Government can't mandate coverage for drugs that prevent HIV infections, Texas federal judge rules
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 2 years ago • 120 commentsBy: Benjamin Ryan and Corky Siemaszko
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that a provision of the Affordable Care Act that mandates free coverage of certain drugs that prevent HIV infections violates the religious beliefs of a Christian-owned company.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor came in response to a lawsuit filed by Jonathan Mitchell, a former Texas solicitor general and a conservative activist, on behalf of Braidwood Management Inc. and other self-described Christian employers and employees.
The 2020 lawsuit challenged a provision of the ACA that required free coverage of the HIV drugs Truvada and Descovy, commonly known as PrEP, that hundreds ofthousands of people in America — mostly gay and bisexual men — take.
O'Connor sided with Braidwood Management.
"Defendants do not show a compelling interest in forcing private, religious corporations to cover PrEP drugs with no cost-sharing and no religious exemptions," the judge ruled.
HIV prevention groups were quick to decry O'Connor's ruling as a "terrible judicial decision."
"This ruling is shocking on every level," said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the HIV nonprofit AVAC. "It defies evidence, logic, public health and human rights and sets back enormous progress in the fight to end the HIV epidemic."
PrEP is a "core component" in the fight against the spread of HIV, he said.
Shelly Skeen, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, predicted the federal government would appeal the decision and warned that it could embolden other employers to file similar suits.
"It's a disappointing decision, because it has broader implications for harm for folks that are just trying to work and live and access health care," Skeen said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also blasted the ruling, warning that it threatens other "vital preventative health services guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act, including birth control, vaccinations and routine health screenings."
"Today, a radical, Republican-appointed federal judge ruled that employers can deny coverage for PrEP: a drug proven to save lives from HIV/AIDS and a key strategy for ending the epidemic," Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said in a statement. "This disturbing decision amounts to open homophobia: unleashing unthinkable suffering and death specifically among the LGBTQ community."
O'Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush who has called the ACA unconstitutional, has in recent years become the go-to judge for conservatives seeking to challenge Obamacare provisions and measures aimed at protecting transgender students and enforcing Covid vaccine mandates.
Mitchell is best known as the architect behind a Texas law that encourages people to file lawsuits against those suspected of helping women get abortions. He did not immediately respond to an email from NBC News seeking comment.
The Food and Drug Administration approved Gilead Sciences' antiretroviral tablet Truvada for use as PrEP in 2012. Daily use of the tablet reduces the risk of acquiring HIV by more than 99% among men who have sex with men, and by at least 90% among women.
The FDA approved a second tablet from Gilead, Descovy, for use as PrEP in 2019.
In 2019, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force granted PrEP what's known as an "A rating," which under the ACA means that the vast majority of insurers were required to cover it for free starting in January 2021.
Nevertheless, recent analyses indicate that the nation's insurers are not all adhering to this policy. And this has raised concerns among public health experts that such out-of-pocket costs will inhibit the use of PrEP.
"Increasing PrEP access in the United States has been a key public health goal, and the requirement that private insurers provide PrEP with no cost-sharing was a key way in which access has been promoted," said Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "However, this latest ruling would re-introduce a barrier that would result in less access, as fewer individuals would be able to afford this critical intervention."
In their lawsuit, some of Mitchell's clients also objected to having to buy health insurance that also covers "contraception, the HPV vaccine, and the screenings and behavioral counseling for STDs and drug use."
"They say neither they nor their families require such preventive care," the judge wrote in his ruling. "They also claim that compulsory coverage for those services violates their religious beliefs by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman."
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
This is interesting. 99 percent reduction. . . . There are plenty of other free 'meds' and vaccines one can get without this hassle. This is about and against sex outside of marriage, isn't it? As I always say, it's (Texas) evangelical conservatives stridently laboring to drag science and society back to their side of the aisle. For conservatives the only sex 'worthy' is heterosexuality. And that in marriage—and it defined as—one man:one woman for life!
First of all-that's a well-known lie. Many, many, but by no means am I suggesting all, heterosexual men while dedicated to their female companions, 'frequent' sexual activity with other guys: AKA, "trade," or "Down-low." Pick your term. Many times done in the marriage (quietly).
Many, many, men and women are de facto: "Bisexual." Some more simply like "kinky" and/or swapping.
