Bush Budget Increases AIDS Funding by Nearly $1 Billion Despite War, Recession

Log Cabin Republican Press Release ^ | February 5, 2002 | Rich Tafel

[Double Eagle Sword of Justice]

we also must win the war on HIV/AIDS

Hopefully some homosexual groups will get the message and start practicing a little self-restraint.

[onedoug]

"The fact that HIV/AIDS funding is at an all-time high in this budget while other agencies are being cut is a testament to the effective leadership of White House National AIDS Policy Director Scott Evertz and his team," Tafel said.

Though I also wonder that its not a testament to intimidation and brow-beating by gay/HIV agenda pushers. I belive the feds spend far more on AIDS/HIV than on heart disease and cancer, which strike down many more Americans by comparison.

It just smells political.

[martian_22]

From the very beginning, If AIDS were treated like a medical problem instead of a political problem, the spread of this "problem" could have been slowed-down or halted....at least in this country.

How can this scourge ever be controlled or halted? We need to declare war on HIV/AIDS, spend a whole lot more money and the problem will be solved.

That's the ticket...a war on AIDS...those always work.

[hattend]

AIDS/HIV is probably the easiest disease to NOT get in the world.

It shouldn't cost trillions or even millions of dollars to fight. Change your sexual behavior.

[newzjunkey]

I'm sure Ryan White would be "appreciative" of your compassion if he were still alive. He, as you probably don't know, was one of the many childhood HIV/AIDS cases caused by tainted blood or blood products.

Monogammy, heterosexual practices and matrimony don't make you immune if the other participant is a carrier.

[newzjunkey]

AIDS were treated like a medical problem

Should I assume these are just codewords for universal, compulsory testing and isolationist "death camps" for those discovered infected?

[hattend]

Yeah, the epidemic is rampant in the hemophiliacs and those infected through transfusions.

You knew when you were writing the response you were just looking for an argument. Nice try.

[jwalsh07]

No you shouldn't assume anything, you should be man or woman enough to look the facts straight in the eye and realize that the CDC looked the other way because of PC bullsh%t.

[martian_22]

***Medical problem = "Death camps"***

Tell me, when do you first remember feeling this way?

When you read the word "Heterophobia", what first comes to mind?

[smalltownguy]

Those who try to associate HIV/AIDS with the gay community and pull that political crap out regarding the funding of research for a cure read on: I have a heterosexual second cousin and his wife who about ten years ago adopted a 6-month old baby. A year later the baby was diagnosed with HIV. Two years after that their baby died. We were all devastated. I also had a heterosexual uncle, married to his wife with two children for over 30 years, he was 55 years old, died of AIDS just this past fall...traced most likely to a tranfusion he received roughly 20 years ago. We were devastated again. Teens/young people of all sexual orientation are getting this disease in alarming numbers. They are teens and are more likely to screw around, especially before they have found a stable relationship. This is reality and it must be dealt with in a realistic manner. Concepts of abstenance are certainly productive, but will not protect those who have not been led to develop a sense of self control or already have and can spread it. There are other countries around the world that are facing virtual decimation of their people and country by this disease. I stand behind president Bush in his not wanting our country to someday be facing the same fate. HIV/AIDS is killing us all. Trying to politicize the issue simply because the gay community has been hardest hit (thus also supporting the notion of a cure) will accomplish nothing more than more families of all types having to continue enduring the needless loss of loved ones.

[ArGee]

Hopefully some homosexual groups will get the message and start practicing a little self-restraint.

ROTFLMAO!

That was a good one!

Shalom.

P.S. Don't expect most heterosexuals to show self-restraint either as HIV spreads outside the homosexual community. Self-restraint is so 19th century, don't you know.

[ArGee]

Should I assume these are just codewords for universal, compulsory testing and isolationist "death camps" for those discovered infected?

Is that what they did with Smallpox? If so, do you have a problem with them doing it with HIV?

Shalom.

[kcvl]

Hopefully some homosexual groups will get the message and start practicing a little self-restraint.

In your dreams maybe. It's all about if it feels good do it. Screw the consequences. They don't pay for it we do.

[onedoug]

I didn't mean to seem insensative, and am saddened and sorry for your losses. I wanted to say something about funding priorities, which I yet stand by as AIDS/HIV taxpayer funded research outstrips those for heart disease and cancer, as these continue to take American lives at decidedly higher rates, and whose loved ones continue to suffer no less. I'm sorry. But it's hard to see continuously accelerated AIDS/HIV funding, under such circumstances, in other than political terms.

[David Lane]

Read how over funded (up to 388 times as much per mortality of other diseases) AIDS really is and how the money is wasted at: -

http://www.aidsRC.org

[David Lane]

[onedoug]

ping

[smalltownguy]

Those charts need to be more consistant (between top and bottom charts) to be of any real value. AKA-the top chart does not show the number of deaths for most of the diseases listed on the bottom chart...also, the top chart lists deaths in a general category of "cancer" while the bottom chart singles out breast cancer only. Those charts used in conjunction with each other are meaningless. Parkinsons is not listed on the top chart. Also, heart disease is most commonly an attribute of old age and for most is already manageable via medication until that point. HIV has already shown mutations that are resistant to some of the "maintainance" drugs available currently. Also...what effect on public health care (and consider the cost) of keeping virtually millions of people 20 or so years from now on these expensive medications. An extra billion a year now for research may be a drop in the bucket compared to the strain on the healthcare system 20 or more years from now as these people (most now working and covered under private health plans) get older and seek government assited/funded health care.

[Hank Kerchief]

Should I assume these are just codewords for universal, compulsory testing and isolationist "death camps" for those discovered infected?

Infected with what?

>AIDSmyth
>Aids Panel Report (South Africa)
>Alive&Well
>AIDS Reality Check
>JACK INDIA NEWS
>Peter Duesberg
>Rethinker Onair
>VirusMyth, Rethinking AIDS