5 ms·

Why should promiscuity mean that they should have to privately fund their treatment? (Not that promiscuity is the only way you can get HIV, but that's not the q

Why should promiscuity mean that they should have to privately fund their treatment? (Not that promiscuity is the only way you can get HIV, but that's not the question I'm asking.) People have differing ideas about what acceptable and unacceptable behavior is. If we required that taxes only be collected for the set of behaviors everyone agreed on, we'd have no taxes, and no government. Even if we agreed that promiscuous people should not receive public medical treatment (which is not a position I hold), would you suggest condemning people who contracted this through no act of their own as well? Parents can give it to their children, and there are nonsexual ways you can end up with bodily fluid transmission. Assuming you're describing the book I think you are, there are a number of editions of said book in which one of the protagonists shows mercy toward the sick and ostracized people.

qazpot 7y ago
> would you suggest condemning people who contracted this through no act of their own as well? No, but these cases can be identified. For ex - children or people with unfaithful spouses. A majority of HIV infections are due to unprotected sex. > there are nonsexual ways you can end up with bodily fluid transmission. Please do tell use about these nonsexual ways. Cause I was under impression that normal contact during daily life carries no risk.
- User23 7y ago
  I assume parent means contaminated blood transfusion. That was the primary non-sexual vector before screening and excluding known high risk populations from blood donation was adopted.
- Ace17 7y ago
  > Please do tell use about these nonsexual ways. Sharing syringes (e.g between drug users).
- cblades 7y ago
  And the cases where a partner didn't disclose their status, or didn't know that they were contagious, or they hit the shitty jackpot and were infected despite best-effort and best-practice measures?
  - qazpot 7y ago
    Yes all those reasons contribute more to HIV infections than promiscuous sex with multiple partners.
User23 7y ago
> Why should promiscuity mean that they should have to privately fund their treatment? For the same reason that we shouldn’t be taxed to pay alcoholics’ bar tabs. Look I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to take observably stupid risks, I’m just saying men with guns shouldn’t force the populace to pay for it.
- rincebrain 7y ago
  Subsidizing the risky behavior and subsidizing the treatment are distinct things. I dislike the idea of refusing treatment for some based on certain criteria for a number of reasons - one of the big ones is that I've witnessed the enormous irrational engine that is medical insurance billing in the US, and I don't really trust ~anyone to decide on whether a treatment should be paid for when they have a fiscal incentive one way or the other. I'm trying to understand what you're specifically objecting to - it's not researching treatments for these conditions being funded publicly, I think, just giving them to people who were affected by risky behaviors?
  - User23 7y ago
    > I'm trying to understand what you're specifically objecting to - it's not researching treatments for these conditions being funded publicly, I think, just giving them to people who were affected by risky behaviors? I wouldn’t phrase it in the passive voice, but yes I don’t object to research or people spending their own money on the consequences of their own behavior.
- viraptor 7y ago
  I don't understand the comparison. You're not paying alcoholic's bar tab. You're paying (assuming a health system with common public coverage) for their broken arm if they fall while drunk. And we do that because it's a reasonable thing to do overall. And definitely cheaper than trying to figure out who's fault each health issue was. You got a heart attack? Why didn't you cycle to work? How much processed food did you eat? Are you sure it's not your fault? What about exercise - You got injured while running? You didn't have to run, that was your decision. You got hit by a car? Why did you leave the house; your decision again. A public, shared coverage has to ignore responsibility to some extent. Or we'll end up with system where you need too prove every time you're not too blame. I think that would be immoral - even according to a book you mention.
Doubl 7y ago
Your argument ignores real politics. In my country we are constantly having questions about why isn't more money available to help children with autism or old people with dementia, etc. At the same time people complain that taxes are too high. One of the ways to square that circle would be to look at spending on the treatment of avoidable diseases. Particularly ones that affect only a minority (ie not people like us) but yet cost a lot to treat.
- ahje 7y ago
  If you want to go down that road then I suggest you start looking at injuries for spare-time daredevils without insurance first (and professional athletes, but I think most of those have private insurance anyway).
  - Doubl 7y ago
    The group that most commonly get mentioned are smokers. The reply smokers give is to mention that they are taxed so heavily for their habit that they are paying their way. It's also mentioned that because they die younger, they effectively subsidise other people's old age.
    - ahje 7y ago
      Yeah, that's a nice way to solve it actually, but I suspect that taxing sexual intercourse based on how frequent it happens and with whom it happens might just be a bit difficult. :P
- cblades 7y ago
  How do you separate the HIV+ people that engaged in 'risky' (by whatever definition you apply) behavior from those who didn't?
  - Doubl 7y ago
    I'm not suggesting you do but if society were ever to do that, I'd imagine that people who were avowedly promiscuous would be viewed as risk takers.