That is when/where/how disease-sharing happens. That is, anytime outside of abstinence or sexually one-partnering. Even one time is enough to 'break' the continuity of sexual safety between a couple. (Just ask Ravi Zacharias-Christian apologetic leader extraordinaire (Deceased.)
Don't want to risk a 'one-night stand' that results in an HPV or HIV transmission in any of your orifices—mouth included? Let insurance take care of the science ahead of time.
Once more. This is Texas evangelical conservatives stridently laboring to control the sex lives of Texans. Pretending that somehow they are different and a superior people who would never do 'this or do that' and we all know what happens to people who say, "Never!" They are among the fallen every time.
"It defies evidence, logic, public health and human rights and sets back enormous progress in the fight to end the HIV epidemic."
But does it make sense legally?
What do you mean, Vic?
Is it Constitutional?
Please elaborate further. I ask this because as you certainly know the Affordable Care Act has been challenged ad-nauseam and yet stands.
And.. we've been here before. You remember when Obama went after the Little Sisters of the Poor?
"Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the natural rights protected in the Bill of Rights generally have been insulated from interference by the states, as well.
All natural rights are of paramount importance to all persons. They are individualized personal gifts from the Creator and have been recognized as such in American law since Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with them by Him.
One of those rights guarantees the free exercise of religion. Indeed, the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment was written to ensure that the new government could not coerce persons to behave differently than their religious views informed their consciences or punish them for not conforming to a government-mandated religious orthodoxy.
Generally, for almost 230 years, the federal government left us alone to choose freely our religious practices and to worship as we believe."
Thus we have the ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor
This rhetorical statement is high-sounding for sue, but what does it signify? Do you believe—want me and others to believe—"free exercise of religion" gives carte blanche to any individual citizen to become 'holy' unto their own thoughts?
Additionally, what is the public's interest in keeping down the scourge of HIV, HPV, and other relevant sexually transmitted diseases—especially among populations not disposed to being able to pay for high-cost medications?
Moreover, during the turbulent 60's it was a SCOTUS which ruled on a different freedom case: Freedom of association - that such "expression" does not grant citizens the right to open public businesses and exclude their fellow (Black/Indians/Pacific Islanders/ eceteras) from entry or service. Do you see a correlation?
The question is: Can the government force people to do something contrary to their religious beliefs?
Additionally, what is the public's interest in keeping down the scourge of HIV, HPV, and other relevant sexually transmitted diseases—especially among populations not disposed to being able to pay for high-cost medications?
It does have an obligation to protect it's citizens.
Moreover, during the turbulent 60's it was a SCOTUS which ruled on a different freedom case: Freedom of association - that such "expression" does not grant citizens the right to open public businesses and exclude their fellow (Black/Indians/Pacific Islanders/ eceteras) from entry or service. Do you see a correlation?
No!
“The question is: Can the government force people to do something contrary to their religious beliefs?”
No, vic. The question is and has always been does the government understand that ‘religious beliefs’ have no place in their deliberations, thus allowing anyone to practice their spirituality as intended.
Is that the question, Vic? What/which religion set of beliefs do you specifically have in mind?
That is, can any individual with a following set up a new religion and expect constitutional acceptance as a given? Be clear.
BTW, large parts of the ACA were struck down as unconstitutional.
I'm afraid so.
That is, can any individual with a following set up a new religion and expect constitutional acceptance as a given?
Where do you see that happening?
Care to define the proportional size of, "large parts"? You can make a comparison if it helps.
Church of Satan, Mormonism, The Unification Church, Hari Krishna, and so forth. Should any of these religions you do not approve of, be able to do as they see fit to do?
Moreover:
Religion should stay out of other people's medical decisions
If there ever is a judgement day, then that is when that decision and others can be questioned
Exactly! Why is the Church issuing 'dictates' to politicians seeking power over who gets funding in public health? It is not religious expression; it is nothing more that power and selective bias!
Why is there such a push to provide free services and drugs for anything associated with sex? The government is willing to provide HIV prophylactics free of charge but can only cap the cost of insulin.
Providing drugs that prevent (not treat) HIV infection free of charge would seem to place the government in the position of endorsing and encouraging risky behavior. And anyone dissenting on ethical or moral grounds is guilty of repressing that risky behavior.
