leukemia would be in that piece of pie. See the difference?

"Childhood luekemia" is just a red herring you keep throwing out to disguise your hatred of gays.

FAR more money is spend on diseases - and diseases others can not be infected with - with or without the person's participation - than AIDS for which the person is the cause of the disease.

The amount of money spent on research and treatment of lung cancer, OCPD, and heart disease dwarfs what is spend on AIDS in this country. Behaviors of smoking, obesity, bad diet, lack of exercise are all known to be the primary causes of those #1, #2, and #3 causes of pre-mature death - and the amount of money spend on medical care, treatment and research dwarfs HIV/AIDS.

Nor can anyone with such a disease give it to another person - meaning there are no innocent victims of it.

Since you totally ignore those well known facts, because you wanted to post as outrageously hateful - as hatefully as could possibly be other than Tigger declaring gays should be executed - message against everyone from age 13 to 83 - because YOU think most are 1.) gay 2.) not mongamously married or 3.) use drugs - and you SOOOOO hate those people you literally want them to die.

Of the 2.5 MILLION children with HIV/AIDS - that also drawfs the number of children with leukemia - your view is that they must die too - to be sacrificed, slaughtered - FOR YOUR RAW PURE HATRED of those other people as you express in your OP. So let's all not pretend you give a damn about children with any disease. You want them to die too. By the millions.
 
Last edited:
"Childhood luekemia" is just a red herring you keep throwing out to disguise your hatred of gays.

FAR more money is spend on diseases - and diseases others can not be infected with - with or without the person's participation - than AIDS for which the person is the cause of the disease.

The amount of money spent on research and treatment of lung cancer, OCPD, and heart disease dwarfs what is spend on AIDS in this country.
Behaviors of smoking, obesity, bad diet, lack of exercise are all known to be the primary causes of those #1, #2, and #3 causes of pre-mature death - and the amount of money spend on medical care, treatment and research dwarfs HIV/AIDS.

Nor can anyone with such a disease give it to another person - meaning there are no innocent victims of it.

Since you totally ignore those well known facts, because you wanted to post as outrageously hateful - as hatefully as could possibly be other than Tigger declaring gays should be executed - message against everyone from age 13 to 83 - because YOU think most are 1.) gay 2.) not mongamously married or 3.) use drugs - and you SOOOOO hate those people you literally want them to die.

Of the 2.5 MILLION children with HIV/AIDS - that also drawfs the number of children with leukemia - your view is that they must die too - to be sacrificed, slaughtered - FOR YOUR RAW PURE HATRED of those other people as you express in your OP. So let's all not pretend you give a damn about children with any disease. You want them to die too. By the millions.

I will ignore your personal attacks on me and your mind reading act , instead I will stick to the facts and here they are.

President Obama’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 federal budget
request, released on February 1, includes an estimated $27.2
billion for combined domestic and global HIV/AIDS activities.1
Domestic HIV/AIDS is funded at $20.5 billion and global at
$6.7 billion.2 The FY 2011 request represents a 4.6% increase
($1.2 billion) over FY 2010, which totaled $26 billion.
Congress will now consider the request and is expected to
finalize spending levels in late 2010."

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-06.pdf


Breast Cancer
US Government research funding: $7865 million/year 2,3
Results: significant increase in 5-year survival rates: 4
- Early 1970s – 75%
- Today – 90%

•HIV/AIDS
US Government research funding: $3 billion in 2011 2
Results:
- AIDS was once a near-immediate death sentence.
- Today – with anti-retroviral drug therapy, the 3-year survival rate is 90%.

•Lung Cancer
US Government research funding: Only $234 in 2011 2,3
Results: very little change in 5-year survival rates: 4
- Early 1970s – 12%
- Today – 16%


Lung Cancer Research
 
My opinion on this is based on logic and prioritizing of limited funds, the rest of you are forming opinions on an emotional response. Spock would be on my side.:lol:

Should we not be spending money on any STD research since STD's are preventable?
 
Uhh $234 on lung cancer research? Not 234 million?? Seem like a typo to anyone else?
 