qazpot 7y ago

> would you suggest condemning people who contracted this through no act of their own as well? No, but these cases can be identified. For ex - children or people with unfaithful spouses. A majority of HIV infections are due to unprotected sex. > there are nonsexual ways you can end up with bodily fluid transmission. Please do tell use about these nonsexual ways. Cause I was under impression that normal contact during daily life carries no risk.

User23 7y ago
I assume parent means contaminated blood transfusion. That was the primary non-sexual vector before screening and excluding known high risk populations from blood donation was adopted.
Ace17 7y ago
> Please do tell use about these nonsexual ways. Sharing syringes (e.g between drug users).
cblades 7y ago
And the cases where a partner didn't disclose their status, or didn't know that they were contagious, or they hit the shitty jackpot and were infected despite best-effort and best-practice measures?
- qazpot 7y ago
  Yes all those reasons contribute more to HIV infections than promiscuous sex with multiple partners.

User23 7y ago

> Why should promiscuity mean that they should have to privately fund their treatment? For the same reason that we shouldn’t be taxed to pay alcoholics’ bar tabs. Look I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to take observably stupid risks, I’m just saying men with guns shouldn’t force the populace to pay for it.

rincebrain 7y ago
Subsidizing the risky behavior and subsidizing the treatment are distinct things. I dislike the idea of refusing treatment for some based on certain criteria for a number of reasons - one of the big ones is that I've witnessed the enormous irrational engine that is medical insurance billing in the US, and I don't really trust ~anyone to decide on whether a treatment should be paid for when they have a fiscal incentive one way or the other. I'm trying to understand what you're specifically objecting to - it's not researching treatments for these conditions being funded publicly, I think, just giving them to people who were affected by risky behaviors?
- User23 7y ago
  > I'm trying to understand what you're specifically objecting to - it's not researching treatments for these conditions being funded publicly, I think, just giving them to people who were affected by risky behaviors? I wouldn’t phrase it in the passive voice, but yes I don’t object to research or people spending their own money on the consequences of their own behavior.
viraptor 7y ago
I don't understand the comparison. You're not paying alcoholic's bar tab. You're paying (assuming a health system with common public coverage) for their broken arm if they fall while drunk. And we do that because it's a reasonable thing to do overall. And definitely cheaper than trying to figure out who's fault each health issue was. You got a heart attack? Why didn't you cycle to work? How much processed food did you eat? Are you sure it's not your fault? What about exercise - You got injured while running? You didn't have to run, that was your decision. You got hit by a car? Why did you leave the house; your decision again. A public, shared coverage has to ignore responsibility to some extent. Or we'll end up with system where you need too prove every time you're not too blame. I think that would be immoral - even according to a book you mention.

Doubl 7y ago

Your argument ignores real politics. In my country we are constantly having questions about why isn't more money available to help children with autism or old people with dementia, etc. At the same time people complain that taxes are too high. One of the ways to square that circle would be to look at spending on the treatment of avoidable diseases. Particularly ones that affect only a minority (ie not people like us) but yet cost a lot to treat.

ahje 7y ago
If you want to go down that road then I suggest you start looking at injuries for spare-time daredevils without insurance first (and professional athletes, but I think most of those have private insurance anyway).
- Doubl 7y ago
  The group that most commonly get mentioned are smokers. The reply smokers give is to mention that they are taxed so heavily for their habit that they are paying their way. It's also mentioned that because they die younger, they effectively subsidise other people's old age.
  - ahje 7y ago
    Yeah, that's a nice way to solve it actually, but I suspect that taxing sexual intercourse based on how frequent it happens and with whom it happens might just be a bit difficult. :P
cblades 7y ago
How do you separate the HIV+ people that engaged in 'risky' (by whatever definition you apply) behavior from those who didn't?
- Doubl 7y ago
  I'm not suggesting you do but if society were ever to do that, I'd imagine that people who were avowedly promiscuous would be viewed as risk takers.