What's overshadowed by the self-righteous indignation is that the whole issue is really about sex and risky behavior; not about health.
Because, sex is 'basic' and so are communicable diseases.
Sex is 'basic'? Eating and crapping are more basic than sex. Lack of food and water will kill people. People who cannot crap will die. No one dies from lack of sex. People don't die because they cannot have sex.
The self-righteous indignation addresses the wrong priorities.
What don't you understand about my statement. Do not engage me with stubborn "fluffy" comments just because you can. Now you (and I) may not be having sexual relations (you will have to state your own 'status'-mine is well established on NT so I won't recount it again), in which case this discussion is not about us, but about caring for understanding the needs of others.
BTW, why write this: "Eating and crapping are more basic than sex."
It's superfluous. It's rhetoric. It's irrelevant.
It's superfluous to point out that lack of sex doesn't kill people? Maybe it should be pointed out that the premise of the argument for government subsidizing these drugs is that engaging in sex can, indeed, kill people.
Sex poses a risk of contracting STDs and HIV. Sexual promiscuity greatly increases that risk. The demand being made is that the government provide no-charge preventatives to avoid the risks associated with sexual promiscuity. And those demands for government involvement avoids any consideration of ethical or moral considerations concerning sexual promiscuity.
There really are valid ethical and moral objections for government being involved in providing public benefits that only supports sexually promiscuous behavior. There really are religious tenets that objects to sexually promiscuous behavior. So, it's not a stretch of the imagination to understand why religious groups would object to government providing public benefits that supports sexual promiscuity.
And there are no sexual STD's running rampant in church society? Of course not, but then again churches don't have license or authority from the state to dispense preventative medicines. I digress. Why is this about morals for you? Why can't you simply accept that sex is what it is? That maybe you or I will never comprehend what sex is for everybody, even as we ought to agree to keep it out or tamped down in the public 'access-ways'?
Does church society endorse and support the promiscuous behavior that causes spread of STDs? Or does church society try to discourage (and prohibit) promiscuous behavior?
A church can pay for preventative measures, if it chooses. The facts are that the government is attempting to take away choice by forcing churches to pay for preventative measures.
Comprehending sexual desires won't alter the biological truth that lack of sex won't kill anyone. The biological facts are that sex poses risks that can kill people. Too much sex with too many sexual partners is a killer, that's a fact.
All and all it is why we are gathered here for this little social discussion. What should society do?
Churches, for their part can keep their dresses down and pants up; they can spread the word about safe sex practices and yes abstinence. All the while, backing up the statements with preventive medicines society has proven successful in controlling public disease. Trying to legislate and declare unconstitutional preventative medicines by law is reckless, heartless, and makes monsters out those who try to box people into lifestyles they can't master.
Let science and medicine do the work of controlling disease proliferation; and politicians and religionists do the work of making people sanctified once they cross into the realm of faith!
Also, let us be aware and keep in the front of your minds, that 'valiant' ministers, apologists, and leaders in the faith realm have fallen into religious sin (fornication/adultery) and off their pedestals over sensual pleasures and 'delights.' And have risk everything including the lives of their spouses to exposure to disease/s. (Ravi Zacharias, RZIM, apologetics leader comes to mind.)
The issue being addressed by the seeded article is not disease, medicine, or science. The article is addressing the issue of money and who pays for preventative measures and treatments.
The argument for use of public money is being supported by ethical and moral claims about disease, medicine, and science. But those ethical and moral claims are being used for the specific purpose of obtaining money. It's all about the money.
Those who engage in risky behavior want someone else to pay for the risks and consequences of that risky behavior. The objection is about being forced to pay to prevent the risks and consequences of people choosing to engage in risky behavior.
We're done here. Conservatives have their focus and their emphasis. Same with liberals. Let's just see which pan out it the end. Or, we can just be miserable, inconsiderate, and demonizing of each other's policies and politics for yet another turn of the wheel.
That is "Ab Nerm_L" thinking at its worst. The same puritanical reverse logic was applied to birth control and prophylactics. "Why treat syphilis or gonorrhea with antibiotics? Won't it encourage bad behavior?"
If treatment for syphilis or gonorrhea are provided at no cost then isn't government subsidizing syphilis and gonorrhea? What would that government subsidy be encouraging?
