Should we cure preventable diseases?

[EnderJE]

Given that some diseases can be prevented, should we cure it and continue to allow the people who are infected into the general population?

Or should we separate the infected people and either a) cure then one by one and let them back into the population or b) let them die off?

Yep, the AIDS conference is in Toronto and people have been preaching to me.

 

[manny78]

Imagine if we could cure everything. How long would it take to overpopulate this planet ?

 

[Phenom78]

I know you're joking about this particluar issue, but in a larger sense we are heading that way.

In the US alone we have some 60 trillion depending on how you do the estimates in unfunded entitlements. To put it into perspective if we were to confiscate every last penny of wealth in this nation we wouldn't be able to cover that bill. We wouldnt even come close. Yet completely unhampered by reality the democrats continue to inisist we should add to this total. I suppose there is some sense to it in as much as once you've already completely bankrupted yourself, and made obligations you can't possibly meet, you may as well promise everything else as in the end it won't cost you one additional cent since you'll never deliver anyway.

That said at some point the idiots in this country will foist upon us another entitlement such as universal health care. And at that point we will be forced to start rationing health care to the masses, and those kind of value choices will become commonplace.

He's old, should we really spend any money keeping him alive.

That person doesn't live healthily, and will no doubt become ill again, should we treat her.

etc etc etc

 

[EnderJE]

I know you're joking about this particluar issue, but in a larger sense we are heading that way.

In the US alone we have some 60 trillion depending on how you do the estimates in unfunded entitlements. To put it into perspective if we were to confiscate every last penny of wealth in this nation we wouldn't be able to cover that bill. We wouldnt even come close. Yet completely unhampered by reality the democrats continue to inisist we should add to this total. I suppose there is some sense to it in as much as once you've already completely bankrupted yourself, and made obligations you can't possibly meet, you may as well promise everything else as in the end it won't cost you one additional cent since you'll never deliver anyway.

That said at some point the idiots in this country will foist upon us another entitlement such as universal health care. And at that point we will be forced to start rationing health care to the masses, and those kind of value choices will become commonplace.

He's old, should we really spend any money keeping him alive.

That person doesn't live healthily, and will no doubt become ill again, should we treat her.

etc etc etc

Actually, I've always had this in the back of my mind until I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier today who is a staunch "must cure AIDS at all costs" supporter.

I asked him why (because there are so many other types of diseases that we coudl be curing - cancer, flu, etc) and he mentioned something about how his boyfriend has friends who have AIDS and how it has harmed them and limited their lives. Fine, I said, then don't fuck and spread it. Then he got all preachy on how we shouldn't limit a person's right to fuck / love someone just because he had AIDS. WHAT THE FUCK? Then I told him my idea.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he'll be talking to me for awhlie.

 

[Phenom78]

Actually, I've always had this in the back of my mind until I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier today who is a staunch "must cure AIDS at all costs" supporter.

I asked him why (because there are so many other types of diseases that we coudl be curing - cancer, flu, etc) and he mentioned something about how his boyfriend has friends who have AIDS and how it has harmed them and limited their lives. Fine, I said, then don't fuck and spread it. Then he got all preachy on how we shouldn't limit a person's right to fuck / love someone just because he had AIDS. WHAT THE FUCK? Then I told him my idea.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he'll be talking to me for awhlie.

If and when Western Society becomes increasingly secular, coupled with entitlements and rationed resources, this debate will become more prominent.

I think people fail to comprehend how transformative the Judeo Christian morality, along with its precepts of each life being individually sacred, has had on the common morality. All men being "created" equal wasn't unique to our founding fathers. It started long before in ancient Rome and the impact Christianity had on that pagan culture. Individuasls who have sucked at the tit of that particular ideal all their lives cluelessly imagine that the milk of it is solely attributable to their vast intellect and superior reasoning.

But in the end ther two are forever tied, and once the bond is severed, all manner of choices become feasible.

