......and what about King Bozo Oostberg’s LGBT Lobby and restricting HIV drugs, eh?
My understanding is that HIV treatment can be extremely expensive - as with any disease, I think the state has a right to insist on sane, cost-effective treatment. But just because HIV is mainly (but not entirely) associated with homosexuals and intravenous drug users, I don't feel treatment should be denied. Neither do I feel that this one disease category has a "right" to the most expensive, state-of-the-art "Cadillac" treatments. So HIV should be covered just as other non-curable illnesses are, neither better nor worse.