You know, during the COVID pandemic the government adopted a policy of discouraging risky behavior. The government shutdown and prohibited behaviors that posed health risks as a preventative measure. Why should the government adopt the opposite approach for any behavior associated with having sex?
How do you get from "treatment" to "subsidizing" ? That's absurd.
The government isn't treating anything. The government only imposes a system of payment that subsidizes treatment. In this case, the government is imposing a system of payment that subsidizes prophylactic preventions needed to reduce risks associated with certain behaviors.
All prophylactic preventatives have a cost; they're not free. The government manipulates how those costs are paid which subsidizes both the preventive and, in this case, the behavior that needs protection by the preventative.
No, I do not see it that way at all. Even a few untreated cases of a communicable uhdisease will inevitably result in a public epidemic which costs society infinitely more than a few doses of penicillin or a round of antibiotics.
Over FORTY MILLION PEOPLE died of AIDS.
In this case, the risk of communicable disease is limited to those who engage in certain behaviors. The highest risk of contracting an STD are by those who are sexually active with a larger number of sexual partners; sexually promiscuous people.
Isn't the government paying for prophylactic preventatives and treatments for STDs subsidizing sexually promiscuous behavior?
Even if it somehow did the public interest in preventing epidemics overwhelmes all that!
Other than the incredibly obvious fact that they actually have the disease?
The risks of contracting an STD or HIV are much, much, much lower for people in an exclusive sexual relationship. The epidemic, as you call it, is a direct result of sexually promiscuous behavior.
The sexually promiscuous behavior is what spreads the disease.
I am pretty sure you argued against government mandated shutdown policy, supported reopening businesses while the pandemic was building and millions were being sickened and dying across the country, and rejected mask mandates. Am I right about this, Nerm_L?
So why do you try to shift to feign support of governmental control when it suits your personal purposes in discussion? Be consistent, open and honest above all other things.
If unbenounced to you your gay grandson was gay dating in Dallas or Houston would you rather he never got AIDS or he took the risk because there are treatments?
What about if it was your straight grand daughter straight dating in Waco or Abilene? There is still no cure for AIDS.
Your comment smacks of offense, indecency, and inhumanity. Do people who suffer sexually transmitted diseases of all stripes contribute to the whole of U.S. society? This attitude of 'me-me-me' all the time is despicable. It reminds me of someone: A villainous "Dr. Smith" on Lost In Space (1965)
"Oh, the pain."
I would not expect other people to pay higher insurance premiums for him to take such a medication, no.
Same thing. People's sexual behaviors are their own responsibility. My kids are no exception.
Didn't you demand that the government adopt harsher prohibitions on risky behavior? Weren't you making ethical and moral arguments that the government should punish those who engaged in risky behavior?
During the pandemic attention was focused on risky behavior and the potential for harm caused by that risky behavior. And the demand was for government to strenuously control that risky behavior. Prohibiting the risky behavior was the preferred preventative measure. Those who demanded government prohibitions mocked and discounted the potential for using anything as a preventative measure that would allow the risky behavior. In fact, the government providing even the most tepid support for prophylactic preventative measures resulted in an outpouring of self-righteous outrage.
The seeded article is about more than the government allowing risky behavior. The article is arguing that the government should directly support risky behavior. Not only is the article an about-face on what government should do, the article is demanding the government go beyond the objections to government prohibitions during the pandemic by providing direct support for risky behavior.
And yet you want Texas, the state, to selective support your 'brand' of sex which you have determined is responsible. That's nice-for you. The obvious question is how about not standing in the way of the support others need for their brand of sex? This is insurance we are talking about. It is a communal sharing of cost.
And don't kid yourself, nobody-straight, promiscuous, or otherwise taking pills for any other insured condition!
Are you deliberately choosing to not understand what he has written?
It is clear that he thinks people should be held responsible for their own sexual choices. He doesn't think the govt. should pay for condoms or BC for his 'brand' of sex, nor yours!
What is so hard about understanding personal responsibility?
I have no idea what the 'h' you are going on about! This article is about this:
1. Religious corporations need clarifying.
2. Religious exemptions need detailing.
And the judge may need to ask an additional question, such as "what" is a Christian "employer" in the public marketplace.
“What is so hard about understanding personal responsibility?”