Uhh $234 on lung cancer research? Not 234 million?? Seem like a typo to anyone else?

So you would rather concentrate on a typo instead of the 234 million spent on lung cancer vs the 3 billion spent on AIDS.LOL

As a woman I think you would be more interested in the paltry $7,865 million spent on breast cancer vs the 3 billion spent on AIDS.
 
I will ignore your personal attacks on me and your mind reading act , instead I will stick to the facts and here they are.

President Obama’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 federal budget
request, released on February 1, includes an estimated $27.2
billion for combined domestic and global HIV/AIDS activities.1
Domestic HIV/AIDS is funded at $20.5 billion and global at
$6.7 billion.2 The FY 2011 request represents a 4.6% increase
($1.2 billion) over FY 2010, which totaled $26 billion.
Congress will now consider the request and is expected to
finalize spending levels in late 2010."

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-06.pdf


Breast Cancer
US Government research funding: $7865 million/year 2,3
Results: significant increase in 5-year survival rates: 4
- Early 1970s – 75%
- Today – 90%

•HIV/AIDS
US Government research funding: $3 billion in 2011 2
Results:
- AIDS was once a near-immediate death sentence.
- Today – with anti-retroviral drug therapy, the 3-year survival rate is 90%.

•Lung Cancer
US Government research funding: Only $234 in 2011 2,3
Results: very little change in 5-year survival rates: 4
- Early 1970s – 12%
- Today – 16%


Lung Cancer Research

What you do not state is the cost overall to the government of each those diseases, do you?

But I get your point, it is this:
- AIDS was once a near-immediate death sentence.
- Today – with anti-retroviral drug therapy, the 3-year survival rate is 90%.


You stated your exact reasoning in your OP - that gays, people who have promiscuous sex and who use drugs "deserve" to get AIDS - and even a vaccine if found should be denied to them - and you not only want no cure, you want there to be no immunization as a punishment. Let's keep it on the REASON you gave.


YOUR OVERALL GOVERNMENT STATS ARE NOT ACCURATE - because the final question is COST to the government. The government pays 53% of such costs.
What Percentage of US Healthcare Is Publicly Financed? « True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

The Cost of Cancer

The financial costs of cancer care are a burden to people diagnosed with cancer, their families, and society as a whole. National cancer care expenditures have been steadily increasing in the United States. Costs also are likely to increase as new, more advanced treatments are adopted as standards of care. These newer, more expensive, targeted therapies attack specific cancer cells and often have fewer side effects than other types of cancer treatments.

Table 1: National Costs for Cancer Care in 2010 in Billions of Dollars by Cancer Site*



Cancer Site

Direct Costs
(in billions of dollars)



All Sites

$124.57



Breast (female)

$16.50



Colorectal

$14.14



Lung

$12.12



Lymphoma

$12.14



Prostate

$11.85



Leukemia

$5.44



Ovary

$5.12



Brain

$4.47



Bladder

$3.98



Head and Neck

$3.64



Kidney

$3.80



Uterus

$2.62



Melanoma

$2.36



Pancreas

$2.27



Stomach

$1.82



Cervix

$1.55



Esophagus

$1.33



*More information at Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care Projections


Costs in the Future

The cost of cancer in the year 2020 is projected to reach at least $158 billion (in 2010 dollars). Assuming a 2 percent annual increase in medical costs in the initial and final phases of care, the projected 2020 costs increase to $173 billion. Estimating a 5 percent annual increase in these costs raises the projection to $207 billion. These figures do not include other types of costs, such as lost productivity, which add to the overall financial burden of cancer.

This information was released in a new study on January 12, 2011. More information about these cost projections is available at: Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care Projections.
 
Last edited:
NOTHING could be more deliberately false from you to claim I am "reading your mind." YOU TOLD YOUR MIND IN YOUR OP OF THIS THREAD:

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money ... 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?


YOUR REASON WAS NOT a money comparison. YOUR STATEMENT:

People who have AIDS deserve to have AIDS because they are promiscuous or gay - and the worst thing possible would be to find a vaccine to allow them to continue to live gay or promiscious lives.

