Congress just gave away another $48 Billion to fight AIDS

[EnderJE]

Someday g-d forbid through some freak accident, medical, on the street... You might... It is very hard to contract if you don't fall into a risk group, however, things happen. And if not you a family member...
You can't just think in a narrowed, tunnel vision sort of way when it comes to matters like this.

When that happens to me, then I'll understand why I have to pay for it and I'll be internally motivated to pay for it. That said, I would not expect my neighbor (who is not impacted) to be as motivated.

I'm not super rich and am taxed at 54%. I have constraints. My 'tunnel vision' is due to my constraints. I need to care about the things that matter the most to be and have an immediate impact on me. I don't perceive AIDS (at this point) as having an impact on me. Is it short sighted? Maybe, but I only have a limited budget that I am working with.

If I was super rich, then I would concern myself with the things that would benefit mankind as a whole. Given that I don't, I concern myself with the things that concern me (ie March of Dimes, MS research, etc).

I wish I was making enough money for us all, but I'm not.

 

[EnderJE]

You can't just select what cases you are going to work on... This is a all or nothing research. You either find a cure / treatment or you don't, it's not like you can just select who you want to take care of or not.

I would argue that it is a choice. Some are caused by some external factors and some are not. At the microscoping level, I don't believe that they're all exactly the same and have variations.

In the same fashion that vitamins don't impact us all the same in exactly the same way.

All that said, I'll be honest and haven't done the indepth research to prove the hypothesis. I've only consulted a few biology majors and pre-meds students that I used to know from back them when I was trying to understand how disease mutates through different genetic types of people.

 

[EnderJE]

Hey... I'm a conservative... watch where you throw those words!!! LOL

You're also talking to someone who lives in Canada... socialized medicine. They are also taxed heavy.

Their's is a economicially oppressed country... I can see where he'd be alittle pissed, if it was going on there. But, it's not so why judge our country for investing in this research, if it doesn't affect you? I don't quite understand.

The rationale is the principle of the idea and how it formulates. Besides, if I don't say something, then the copycats we have over here will do the same.

 

[heatherrae]

When that happens to me, then I'll understand why I have to pay for it and I'll be internally motivated to pay for it. That said, I would not expect my neighbor (who is not impacted) to be as motivated.

I'm not super rich and am taxed at 54%. I have constraints. My 'tunnel vision' is due to my constraints. I need to care about the things that matter the most to be and have an immediate impact on me. I don't perceive AIDS (at this point) as having an impact on me. Is it short sighted? Maybe, but I only have a limited budget that I am working with.

If I was super rich, then I would concern myself with the things that would benefit mankind as a whole. Given that I don't, I concern myself with the things that concern me (ie March of Dimes, MS research, etc).

I wish I was making enough money for us all, but I'm not.

How does march of dimes directly relate to you? last I checked you were a grown man, right?

Plus, I'm not going to even address the other arguments about microscopic evidence of a disease affecting some people and not others. The research is for all people with the disease. It helps those who contracted it through sex, blood transfusions, IV drug use, or by birth all equally. What you are talking about makes no sense.

 

[heatherrae]

Its always funny to see people say they know more about me and what I would do than I do. Its a weird phenom.

And I can't help but laugh at how utterly stupid your post is. You say let's let the government take care of providing this money, then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you talk about how the government doesn't allocate funds the way it says it will. Even more reason to rely on private donations.

Considering the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are raised by private charities for the SOLE purpose of providing for AIDS research every single year (and that none of that finds it way towards paying $900 for a hammer) it becomes more and more obvious that once again you're thinking with your heart instead of your brain.

Okay, lets look at it this way. If you got less taxes out you would still assume that you are paying your fair share and still give as much to charity as you do anyway. Most people give very little to nothing to charity every year. Face the truth. How many economic stimulus checks do you think got signed right over to charity. Those people got windfalls of extra money in their pockets, and you better believe they probably bought tv's, beer, cigarettes, and socks...lol. Very few people give significant amounts to charity unless these programs are funded by the government, they would cease to exist.

 

[75th]

Okay, lets look at it this way. If you got less taxes out you would still assume that you are paying your fair share and still give as much to charity as you do anyway. Most people give very little to nothing to charity every year. Face the truth. How many economic stimulus checks do you think got signed right over to charity. Those people got windfalls of extra money in their pockets, and you better believe they probably bought tv's, beer, cigarettes, and socks...lol. Very few people give significant amounts to charity unless these programs are funded by the government, they would cease to exist.

You do realize that not only people like you and I donate to charities, correct? More than $15billion per year is donated to private charities and research organziations but the largest companies in the US. Just the largest ones.

Besides, if you want people to donate more (or corporations for that matter) make the tax incentive more appealing.

 

[EnderJE]

How does march of dimes directly relate to you? last I checked you were a grown man, right?

The March Of Dimes relates to me via my nephew in law. MS relates to me via my cousin. Those are causes that I choose to care about at this time; thus I give to them willingly. I don't care about the AIDS patients right now. Just like I don't care about the starving kids in African because they don't impact me right now.

As I said again, I'm not as rich as you to afford to give to everyone. So, I make choices when I can. On that note, I don't want those choices made for me (via taxation).

 

[EnderJE]

Plus, I'm not going to even address the other arguments about microscopic evidence of a disease affecting some people and not others. The research is for all people with the disease. It helps those who contracted it through sex, blood transfusions, IV drug use, or by birth all equally. What you are talking about makes no sense.

Again, I'm not a doctor like you and assume that there are differences because diseases impact us differently. Given that assumption, I also assume that the infection method is different. If we research on the premise that all disease impacts all people equally is fine, but I don't see how we can do that when we already know that medicine doesn't impact people the same...so how can disease?

In the end, I think that the key premise between your views and mine are different. I think we both agree that people are 'generally' equal. However, I also see constraints. Given those constraints, people need to make hard and cold choices about how to invest and spend the money. Is it cold? Yes. But I don't have all the money in the world for everyone, so I need to draw a line and say that I'm not going any further then here. I wish I had the too much money problem.

 

[heatherrae]

Again, I'm not a doctor like you and assume that there are differences because diseases impact us differently. Given that assumption, I also assume that the infection method is different. If we research on the premise that all disease impacts all people equally is fine, but I don't see how we can do that when we already know that medicine doesn't impact people the same...so how can disease?

In the end, I think that the key premise between your views and mine are different. I think we both agree that people are 'generally' equal. However, I also see constraints. Given those constraints, people need to make hard and cold choices about how to invest and spend the money. Is it cold? Yes. But I don't have all the money in the world for everyone, so I need to draw a line and say that I'm not going any further then here. I wish I had the too much money problem.

whatever.

really, whatever.

 

[walliwalibus]

Wait, is Magic Johnson still doing good? And he's black too (inside joke from another thread). I think where there is money there's a way. Giving money to Africa is like killing 10,000 africans..... not a good smart decision GWB! Shame again lurks over the Whyte House. Will Barrack Paint that place BTW?