And just what is so hard in understanding that our government has no place in defining personal responsibility, as long as those personal decisions do not infringe upon another.
The personal responsibility part. Remember you are dealing with a group of people who blame everybody but themselves for their own mistakes.
If someone other than the recipients are paying for these drugs, then it is affecting others.
Thanks for pointing that out.
That's an attempt to nuance the issue. The ultimate question is what place does ethics and morality have in the public marketplace?
If Christian ethics and morality have no place in the public marketplace then secular moralizing doesn't belong there either.
Damn, it MUST be tiring to be the constant victim of everything.
“If someone other than the recipients are paying for these drugs, then it is affecting others.”
To extrapolate, should insulin be subsidized and thus made affordable for those suffering from diabetes? The cost to all of us in treating the disease is extraordinary…unless, of course, a callous heart precludes any sense of communal compassion.
Spin it however you can, spin holds no place here for me.
I don't think its playing victims as much as being a leech. They seem to be always wanting a hand out and not a single thought as to where the money comes from for that "free shit".
“…secular moralizing…”
…may need further defining here if one is to be taken seriously in defending the ‘if’.
I wonder if they have ever given a moment's thought as to where the money for the free shit will ever come from.
Too, too funny…ad nauseam…
And wars? How much money do the homosexuals spend annually on man-made wars? Can we, homosexuals, girls and women, get heterosexual men and women to act responsibly and stop killing each other just for the pretense of 'glory,' fame, and fortune? Our history books are littered with "champions" of death-dealing and billions have succumbed to their power-plays.
Billions of lives throughout recorded history and uncountable coin, treasures, and property transferences.
No. Complaints. From. The. Church. Or. Other. Parties. Anywhere. To. Be. Read.
But here conservatives whining about 'high premium' for "me-me-me" and my little family. Get real. Stop faking it.
Y'all don't have to like what homosexuals do; btw, I heard a rumor- women are not too keen on Viagra.
Well, you know Nerm, nature abhors a vacuum. Something has to occupy the rules of society, but it damn sure can't be a sub-sect of religious dogma. And yes, I observed you dodged the questions because you really can't explain it either can you?
I think someone has asked you:
Not sure why anyone would expect you to have an informed answer, but it made me wonder what non-man-made wars are.
You want to discuss risky behavior in church populations; no doubt because you see an advantage for your argument? Very well. But it's predictably assured you won't tolerate that discussion.
Churches no longer have the authority to impose stringent prohibitions and punishments for risky behavior on the population at large or, even, on their own church populations. Only secular government has the authority to impose stringent prohibitions and punishments for risky behavior.
If churches had the same authority as secular government to impose stringent prohibitions and punishments then there is little doubt that 'enlightened thinkers' would suddenly find religion.
Whatever that means. It's a big "if" and it begs the question of its constitutionality.
You know they don't think.
And at what point did I mention anything about somebody's sexual preference?
if it's that important to you then knock yourself out and answer it.
The inanity of the 'big if' won't change reality. The Constitution is why churches no longer have the authority to impose stringent prohibitions and punishments for risky behavior. The question is whether or not the Constitution allows the Federal government to replace the church's historical authority? Is the Constitution intended to simply replace one all-powerful autocratic authority with another?
Even today churches retain as much authority (perhaps more) as government over behavior; particularly in countries where Islam is conjoined with government. Why is it that 'enlightened thinkers' have expended so much effort defending Islam? Are we to believe that 'enlightened thinkers' defending Islam are protecting Islamic ethics and morality? Are 'enlightened thinkers' drawn to Islam because of its peaceful tenets or because of it autocratic authority over societies?
[deleted]
Really Jeremy, the train of discussion is about sexuality, promiscuousness, prevention, STDs, and so forth and you dare to ask a question like how did sexual preference get 'threaded' through discussion? Nice try at holding back.
?
So you can't answer my question and continue to blather on about unimportant shit.
Jeremy meets "high-ground" (at least in his mind).
CB has nothing of any value to add so he resorts to the normal personal insults.
Yeah, and now whiny PROJECTION starts from those who 'swear' they NEVER do! Go figure. Moreover, it's empty 'combat.' Plus, political 'war' is not the answer! And, it's all-around less filling. Let's just call it a 'day' and wait for yet another occasion to waste time together, shall we?
This is exactly the point I was considering as I read this.
