Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BUDGET: Line has to be drawn somewhere

Letter by Roy Broman, University Place on Dec. 5, 2011 at 2:01 pm with 17 Comments »
December 5, 2011 2:15 pm

Re: “Cuts already have been devastating” (letter, 12-2).

The vast majority of individuals with HIV/AIDS have engaged in high-risk behavior involving sexual activity or illicit drug use. Ignorance is no excuse as
the risks are common knowledge.

To engage in these activities is a personal choice. Of course, we all have the right to make choices, but we don’t always choose the consequences. Infected individuals are in a difficult spot brought on by their own choices and related actions.

This raises a difficult moral socio-economic and ethical question. Should taxpayers be put in the position of paying for the resultant costs, whatever they maybe, of the irresponsible, voluntary choices of those now afflicted by a condition such as HIV/AIDS?

Should the answer be yes, then there is a further consideration. What is the taxpayer responsibility to the person who engages in a different high-risk behavior, such as gambling, to which there are multiple risks such as loss of property, home, family, employment and even risk of physical harm?

To keep things on the level playing field advocated by many social engineers, this person should be entitled to the same assistance that is rendered to the HIV/AIDS individual.

To make this latter individual whole may be a very costly proposition to the taxpayers. Failure to consider this unfortunate individual borders on hypocrisy. There are, of course, ever expanding areas of social spending with costs increasing geometrically. A line must be drawn.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 17
  1. surething says:

    Wow.

  2. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    They have to put the aids victims on the back burner. They have to spend the millions on drunk indians.

    I am addicted to the good life. Where are my benefits?

    Has everyone seen this one? The TNT won’t print this story.
    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Feds–Seattle-welfare-recipient-lived-in-million-dollar-home-134943613.html

  3. sandblower says:

    Mr. Broman has a somewhat narrow vision of reality it seems. Hey Roy, what about the person who gets infected because of a blood transfusion. Or the wife who gets infected by the errant husband or even the other way around. It is a disease that can threaten anyone. Let’s take first responders and hospital employees for examples too.
    I think Mr. Broman didn’t think before he signed his name to his letter.

  4. Taxed – a few things just don’t add up.

    Starting with $1,200 per month X 12 monts = $14,000 per year which would not even pay the property tax on $1.2 Million home.

    Second – it takes more than an address to sign up for public assistance.

    Third – If the couple can afford a $1.2 Million home etc, why risk it for a $14,000 per year?

  5. A321196 says:

    The same moral issues can be raised concerning the elderly. I believe statistics show the vast majority of health care dollars for the elderly are spent in the final three months of life. There are families that follow the wishes of the elder to allow them to slowly slip away. And, then there are families who keep the elder alive as long as possible, although there is no vestige of a positive quality of life. I’ve seen families allow a person peacefully slip away within a week, and, I’ve seen a spouse keep an elderly husband alive and comatose for eighteen months. Any answers?

  6. itwasntmethistime says:

    I’m with sandblower about AIDS hitting people that didn’t do anything to “deserve” it, but I’d love to dump any and all public funding that treats type II diabetes.

  7. beerBoy says:

    Why stop with AIDS? Heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, “accidents”…they all can be attributed to bad behavior.

  8. scoatesw says:

    Since we’re told corporations are individuals, what of the risky behaviors that the banking system/Wall Street had been doing? They got bailed out and have led destruction of neighborhoods in their wake. Even us who have lived withon our means are being impacted heavily with homes upside down, etc. Letter writer, do corporation bailouts and tax breaks fit the same bill? Let’s get them off the teat of the American taxpayer. After all, they’re multinationals when they feel like it, right?

  9. Or we could just cut off all medical care when people turn 65.

  10. LarryFine says:

    Well… some medical conditions are avoidable… ahem.

  11. Larry so would is that what you would tell a child or relative that is infected?

  12. harleyrider1 says:

    People who have lung cancer from smoking continue to receive tax-payer assistance and public support. Their newborn children thankfully are not born with lung cancer although they may now be more genetically-predisposed. Science is out on that one.

    A child of parents that have HIV will be born with HIV; HIV is a transmittable disease that sometimes is not a product of behavior. Contaminated blood given to a triage and sometimes surgery patient still happens. It’s rare – but it still can happen. I would also argue that is not a result-choice of those that engage in any behavior.

    Hopefully we will have a vaccine that will eradicate it one day and it will be one less opined judgement.

  13. aislander says:

    The first paragraph says the “vast majority” of HIV/AIDS patients acquire their condition through high-risk behavior. That is the cohort the letter addresses, so the “innocent victim” objection is a mere red herring.

    The problem really is that lefties don’t want to judge behavior. That’s one reason that they sow confusion between race and culture. Race has no influence on behavior, whereas culture has profound influence on it.

    So, if one criticizes culturally-generated behavior, he is likely to be accused of racism (or “blaming the victim”)…

  14. Harley – people who have lung cancer and never smoked also receive taxpayer assistance and public support.

  15. itwasntmethistime says:

    xring — The vast majority of people who have lung cancer have smoked, so that “innocent victim” objection is the same red herring.

  16. BlaineCGarver says:

    Well, I’m for totally provided-for health care. FIRE the insurance companies, I don’t want them getting billions off the back of the sick and dying. Pay for it with a Federal Sales Tax….a non-profit , single payer CoOp can make the payments. Period. Let’s fire the IRS while we’re at it, IMO.

  17. BlaineCGarver says:

    BTW, I was not being sarcastic…that’s what I’d do.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0