Damn Selfish Americans

[Cartalas]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditio ... index.html


K, Thailand (AP) -- The United States on Wednesday rejected a call at the International AIDS Conference for a $1 billion contribution next year to the global fund that has become the centerpiece of U.N. efforts against the disease.

"It's not going to happen," U.S. AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias said in an interview, noting that Washington already is by far the world's largest donor to the cause.

[archeiron]

...noting that Washington already is by far the world's largest donor to the cause...

Yeah, damn selfish!!

[Cartalas]

...noting that Washington already is by far the world's largest donor to the cause...

Yeah, damn selfish!!

It was Sarcasm

[Voronwë]

part of the international objection i think is that we have a few peculiar stipulations to our aid packages.

1. no generic drugs i think
2. abstenance only programs get preferential funding

i think it is obviously critically important to tell people the only way not to get AIDS is to not have sex. but it is crazily unrealistic to think that is a realistic solution.

but that is like telling people the only way not to die in a car wreck is not to drive

[Adex_Xeda]

Because people are obviously animals that cannot control themselves yes?

Some would say yes. I say no.

Yea yea I'm an idealist.

[Forthe]

part of the international objection i think is that we have a few peculiar stipulations to our aid packages.

1. no generic drugs i think
2. abstenance only programs get preferential funding

i think it is obviously critically important to tell people the only way not to get AIDS is to not have sex. but it is crazily unrealistic to think that is a realistic solution.

but that is like telling people the only way not to die in a car wreck is not to drive

bingo.

Under WTO treaties (which the US signed) a country is allowed to ignore (drug) patents when dealing with a health crisis. This allows those countries to produce generics locally to help combat the desease.

US drug companies don't make any profit on the suffering of the poor this way so they have lobbied the administration to seek concessions in bilateral trade agreements with poor countries. Basically said poor country gives up their right to use\produce generic drugs. Then the administration will throw in some "foreign aid" money into the deal.

The end result of this "foreign aid" isn't foreign aid at all but it is a drug industry subsidy and actually harms the population of the poor country. Your tax dollars hard at work.

[Adex_Xeda]

Of course the real question is how the world do you nullify the impact of the drug lobby?


Tangent:

If we every legalized hard drugs, I wonder if the cartels would form powerful lobbies.

[Cartalas]

part of the international objection i think is that we have a few peculiar stipulations to our aid packages.

1. no generic drugs i think
2. abstenance only programs get preferential funding

i think it is obviously critically important to tell people the only way not to get AIDS is to not have sex. but it is crazily unrealistic to think that is a realistic solution.

but that is like telling people the only way not to die in a car wreck is not to drive

bingo.

Under WTO treaties (which the US signed) a country is allowed to ignore (drug) patents when dealing with a health crisis. This allows those countries to produce generics locally to help combat the desease.

US drug companies don't make any profit on the suffering of the poor this way so they have lobbied the administration to seek concessions in bilateral trade agreements with poor countries. Basically said poor country gives up their right to use\produce generic drugs. Then the administration will throw in some "foreign aid" money into the deal.

The end result of this "foreign aid" isn't foreign aid at all but it is a drug industry subsidy and actually harms the population of the poor country. Your tax dollars hard at work.

There is always a string attached isint there?

[Voronwë]

Well Adex, as for the abstinance education thing, we have to remember that these are different cultures that may have very different standards on what is regarded as appropriate sexual conduct that you or I might have.

Part of education be it about abstaining or contraception (and using condoms isnt going over to well in many parts of Africa) is a huge challenge overcoming cultural obstacles. These people in these poorer countries that have huge AIDS problems don't have the benefits of infrastructure in the towns they grow up in to have decent schools, let alone exposure to health care on any level like we do. Therefore, it is difficult for them to comprehend like you or I, things like a virus that enters the bloodstream through mucous membrane contact and so on.

again , i think that emphasizing abstinance is an important component of the picture, but funding "absitinance ONLY" education programs preferentially is not a practical solution, in my view.

And as a taxpayer, I am interested in solutions that produce results, not spending plans that forward ideological agendas.

[Adex_Xeda]

Maintaining a strong abstinence focus brings more people in to support the effort.

You balance that against overall effectiveness I guess.

[Voronwë]

good point! hey, you might be right on that one.

cause without that bit, they may have given $15 million, not $15 billion =)

[Rekaar.]

The end result of this "foreign aid" isn't foreign aid at all but it is a drug industry subsidy and actually harms the population of the poor country. Your tax dollars hard at work.

Explain this. What you're implying is that it'd be better to give no money at all to these people.

[kyoukan]

it can certainly be argued that proglonging the lives of HIV positive africans that will more than likely continue to spread the virus around is doing more harm than good. it's not an easy thing to say but I can definitely see the point.

pragmatically speaking it would be better to let the ones that have it die and spend the money actually working on a cure.

[Rekaar.]

Objectively speaking, yes. When I first heard about the aid I had thought it would be directed at a cure and not a life extension for the terminally ill. There is a big push in the US for federal funding for domestic use of these products by some, who claim it's cruel to not give people this aid at the expense of society. If we do this, my hope is that we spend ten times as much finding the cure so extending their lives ends up with them ultimately being healed.

Personally I'd rather focus on the problem more than the symptoms.

[Forthe]

The end result of this "foreign aid" isn't foreign aid at all but it is a drug industry subsidy and actually harms the population of the poor country. Your tax dollars hard at work.

Explain this. What you're implying is that it'd be better to give no money at all to these people.

After that aid money runs out (if it was actually used for drugs) these poor countries are forced to pay much higher prices for drugs.

[Rekaar.]

But from what you say, when the aid runs out generics can be reintroduced since with no money there are no more stipulations?

Now I don't even agree with the form the aid takes in the first place, but I do like that our tax dollars end up getting funneled back into our own economy. It seems like a smart business practice while providing a benefit to those in need.

[Cartalas]

"pragmatically speaking it would be better to let the ones that have it die and spend the money actually working on a cure."


I wonder if you had AIDS, If this would still be your statement?

[Forthe]

But from what you say, when the aid runs out generics can be reintroduced since with no money there are no more stipulations?

Not unless the bilateral trade agreement is broken or revised.

Poor country 'A' uses your tax dollars to buy drug 'B' for $10 a pill. He could have produced drug 'B' for $2 a pill. So your tax dollars effectively gave $2 foreign aid at a cost of $10. After those tax dollars are gone country 'A' still has to buy drug B for $10 a pill, they gave up their right to produce them for $2.

[Cartalas]

But from what you say, when the aid runs out generics can be reintroduced since with no money there are no more stipulations?

Not unless the bilateral trade agreement is broken or revised.

Poor country 'A' uses your tax dollars to buy drug 'B' for $10 a pill. He could have produced drug 'B' for $2 a pill. So your tax dollars effectively gave $2 foreign aid at a cost of $10. After those tax dollars are gone country 'A' still has to buy drug B for $10 a pill, they gave up their right to produce them for $2.

Hmm tell them to make there own Damn pill then. j/k

[Zaelath]

"pragmatically speaking it would be better to let the ones that have it die and spend the money actually working on a cure."


I wonder if you had AIDS, If this would still be your statement?

Pragmatic: Philosophical; dealing with causes, reasons, and effects, rather than with details and circumstances

I'm guessing, yes.

[Cartalas]

"pragmatically speaking it would be better to let the ones that have it die and spend the money actually working on a cure."


I wonder if you had AIDS, If this would still be your statement?

Pragmatic: Philosophical; dealing with causes, reasons, and effects, rather than with details and circumstances

I'm guessing, yes.

"rather than with details and circumstances"

Easy to do if you are not infected, I understand what pragmatic means Im just saying its easy to take that stand if it does not effect you.

[Zaelath]

How about context? ... meh, never mind.

[Hesten]

Am i the only one that find it funny that the US (as in Bush) decline to give a load of money on helping the worlds AIDS problem?
After all, i found this quote on the "Battle of the Daughters" thread:

Barbara, who majored in humanities, plans to work for a program that helps children afflicted with AIDS in Africa and Eastern Europe. Jenna, who majored in English, will teach at a charter school.

So guess Bush screwed both the world and one of his daughters this time .)

[kyoukan]

if I was HIV positive or had AIDS, retard, I could afford my own meds. And I would probably use generics so I wouldn't be subsidizing huge drug companies who are profitting from this disease.

if I was an african with AIDS then I probably wouldn't feel the same way. but I'm fucking not now am I? my main concern would probably be where my next meal is coming from and the 5000 year old war with another tribe that is virtually identical to mine in every way but name.

[Cartalas]

if I was HIV positive or had AIDS, retard, I could afford my own meds. And I would probably use generics so I wouldn't be subsidizing huge drug companies who are profitting from this disease.

if I was an african with AIDS then I probably wouldn't feel the same way. but I'm fucking not now am I? my main concern would probably be where my next meal is coming from and the 5000 year old war with another tribe that is virtually identical to mine in every way but name.

Bullshit!! you would not know what you would do unless you were in that situation. Now on the other hand I would rejoice.

[Truant]

Cart,
shut up.

[Cartalas]

Cart,
shut up.

Truant,
Fuck off.

[Truant]

No seriously, she qualified the statement the first time. But you decided to just keep dragging it out. Your statements were completely unnecessary...and not in an 'out of line' sense, but in an 'it was already answered' sense. If you'd like, I can quote it all for you and point out how blatantly stupid your comments were...hell someone else already tried to point it out to you and gave up because you're so fucking hard headed.

[masteen]

Tangent:

If we every legalized hard drugs, I wonder if the cartels would form powerful lobbies.

No, because you can bet that Merck, B-M-S, and the other huge drug companies would mobilize a couple hundred thousand para-military types to secure the perimiters of the Peruvian and Ecuadorian forests where the coca trees grow. Once secure, they'd build gigantic mfg. plants that make the little stomp shops in Columbia obsolete. We'd get the finest flake from Walgreens, and I would never have to snort coke cut with baby laxative ever again.

[Voronwë]

you'd also probably pay $200 a gram for it. but it might be worth it.

who are we kidding, they'd still cut it with Comet

[Cartalas]

Tangent:

If we every legalized hard drugs, I wonder if the cartels would form powerful lobbies.

No, because you can bet that Merck, B-M-S, and the other huge drug companies would mobilize a couple hundred thousand para-military types to secure the perimiters of the Peruvian and Ecuadorian forests where the coca trees grow. Once secure, they'd build gigantic mfg. plants that make the little stomp shops in Columbia obsolete. We'd get the finest flake from Walgreens, and I would never have to snort coke cut with baby laxative ever again.

Have a coke and a squirt.