SC House of Reps votes to cut all HIV/AIDS funding

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[useful idiot]

Magic Johnson can make money, why can't these freeloaders? I'm glad to see the South Carolina Reichstag...uh, I mean House of Representatives, standing up to these homos and druggies.

Seriously though, these reps are going to hell. I'm not just sure......I'm HIV Postive....

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why should they be spending MY hard earned tax dollars because they chose to get AIDS?

If my taxes go up I might have to downgrade my internet/cable package!  OH HORROR!  Look what the fags put me through!

[Verily]

"They're all f*****s and n*****s anyway," said one State Representative.

[Lunar]

Does Big Pharm really not have any sway in the South Carolina legislature?  Srsly

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why was the state funding AIDS meds in the first place?  Was it a part of Medicaid, or was it it's own medical program (sorry - I just really don't know much about this)?

[CultureKing]

Why was the state funding AIDS meds in the first place?  Was it a part of Medicaid, or was it it's own medical program (sorry - I just really don't know much about this)?

Actually I am not sure, though I do feel that since the government's job is to look after the welfare of its citizens keeping them alive would fall under that umbrella. But then again SC legislators may just be simply trying to purge the state of "undesirables".

[Smash255]

"They're all f*****s and n*****s anyway," said one State Representative.

The sad thing is it wouldn't surprise me if someone in the SC House of Reps made that comment...

[Franzl]

I'm HIV Postive....

Oh wow....really sorry to hear that

[k-onmmunist]

Magic Johnson can make money, why can't these freeloaders? I'm glad to see the South Carolina Reichstag...uh, I mean House of Representatives, standing up to these homos and druggies.

Seriously though, these reps are going to hell. I'm not just sure......I'm HIV Postive....

Sorry man

[dead0man]

I hope you two are just playing with the joke, but I'm 99% sure he doesn't have the HIV (pronounced hiv, not Aitch Eye Vee).  "I'm not just sure, I'm HIV positive" is a line Cartman used a lot on the cash cures AIDS episode of South Park.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Magic Johnson can make money, why can't these freeloaders? I'm glad to see the South Carolina Reichstag...uh, I mean House of Representatives, standing up to these homos and druggies.

Seriously though, these reps are going to hell. I'm not just sure......I'm HIV Postive....

Really?

[perdedor]

God...

It's things like this that makes me wish Lincoln would have just let the Confederacy keep it.

[MK]

I saw this yesterday as this effects me in a way, and I really cant comment too much.. don't wanna get banned or have the cops knocking on my door as to the things I might say.


I will say THIS IS %UCKING RIDICLOUS!!!


JUST THINK THE VOTERS IN THESE SOUTHREN STATES CONTINUE TO VOTE GOP EVENTHOUGH ITS THE SAME 5UCKING PARTY THAT HAS THE STATES IN THE BUDGET MESS THEIR IN.  BUT DONT WORRY JIM DEMINT AND OTHERS CAN PUSH IT ALL OF ON " ITS THAT OBAMA  AND HIS SPENDING"      NO YOU STUPID 5UCK, YOU AND YOUR OLE BOYS HAVE BEEN AT THE HELM OF THE SHIP IN THESE STATES FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.    Going to stop here.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

"They're all f*****s and n*****s anyway," said one State Representative.

The sad thing is it wouldn't surprise me if someone in the SC House of Reps made that comment...

[Joe Republic]

Magic Johnson can make money, why can't these freeloaders? I'm glad to see the South Carolina Reichstag...uh, I mean House of Representatives, standing up to these homos and druggies.

Seriously though, these reps are going to hell. I'm not just sure......I'm HIV Postive....

Really?

lol

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The program that was provisionally cut was only begun in 2006 back when the State had more revenue.  That it was a relatively recent program was probably one factor in selecting it for the chopping block.  Another was it is likely that fewer State employees would be affected adversely by cutting this program than another with similar savings as most of the cost is for the extremely expensive drugs involved.

Whilethe stereotypical view of who has HIV likely had a part to play in selecting this program to be cut, it wasn't due to pure malice.  Guesstimating from the numbers in the article, it looks like the program cost approximately $40,000,000 and was saving about five lives a year by keeping people fro being put on a waiting list for other programs that help people pay for the expensive drugs involved.  The question is how many lives could be saved by spending that money in other ways?  Cutting $40,000,000 here likely has less of an impact on the public weal than for example cutting $40,000,000 from the State's Medicaid budget would.

It also looks like those other programs decided that since the State was going to pay, they didn't have to. Back in 2006, the waiting list to get the assistance that was available was a bit over 600, yet apparently around 3,000 people will be affected if the budget cut stands.  This State certainly hasn't had a five-fold increase in HIV cases in four years.  The ballooning size of the program, far beyond what probably had been expected likely contributed to the decision to cut it.