That is your EXACT words in your OP. So it should be debated from YOUR CLAIM THAT GAYS AND NON-MONOGAMOUS PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE AIDS. And the "WORSE" thing that could happen is to find a vaccine to allow "these people" to continue to live their "lifestyle." They DESERVE the CONSEQUENCE of being infected with AIDS. That is your morality, motive and reason given - ONLY REASON you gave.

THAT ^ SINGULARLY, WAS YOUR STATED MOTIVE

I'm not speculating or reading your mind. I'm quoting your message. So THAT is the issue. Whether gays and "promiscuous" people DESERVE to have AIDS and pro-actively denied cure and vaccine even if one is found to stop their living their "lifestyle."

And since you posted that I DESERVE to be infected with HIV/AIDS and many other people I know and have known, this is NOT a 3rd person discussing about "these people." The people you declare deserve to die of AIDS is also myself, just about everyone I have ever cared for, and probably over half the members of this forum. It isn't your wanting "these people" to die of AIDS, you want US to die of AIDS because you claim we deserve it.

I'm "debating" the MOTIVE and MORALITY of your reason of your OP message - which you now run from.
 
Last edited:
So you would rather concentrate on a typo instead of the 234 million spent on lung cancer vs the 3 billion spent on AIDS.LOL

As a woman I think you would be more interested in the paltry $7,865 million spent on breast cancer vs the 3 billion spent on AIDS.

I don't even know what the real number is since your link doesn't clearly state it. I'd be interested in seeing the real number from a site that is reputable enough to not have major typos like that. So I can't say I am totally confident their other numbers are correct, but assuming they are: No, I'm not too concerned about the difference in federal funding between AIDS and breast cancer when breast cancer has the Susan G. Komen foundation that everyone and their sister donates to, runs a 5k for, or buys a product from a company that donates to breast cancer research. There's an entire month donated to breast cancer awareness and we even have every pro football player wearing pink for it! All great stuff, and the survival rate for breast cancer is pretty good now. The same can't be said for the majority of people in the world with AIDS who don't even have access to decent medical care.

So in short, I have no problem with the amount of money donated to fighting AIDS. And I haven't heard anyone else on here (besides you) who does. Maybe instead of trying to fight all these people who are thoroughly disgusted with you, you should reevaluate your position here.
 
Last edited:
Again, the OP ducks his own stated reasoning and motive for a red herring.

If anyone here has claimed that more should not be spent on breast cancer research or luekemia, let sawyerloggingon link to that message. That is a total damn lie on his part in terms of posting a raw hate OP based on bigotry and the most extreme fundamentalism morality - and then runs from it and asserts a non-existence counter point claiming he has proven the absolute maximum hateful bigotry of his OP.
 
To the exact opposite of sawyerloggingon - since the OP topic is NOT economics - it is MORALITY - I'll point out my great difference on the morality chart.

First, though, it worth mentioning that any transmitable, communicable disease that causes death or disablity is the gravest of all diseases - and such diseases have genocidally killed people worldwide historically in epidemic after epidemic. A deadly disease kills the person. A communicable or transmitable disease can kill any and everyone one.

BUT, to the exact opposite of sawyerloggingon:

It would be a truly wonderful change is people could have consentual sex as they wish without fear of unwanted pregnancy or death.
The exact argument sawyerloggingon about punishing people for sex is made against contraceptives too

It would be truly a wonderful change is sexual assault victims did not have to fear or be infected with an uncurable STD. Sawyerloggingon believes they are necessary statisical casualities to allow gays and promiscuous people to die of AIDS deserving such deaths to stop their lifestyle. That's quoting him.

It would be truly wonderful if no one could be hurt or killed by incurable STDs, however they are infected - including the 2,500,000 children now - which Sawyerloggingon are statistically irrelevant people in comparison to the deserved punitive deaths gays and promiscuous people deserve.

So at every level of morality, we are opposite. There really are few people left that openly declare they want sinners to die horrible deaths en mass. The sin he focused on is, of course, the fundamentalist Bible beater's sex sins.