I'm trying to think of other situations where we do this. It seems like there may be some, but I'm struggling to come up with them currently.
Start with the current health crises this nation is dealing with covid (free) vaccines and Monkeypox (free) vaccines. Flu shots (beginning this fall). Polio? Pneumonia? Tuberculosis? . . . .
Next time you are in church or at your favorite hangout take a good look at your friends and family and consider that by your own puritanical standards probably ninety nine out of one hundred of "Your People" are or at times have been "Promiscuous".
STD outbreaks regularly happen in rural schools. They happen at churches in Sundy Schools! Head athletes and cheerleaders still get syphilis and gonorrhea and AIDS!
Which of those diseases are easily preventable with a condom?
I'm referring specifically to medications prescribed to prevent a disease that is transmitted through a very small number of widely publicized, very high-risk behaviors, and which are easily avoided through the use of simple, readily available precautionary measures.
You are as stupidly wrong on my views as you have been on everything else related to the topic.
You'll notice I've made no mention of the religious aspect. Or...you might have noticed if you were willing to be remotely thoughtful on the subject.
My question centers around forcing other people to bear the potentially extremely high cost of medication to prevent a disease that is relatively easily avoided through minor precautionary measures.
That does not make the suggestion that all of these people need to be on a massively expensive preventative medication any less idiotic.
Sure, but that doesn't mean other people should be required to subsidize their "preferred sensation".
Whoosh!
If you'll plug one of your ears, you should be able to cut down on that airflow.
I am going to share something that I have never shared before (because I am pretty sure I am not the 'odd one out' on this one.) If memory serves me, the first time I ever kissed a girl and passionately groped a girl (and she me) it was in our church downstairs classroom/social area as young teens. Why? Because it was the only place we could meet up. Moreover, if we had fully understood what we were trying to do ("get busy") we might have gone farther than groping each other.
I say this to say that these so-called "puritan" adults and elders either don't know what they are writing about, or simply choose to forget the real world going ons!
The behavior may or may not be controllable. High-risk? Promiscuous? Is any other public health crisis situation controllable? Homelessness is running amok. Should we ask homeless people to 'heal thyself'? How is that working out for the country? (Our streets are literally littered with these individuals and their social disturbances which drive them out).
No, Jack_Tx. I detect that Texas is not the slightest bit interested in fixing this 'risky behavior' as much as it is in finding a legal means to run it out of town. Eh?
The federal government has an interest in its citizens, irregardless of how Texas feels about their legal behavior or promiscuousness. (Borne and 'bred' by the states who for centuries have treated homosexuals unfairly, inequitably, and inhumanely.)
Why would it not be?
Apart from the idea that homelessness is not something you can largely prevent with a condom, it would cost far less per person than Descovy.
The lawsuit was brought on religious grounds, so there are undoubtedly some people who feel that way. Personally, I don't care.
Do explain how whenever the federal government "has an interest" in one group or another, that somehow translates into me paying more.
Before I deal with the comment above, let me state here: Jack, we don't always know who we are discussing issues or portions of issues with here. Sometimes there is cross-over and sometimes there is not. Nerm is here discussing "promiscuous behavior" and morality; you apparently are here for the economics. Someone else could be here because of their bias against 'those people over there" and others are loud on one point or the other and silent while agreeing to 'everything.' See how this works?
As for drug costs: Government should discuss lowering the cost of these drugs. Because it won't do a damn bit of good to make drugs no-one can afford to buy in the markeplace (they will sit and age out) or worse, people simply will go back to infecting one another without regard to risks.
One thing you will not be able to do is the proverbial: "squeezing juice from a turnip"!
Aside from the fact that I would reckon these medications work better than even a condom in the prevention of disease. . .your cheap and 'old-school' alternative is a useful consideration as an alternative; it is not a be-all that ends all.
With that, let's cut through the bull manure here. Evangelicals are always looking for their next so-called 'indignation' to launch into against 'those people,' whereas those people do not concern themselves with all the wars and wrongs the majority 'crowd' spends out money wastefully.
Why do conservatives insist on trying to run homosexuals, girls, and women lives?! We see you and the 'hoops' and self-righteous finger pointing "the biddies" go through to stop progress and betterment of society as a whole.