In short, I see no reason why HIV funding should be considered sacrosanct. It's a good program, but those who are upset with the decision the House reached, should first say what other programs they would have cut instead to achieve an equivalent savings and consider the impact that those cuts would have.

[Scam of God]

The problem, Ernest, is that drug cocktails need to be maintained, or else one's viral load will increase and could develop a resistance. The fewer effective drug options your doctor has, the more likely you'll need to go to drugs with more severe side effects. If South Carolina wasn't committed to retaining this program, it should never have started it in the first; those who go on HIV/AIDS drug regimens and then are taken off them are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS than those who do not.

As an aside - young adult heterosexual females are currently the fastest growing segment of new HIV infections. Male to female transmission is incredibly easy when no protection is used, and especially so if the male isn't on medication. Yes, this means that lowered availability for medicine can directly translate into higher infection rates, particularly in a state that loves its good ol' Abstinence Only sex ed.

[k-onmmunist]

Abstinence only sex ed should not be funded by the state. It's dangerous.

[opebo]

Magic Johnson can make money, why can't these freeloaders? I'm glad to see the South Carolina Reichstag...uh, I mean House of Representatives, standing up to these homos and druggies.

Seriously though, these reps are going to hell. I'm not just sure......I'm HIV Postive....

Really?

lol

Actually it is quite accurate to say, epidemiologicaly speaking, that 'we all' have hiv, as a community or species, and that these sorts of programs are an effective and useful treatment for all of us.   

Basically placing infected people on these medications is a very effective method of preventing further transmission, as they become nearly non-infectious (again epidemiologicaly speaking - of course there is still some risk, it is just a fairly insignificant one in terms of effectively spreading the disease). 

In addition the low immunity which is the prime effect of the virus tends to create a breeding ground for serious public threats like tuberculosis, etc.  Poverty does this as well of course.  These threats then spread easily into the general populace.

Really for all our good health we must create free, effective health care for all, and a generous dole which will prevent people from living in unhealthy conditions due to poverty.

(oh and by the way forty million is nothing - this was done purely out of hate)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem, Ernest, is that drug cocktails need to be maintained, or else one's viral load will increase and could develop a resistance. The fewer effective drug options your doctor has, the more likely you'll need to go to drugs with more severe side effects. If South Carolina wasn't committed to retaining this program, it should never have started it in the first; those who go on HIV/AIDS drug regimens and then are taken off them are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS than those who do not.

Einzige, I never said that this was a desirable policy decision, but that the budget cuts have to come somewhere and why this program was vulnerable to be chosen.  Any criticism of this particular cut needs to specify what they would want cut instead.  Warning! There isn't a whole lot of fat on the fiscal bone in this State, even in good economic times, and they've been cutting muscle during this downturn.  Tax hikes, except possibly for one on cigarettes, will not fly politically in this state. (Indeed, a bill to phase out the State's corporate income tax over ten years starting in 2013 is likely to pass this session of the General Assembly.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I saw this yesterday as this effects me in a way, and I really cant comment too much.. don't wanna get banned or have the cops knocking on my door as to the things I might say.


I will say THIS IS %UCKING RIDICLOUS!!!


JUST THINK THE VOTERS IN THESE SOUTHREN STATES CONTINUE TO VOTE GOP EVENTHOUGH ITS THE SAME 5UCKING PARTY THAT HAS THE STATES IN THE BUDGET MESS THEIR IN.  BUT DONT WORRY JIM DEMINT AND OTHERS CAN PUSH IT ALL OF ON " ITS THAT OBAMA  AND HIS SPENDING"      NO YOU STUPID 5UCK, YOU AND YOUR OLE BOYS HAVE BEEN AT THE HELM OF THE SHIP IN THESE STATES FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.    Going to stop here.

Yet I bet you still voted for Beverly Perdue or would have if able, correct?

[MK]

I can't say if i would have.  Im not a voter in this state yet.


Your point being?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why was the state funding AIDS meds in the first place?  Was it a part of Medicaid, or was it it's own medical program (sorry - I just really don't know much about this)?

Actually I am not sure, though I do feel that since the government's job is to look after the welfare of its citizens keeping them alive would fall under that umbrella. But then again SC legislators may just be simply trying to purge the state of "undesirables".

Well, but I was wondering if they had a specific program.  Obviously it falls under welfare of citiezens, but not really any more than any other serious diseases.

[Vepres]

South Carolina: Where almost all elected officials are nut jobs, as opposed to a mere majority nationally.