I want people to be able to have sex - all they mutually consent to have - without any fears at all.
 
My opinion on this is based on logic and prioritizing of limited funds, the rest of you are forming opinions on an emotional response. Spock would be on my side.:lol:

Bull****. The notion that someone deserves the disease they've gotten is entirely emotional in the most small-minded moralistic way imaginable. Lie to yourself all you want. The rest of us know better.
 
NOTHING could be more deliberately false from you to claim I am "reading your mind." YOU TOLD YOUR MIND IN YOUR OP OF THIS THREAD:

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money ... 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?


YOUR REASON WAS NOT a money comparison. YOUR STATEMENT:

People who have AIDS deserve to have AIDS because they are promiscuous or gay - and the worst thing possible would be to find a vaccine to allow them to continue to live gay or promiscious lives.

That is your EXACT words in your OP. So it should be debated from YOUR CLAIM THAT GAYS AND NON-MONOGAMOUS PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE AIDS. And the "WORSE" thing that could happen is to find a vaccine to allow "these people" to continue to live their "lifestyle." They DESERVE the CONSEQUENCE of being infected with AIDS. That is your morality, motive and reason given - ONLY REASON you gave.

THAT ^ SINGULARLY, WAS YOUR STATED MOTIVE

I'm not speculating or reading your mind. I'm quoting your message. So THAT is the issue. Whether gays and "promiscuous" people DESERVE to have AIDS and pro-actively denied cure and vaccine even if one is found to stop their living their "lifestyle."

And since you posted that I DESERVE to be infected with HIV/AIDS and many other people I know and have known, this is NOT a 3rd person discussing about "these people." The people you declare deserve to die of AIDS is also myself, just about everyone I have ever cared for, and probably over half the members of this forum. It isn't your wanting "these people" to die of AIDS, you want US to die of AIDS because you claim we deserve it.

I'm "debating" the MOTIVE and MORALITY of your reason of your OP message - which you now run from.

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.
 
I don't even know what the real number is since your link doesn't clearly state it. I'd be interested in seeing the real number from a site that is reputable enough to not have major typos like that. So I can't say I am totally confident their other numbers are correct, but assuming they are: No, I'm not too concerned about the difference in federal funding between AIDS and breast cancer when breast cancer has the Susan G. Komen foundation that everyone and their sister donates to, runs a 5k for, or buys a product from a company that donates to breast cancer research. There's an entire month donated to breast cancer awareness and we even have every pro football player wearing pink for it! All great stuff, and the survival rate for breast cancer is pretty good now. The same can't be said for the majority of people in the world with AIDS who don't even have access to decent medical care.

So in short, I have no problem with the amount of money donated to fighting AIDS. And I haven't heard anyone else on here (besides you) who does. Maybe instead of trying to fight all these people who are thoroughly disgusted with you, you should reevaluate your position here.

I will do some research tomorrow on how many women get breast cancer vs how many people get aids and we can discuss allocation of funds. Tonight I have more fun plans. Have a good evening.:)
 
Who says the budget for funding research is limited to a certain figure? It's not like the government really limits spending on anything...
 
The 80s called and they want their stereotypes back.
 
I will do some research tomorrow on how many women get breast cancer vs how many people get aids and we can discuss allocation of funds. Tonight I have more fun plans. Have a good evening.:)

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
 
Yes the poor kid would be in that tiny 1% sliver in the pie chart whereas 100% of kids with childhood leukemia would be in that piece of pie. See the difference?

So, according to you, because AIDs is preventable, money should not be be put into it?

Should money be put into smoker patients who have lung cancer? After all, it's the smokers fault.
Should money be put into tobacco users who develop mouth cancer? It's easily preventable. Just don't use tobacco.
Should money be put into all the health complications that come with obesity? After all, it is preventable. Just don't eat so much and get a little exercise.
Should money be put into treating and researching athlete's brain injuries? After all, it is preventable and athletes know the risks.

Etc, etc, etc, etc.

There are many things which can be prevented if people took cautionary steps. That doesn't mean we should not treat the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom