Facebook Debate Over Healthcare--With A Jab At Gays Thrown In

[tednlou2]

A friend from highschool, who is now a doctor, has been posting debates on healthcare.  It has been interesting to get various thoughts--although he and most his friends are dirty socialists.  Rationing came up, as well as lifestyle changes.  Everyone talked about healthy diets, exercise, preventative care, etc.  Well, one of his friends threw in a comment about gays and HIV.  It rubbed me the wrong way.  I made a reply and he replied back. 

I'm curious how you guys would have responded?  Or, would you have just ignored it?  Was I being a tad too sensitive?  I probably should have just ignored this, but still curious how you would have responded--because I know most here would have responded much better than I.  I get flustered and then have a hard time making the points I want to make.  At first glance, it appears he is saying it would have been wrong to deny care to gays with AIDS.  Awww, such a great guy.  But, I read that as just a way to slam gay men who were just unfortunate to have acquired the virus.  Again, perhaps I'm being too sensitive.  If he hadn't made the slams about "protected class," would he had made any kind of legitimate argument?       

From the friend:

If you are all for lifestyle changes, are you only talking about nutrition and smoking or are you going to address cost created by protected classes like homosexuals. Remember the 80's. The cost of treating an AIDS patient is significant.... Should we have rationed health care then since it was created by a life style decision? Ultimately, when government is involved in health care, there will be rationing and the decisions will be political.

From my friend:

We treat lots of health care conditions that are life style related. Drunk driving, farm accidents, coal miners with pulmonary fibrosis, sand blasters that never used respiratory protection, drug user with infections, fireworks accident...s, near drowning, bike accidents, cancer related to smoking, diabetes related to obesity, cirrhosis from alcohol,. That is the bitter pill swallow to have to pay for other peoples care if they engage in high risk behavior that is self destructive. Especially if you have strong objections to that life style. I don't believe that homosexual are a protected class. I think treating HIV in the 80's turned out to be an important issue in public health even if it is costly.

His friend replies:

First, let me say that your assumption that I have strong objections to gays is unfounded. I did not say that I objected to treating homosexual infected with AIDS during the 80's. In fact I think it facilitated better research into viral diseases. It was the free market that has allowed the current treatments for AIDS to be developed. It is possible that none of this may have happened if health care had been rationed. Health care decisions should not be made by a bureaucrat of any political persuasion. Sadly, the new health care law grants those kinds of decisions to the current health care czar.  Gays are a protected class. That's what 'hate' crimes are all about.

My reply to his friend:

Kevin, would you say being straight is a life style decision? I'm trying to understand where you were coming from with that comment. I'm gay. What were you referring to as being a life style, as far as gays are concerned? I don't see who I am as a life style. Partying and having tons of sex is a life style. However, straight people do just as much partying and I'm sure have just as much sex. Gays have just been hit the hardest with HIV here, because anal sex happens to be a stronger vector of transmission--even though worldwide, more heterosexuals are infected. And, it wasn't the free market (alone) that led to HIV drugs (HAART). Much of the research dollars came from the gov't and other public funded groups. This is the case with many drugs. Drug companies rely on a ton of gov't welfare for lifesaving drugs, but take off with the profits. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/truth-about-drug-companies
See MoreThe Truth About Drug Companies
 
His reply back to me:

Ted, I was referring to the wildly promiscuous nature of the gay lifestyle of the 70's and 80s'. Oh and god forbid that any business should want to make a profit. How's your iPhone working out for you? 

[spacebarsux]

One of the chief reasons gay/bi men have been/are more disproportionately infected by HIV (other than the anal sex transmission vector you mentioned) is that MSM comprise a very small proportion of the populace, anywhere and everywhere in the world. This effectively means that owing to the ‘law of probability’ (not differing lifestyles), there’s a proportionately larger sum HIV swimming around in a smaller cohort of the population.  What is the estimate? I think roughly not more than 1 in 7 (or is it 1 in 10?) men have a strong gay/bi proclivity.

Thus, it is arguable and notable, that from a strictly statistical perspective, the chance of contracting HIV is greater for a monogamous gay guy than for a promiscuous hetero man (also factoring in that female to male transmission is more difficult). And following the same logic, there’s a much bigger chance of a monogamous gay guy contracting HIV over a monogamous hetero person.  It’s biological/genetic (from a transmission perspective) bad luck.

Practically speaking though, the laws of probability have little bearing on the hard truth: that the only way to protect yourself from infection is to wear a condom; and that several straight people (whether in monogamous relationships or not) have contracted infection precisely because they thought it was not their disease.

[mecch]

The guy on facebook - his arguments have no coherence.  Sounds like he does believe that promiscuity is distasteful.  That gays are wildly promiscuous. 

All this is mixed up into a soup on his health care discussion.

Not to mention he conveniently ignores the history of all people who have had HIV/AIDS since the outbreak began who were/are NOT homo. 

I don't see what the "protected class" claim, and hate crimes, have to do with this. They seem to be bleeding in from other half-assed sociologies he believes in.

Not following at all his points on rationing and the health "czar".  Huh?

Looky, if the guy is incapable of coherence, why bother.....

[Rockin]

Gotta love the internet...people can say whatever they want and get away with it.

Promiscuity was high not just amongst gays in the 70's...what about "key parties"? Orgies? But sure, anal sex was higher amongst gay men for obvious reasons, therefore thats why we were the group with the highest AIDS deaths at the beginning.

And boy, this day and age everyone is having sex all the time, regardless of their sexual preference.

And its funny that he says that the government should not have a say on health care...is it better that Americans have to be sujected to shady evil corporation then? Who do you trust more...your government or health care companies? Your government is certainly not doing this for profit. The companies, on the other hand...

At the end of the day I think Republicans hate Obama and they will nitpick any argument they can get to oppose anything and everything he says or do.

[wolfter]

Maybe I'm missing something.  I don't see where he makes comments that are so offensive as to upset delicate sensibilities.  Or perhaps he's expressing his opinions from the viewpoint of a straight person not infected with HIV?

He does make some valid points and hopefully is learning tolerance from the exchange. 

[Jeff G]

The argument that insuring more people will lead to rationing of health care services simply makes me livid . Its to argue that health care is a commodity that should be hoarded and kept safe for the benefit of a more deserving class .

If health care industry ever becomes overburdened then that problem needs to be addressed just as humanely as our president did by insuring people that have been without for so long . 

[Buckmark]

I'm amused, and somewhat disturbed, about the friends comments about gays being a protected class.  Let's see, in most jurisdiction in the US I can be fired from my job for being gay, and I can't enjoy the benefits of marriage.  Yes, I feel very protected.      This friend has issues with gays, and probably other "classes" of people. 

I love this line:

Ted, I was referring to the wildly promiscuous nature of the gay lifestyle of the 70's and 80s'.

He seems to know an awful lot about gays and their "lifestyle".  Perhaps a little too much?    He seems like an all-too-typical type of Republican who thinks the free markets can address all of our problems, doesn't want to help anyone except himself, is decidedly sex-negative, and is possibly a closet case or is / was at least "bi-curious".

He's not offensive, just an asshole.

[Buckmark]

The argument that insuring more people will lead to rationing of health care services simply makes me livid . Its to argue that health care is a commodity that should be hoarded and kept safe for the benefit of a more deserving class .

It makes me livid too, as it suggests that healthcare is a privilege that should be reserved for and accessible to some special class of people.

The other healthcare argument that makes me crazy is the old chestnut that "the US has the best healthcare system in the world".  Really?  It is certainly one of the most expensive systems (and yet still doesn't provide coverage to everyone).  And the outcomes / performance of our system and overall health of our population don't rank anywhere near the top.  That's the best healthcare system in the world?   

[Jeff G]

The other healthcare argument that makes me crazy is the old chestnut that "the US has the best healthcare system in the world".  Really?  It is certainly one of the most expensive systems (and yet still doesn't provide coverage to everyone).  And the outcomes / performance of our system and overall health of our population don't rank anywhere near the top.  That's the best healthcare system in the world?   