One would think conservatives have found "perfection" in the past: well, breaking "F-ing" news: The past in this country was shitty for minorities across the board as evangelicals SUCKED Up the country's largess into their greedy storehouses (AKA: bank accounts). And I get it y'all pine away for the 'glory days' when you were indulgent without anyone to do anything about it.
As in any large-scale 'operation': Conservatives are used to be the "house" and only the house knows where all the funds are locked away and in what denominations. Now, those others are gaining access to the systems and conservatives are crying foul over mere "change."
You won't tell me I am right about this, and I have no need to hear it from any conservative.
Finally, sure it would be great/grand/divine even if we were all given to a conservative lifestyle, but we are not. So deal with reality and its betterment, rather than these backward ass 'talks' about turning apples into oranges or water into fire.
I don't care.
The idea that "failure to buy you stuff" somehow equates to "trying to run your life" is laughable and moronic.
Nobody is stopping anybody from buying these medications. Nobody is stopping you from buying them and distributing them to anyone you like.
If you think this is a great idea, put your own money behind it.
“If you think this is a great idea, put your own money behind it.”
Have any investments in pharmaceuticals? Check your 401k portfolio and get back.
Does the system need an overhaul? Certainly. Until we get long overdue campaign financing reforms legislated, complaining about the distribution of health care monies is but pissing in the wind.
And if you think that society can afford to have disease running wildly through the next generation continue to gripe and moan—until somebody you know becomes sick and diseased because of a lack spurred on by conservative politics. The 'good news' for you is this: You will get to know who did what when you otherwise didn't know they were into it. But, the 'bad news' will be-it will last a lifetime or as chronic disease until a cure is found!
Ordinary folks are not going to be able to pay for high-priced drugs likely anymore than conservatives on a fixed income; better let the 'pool' aggregate the cost and spread it out through the system.
Sitting around complaining about why people's nether-regions are misbehaving and not up to your opinion of them won't save anybody's health or life! Trying to punish people whom all you lifetime have been undermined, undersupplied, undervalued, discounted, and underpaid because they can't match the opportunities you possess (been privileged to even when you thought it was your 'abilities' that opened doors for you) in a "hetero-centric" world ("privileged") will be a waste.
This lawsuit may indicate otherwise.
It's not running wildly through the next generation. It's reasonably easy to avoid, and most people are responsible.
All the more reason to use simple and inexpensive methods of prevention.
I'm not sure what part of "I don't care what they do" was unclear.
Claiming "punishment" because someone doesn't want to spend outrageous sums of money on something that could be accomplished for a fraction of the cost is what 12-year-olds do.
Well, I am pretty sure you agree an aspirin "between the knees" will prevent sinful acts taking place down there and above all so cheap. So, why are church people using more expensive forms of birth control and abortifacients? It's a rhetorical question.
There's still an HIV epidemic?
Have certain groups of people learned nothing in the last few decades, and still look upon safe sexual practices as some kind of joke?
Whoa! AIDS is no longer a predominantly gay men's disease. Anyone who engages in unprotected sex, even one time, is susceptible to contacting the HIV Virus. So, all young people who are sexually active should probably be on these medications which are proven to stop the transmission. There are already over forty million people currently living with AIDS!
I think you'll find it is.
According to the CDC: Out of the 1.1 million people living with HIV in the U.S., roughly 700,000 of them attained the virus through male-male sexual intercourse.
Riiiiight. They all need to be on a $2000/mo medication because they're too stupid to operate a condom? What??
Remember, it's not just sex but bodily fluids. French kiss anyone?
All? No, it should be between the doctor and the patient to decide. It should be based on risk and individual circumstances. It should not be denied because of the cost to those in a high risk situation.
So what? You can sit in self-satisfaction and judgement of homosexuals because of the hand they have been dealt? Is it fair the 'hand' they have been dealt? Is it fair what society has done to homosexuals by denying them constructive lives and the right of marriage up to 2015? What is society's responsibility to its citizens; it's union; its community?
Or (and this is a 'dig') do we just understand the plight of heterosexuals and make provisions for their 'worth'?
Well.... you said "all".
A high risk situation they choose.
If they choose high risk behavior and they want to take meds to prevent issues... fine. They can choose and pay for their own preferred risk-mitigation method.
Oh for fuck's sake. It's like some folks just can't stop themselves projecting emotions onto other people.