 

[EnderJE]

You could of just said that the guy I was talking about sounded like a motherfucker and be done with it....but NOOOO.....

 

[manny78]

Actually, I've always had this in the back of my mind until I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier today who is a staunch "must cure AIDS at all costs" supporter.

I asked him why (because there are so many other types of diseases that we coudl be curing - cancer, flu, etc) and he mentioned something about how his boyfriend has friends who have AIDS and how it has harmed them and limited their lives. Fine, I said, then don't fuck and spread it. Then he got all preachy on how we shouldn't limit a person's right to fuck / love someone just because he had AIDS. WHAT THE FUCK? Then I told him my idea.

Suffice it to say, I don't think he'll be talking to me for awhlie.

If I'm driving around with a truck loaded with explosives, I'll be subject to many regulations and restrictions. Why should it be different for someone carrying a deadly disease ?

 

[Phenom78]

You could of just said that the guy I was talking about sounded like a motherfucker and be done with it....but NOOOO.....

LOL

Oh yeah

What a silly fag

 

[nimbus]

If I'm driving around with a truck loaded with explosives, I'll be subject to many regulations and restrictions. Why should it be different for someone carrying a deadly disease ?

because you don't have to let the truck driver fuck you in the ass to be destroyed by his explosives. Now with a disease that is much more transmissible, like ebola, restrictions should apply,

 

[nimbus]

ender i don't understand exactly what you are saying. are you asking if the government should pay to find a cure to diseases like AIDS, or are you asking if the government should pay for everyone to be treated once a cure is found? Cause i think the first one yes, the second one no

 

[manny78]

because you don't have to let the truck driver fuck you in the ass to be destroyed by his explosives. Now with a disease that is much more transmissible, like ebola, restrictions should apply,

Reckless driving = kaboom

Reckless aids patient buttfucking everyone possible = problem.

You're assuming every AIDS patient is responsible which is not the case.

 

[EnderJE]

ender i don't understand exactly what you are saying. are you asking if the government should pay to find a cure to diseases like AIDS, or are you asking if the government should pay for everyone to be treated once a cure is found? Cause i think the first one yes, the second one no

Let me be more specific.

Why don't we round up all the people with AIDS and put them in Africa? I choose Africa because I think that they have the most. There would be no choice. Just put them there. NOBODY VISITS and NOBODY LEAVES.

Once there, people are free to fuck whomever they want because there will be no way to spread AIDS. Once there, the government and whomever can take their time to find a cure. Given that the disease isn't being spread anymore, then I'm assuming that it will go on the back burner.

Clearer?

 

[chesty]

Given that some diseases can be prevented, should we cure it and continue to allow the people who are infected into the general population?

Or should we separate the infected people and either a) cure then one by one and let them back into the population or b) let them die off?

Yep, the AIDS conference is in Toronto and people have been preaching to me.

Like many diseases we cure people can no longer build up a natural immunity to them and therefore when they strike again it is ten times worse. Take polio, smallpox, and a host of others we have all but erradicated and on top of it have stopped giving the vaccinations for them. By the time we realize we have a problem with it they will have mutated most likely to something worse!

 

[nimbus]

Reckless driving = kaboom

Reckless aids patient buttfucking everyone possible = problem.

You're assuming every AIDS patient is responsible which is not the case.

the difference is how much control the victim has

 

[nimbus]

Let me be more specific.

Why don't we round up all the people with AIDS and put them in Africa? I choose Africa because I think that they have the most. There would be no choice. Just put them there. NOBODY VISITS and NOBODY LEAVES.

Once there, people are free to fuck whomever they want because there will be no way to spread AIDS. Once there, the government and whomever can take their time to find a cure. Given that the disease isn't being spread anymore, then I'm assuming that it will go on the back burner.

Clearer?

ok...i don't think AIDS is transmissible enough to justify a quarantine.

 

[Sub-Zero]

aids wouild be fucking awful

 

[Lestat]

aids wouild be fucking awful

agreed