Its makes me crazy also . I was one of those guys in the 80's who got very sick and was advised to go on disability by 94 . I got trapped in a system that is determined to guarantee a life of poverty to meet the governments income requirement and not qualifying to make use of insurance in the private sector for having a preexisting condition . I spent years battling my own internal stigma that made me feel I was less than I should be because I couldn't escape these confines , and all the while I was being told how lucky I'm am to be in the U.S. health care system .

The prescription drug plan and the new health care law is something I naturally feel very strongly about . I hope with all my heart that it may be a starting point or a work in progress so that the coming generations wont have to choose between health care at any cost or a life where you at least have a shot at realizing your dreams .

I'm not going to apologise , you guys will just have to endure my rant on this topic each and everytime it comes up . .

[Joe K]

Hey Ted,

I tend to not argue with people who cannot present a coherent train of thought, especially when it contains judgements that have no basis in fact.  Gays didn't cause HIV, any more than straights cause cancer, so I don't see any relevance to his comments about how he perceives the "gay lifestyle."  He doesn't know anything about anything gay, because he isn't gay.  His comments on our so called lifestyle are just another form of subtle gay bashing.

I laughed out loud when he called us a "protected class", because we have become one, due to the suffering we endure from people like him, who think they know who and what we are, when they really have no clue.  Growing up, I wish I was a protected class, to keep all the stupid ignorant straight people away from me.  When I encounter people like this guy and they start making comments about how gays are this and that, my first response is to ask them how they know so much about what it's like to be gay.  That generally ends any discussion.

Its makes me crazy also . I was one of those guys in the 80's who got very sick and was advised to go on disability by 94 . I got trapped in a system that is determined to guarantee a life of poverty to meet the governments income requirement and not qualifying to make use of insurance in the private sector for having a preexisting condition . I spent years battling my own internal stigma that made me feel I was less than I should be because I couldn't escape these confines , and all the while I was being told how lucky I'm am to be in the U.S. health care system .

The prescription drug plan and the new health care law is something I naturally feel very strongly about . I hope with all my heart that it may be a starting point or a work in progress so that the coming generations wont have to choose between health care at any cost or a life where you at least have a shot at realizing your dreams .

I'm not going to apologise , you guys will just have to endure my rant on this topic each and everytime it comes up . .

Hey Jeff,

To me, a rant is when you run around in your tin-foil hat, screaming that the aliens are coming for you.  When you express deeply held convictions, say regarding health care, as you often do, that is advancing a cause in the service of your fellow citizens.  You may say "rant", but I prefer "advocate", because your words come from your heart and your goal is to better the life of many, nor solely to benefit yourself.  Big difference.

Joe

[LoboDog]

Gays are a protected class. That's what 'hate' crimes are all about.

Gays are protected because of hate crimes? What a crock of crap... If a white heterosexual male was beat up by non-white persons yelling racial epitaphs, it would be considered a hate crime in most jurisdictions. Does that make white heterosexual males a protected class?

Your comments in response were fairly tame considering some of the facebook tantrums that I have seen.

[emeraldize]

"Ted, I was referring to the wildly promiscuous nature of the gay lifestyle of the 70's and 80s'. Oh and god forbid that any business should want to make a profit. How's your iPhone working out for you" (that's right, everyone, my quoting skills are still limited--I'll work on it)

Ted

You wanted feedback. No you weren't being sensitive and it's good for this guy  and all the associated chums reading it, that you posted. I'm with Rockin that the 70s and 80s were wildly promiscuous decades for every-fuckin-body -- we straights were just insanely lucky. If HIV's vector had been the urethra, we'd have had a cure by now. I don't even understand his for-profit comment --but what you have to love is his non sequitur ending inquiring about your iPhone. What kind of conversational exit strategy is that? Arrogant, perhaps, dismissive, certainly, but he showed his cards and belly on it from my view.

Some conversations/threads have a score, some don't, this did, you won.