This is very simple, CB.
Do whatever the fuck you want. It's none of my business and I don't care anyway.
Take whatever protective measures you want. I don't care and it's none of my business anyway.
Don't ask me to pay higher premiums to cover it.
Victims often seem to expect free stuff at others' expense.
You elect to forget that there are generations of homosexuals and heterosexuals who will never live as 'responsible' as you seem to think you will and can. Do you want to fix (and likely end) the problems in society or just argue over dollars and cents all the time? Whatever became of investing in people? Stop straining on a gnat; while stuffing down an elephant!
You pay "high premiums" (or not!) to cover for your own desires, eh? No? Oh and for the record I don't need "preventatives" because I don't sleep 'around.'
“Victims often seem to expect free stuff at others' expense.”
When you pay your monthly premium, do you ask for a line item statement so you can negotiate prices for any and all costs with which you take issue?
Or do you, like normal folks, pay it with a sense of gratitude that we reside in a country offering the best health care in the world and offered to most of us, warts and all?
I said all young adults who are sexually active, which means dating multiple people, as many young single people tend to do for a period of time putting them into the high risk category...
people who are higher risks should pay more. it only makes sense.
do you think you should pay the same for car insurance as a 18 year old?
Why should their irresponsible behavior become my responsibility?
End?? That may be the most naive thing I've heard an adult say in a while.
Easy to minimize when they're somebody else's dollars and cents.
So we're talking about spending potentially tens of thousands of dollars annually on people who are too indifferent towards their own welfare to engage in simple and inexpensive measures of self-preservation.... In what way is that an "investment"?
“do you think you should pay the same for car insurance as a 18 year old?”
And I don’t. But to continue your off-topic analogy, we all pay a portion of our premium for the uninsured and underinsured. Fair or not, but our interests are covered.
It is insurance to secure one’s personal interests, not assurance to meet one’s political interests.
That is not how anybody else defines "sexually active".
Nevertheless, none of that makes the suggestion any less ridiculously impractical.
Your investment in this country is. . . noted. What makes you conservatives think that this country is 'supported' by conservatives alone? Do you know how ridiculous that is? Wars are irresponsible. Government fraud and waste, corporate abuses are irresponsible, tax breaks to those who can physically afford to pay more because they have the largess of this country (while stirring up political fights and wedge issues for the rank and file citizenry against its best interests) is irresponsible.
But those homosexuals should ask little or nothing for themselves from their government! While the nation doles all its attention (and affection) on the supposedly pure as the driven snow conservatives. /s
You have much to explain, Jack. Good luck.
No, but they damn sure should take a little freaking responsibility for their own actions.
I don't know why over the last 20 years or so, far too many liberals think we as a country should pay everything for anyone.
It simply isn't sustainable.
You know zero things about my investment in this country.
Yet another one of your fantasies.
Do cite me saying anything close to that. And when you can't, stop guessing at what I think. You're terrible at it.
Do you know how ridiculous it is to invent a view for somebody else with no evidence whatsoever?
So is the idea here that it's your turn to waste other people's money?
At any point are we going to consider the idea that it's their money? Does it even enter your cognition that you don't have an inalienable right to other people's stuff?
[deleted]
None of it is their money, Jack_Tx. Money is meant to circulate through the body of this nation-generally speaking. Helping to build, create, and restore the broken places in this country. Money is a form of "nutrition" for the citizenry..
The problem is these 'hogs' who clog the pipes and lines of the system (and send it out of the country squirreled away in overseas banks) for personal reasons. Moreover, I get it. You have your pet people projects that you care about and damn the rest of the folks.
Yes! You have a right to complain and get you point of view across—maybe it can be accepted. But, there are counterpoints to be reviewed, argued, and decided too.
With that understanding, "Conservative on!" We can end this little exchange here and now.
I think you'll find it is.
By which we mean "nefarious bastards who behave responsibly, save their money, and object to it being wasted".
Ah, yes. The ever present liberal response that anyone who doesn't want to buy you whatever shit you've set your heart on is just a selfish meanie who won't share. It's infantile.
"Conservative On!" I have lost patience with this ignorant banter. Goodbye.
Correct and do you know why?
Because you are a lower risk than they are!
Which was my point, thanks for getting it at long last!