Suddenly PM Harper Cares About Aids

[guyser]

2000 acres of farmland +2 farmyards means I pay more in property tax than gas offsets. Plus paying autopac insurance on 15 different things more than makes up for it. Nice try.

I think and do precautions before my activities, why can't those who contract AIDS sexually do the same thing?

Hmm. I'm profitable and don't use bailouts. All our stuff we get from the feds is what we pay in GST and income tax, no loss to you guys.

Nice try is right.....right back at you. So....your a business like I have a business. But I pay full pop for all the gas that goes in my trucks. I too have 2000 acres of land, and pay tax on it too? Who gets the break? Thats right you do. (dont get me started on tax, my little half acre lot up north is responsible for probably ten times or more the tax of the same piece of your land)

I also have 15 cars.....and pay insurance on all of them. So whats your point? You pay based on what you own/need for the business. But you get a rebate or reduced price. I am not at all complaining about your benefits so dont make it an issue.

I too pay GST and income tax. What the H does that have to do with anything. No one is atttacking your subsidies, or lack of as you put it.

What I and others are saying is that you cannot have some "health " covered and not others. It is a slippery slope none of us should go down.

As you said...nice try.

[blueblood]

2000 acres of farmland +2 farmyards means I pay more in property tax than gas offsets. Plus paying autopac insurance on 15 different things more than makes up for it. Nice try.

I think and do precautions before my activities, why can't those who contract AIDS sexually do the same thing?

Hmm. I'm profitable and don't use bailouts. All our stuff we get from the feds is what we pay in GST and income tax, no loss to you guys.

Nice try is right.....right back at you. So....your a business like I have a business. But I pay full pop for all the gas that goes in my trucks. I too have 2000 acres of land, and pay tax on it too? Who gets the break? Thats right you do. (dont get me started on tax, my little half acre lot up north is responsible for probably ten times or more the tax of the same piece of your land)

I also have 15 cars.....and pay insurance on all of them. So whats your point? You pay based on what you own/need for the business. But you get a rebate or reduced price. I am not at all complaining about your benefits so dont make it an issue.

I too pay GST and income tax. What the H does that have to do with anything. No one is atttacking your subsidies, or lack of as you put it.

What I and others are saying is that you cannot have some "health " covered and not others. It is a slippery slope none of us should go down.

As you said...nice try.

Forestry and fisheries get the gas break too, don't know why other businesses don't get it, they should. Someone else was complaining about farmers with federal subsidies and the like which is why i was pointing out GST and income tax. The point of the matter is small business owners have a much heavier tax burden on them than most other Canadians. Your business should be getting similar breaks, helps out the economy, the extra money you'd be spending would make up for the tax break.

What I and others are saying is that we're drawing a line. Blatantly reckless behavior shouldn't be paid for, what kind of an example does that set? The government of Canada already states that some health is covered and not others, Dental, ambulance, and vision aren't covered in Medicare to name a few. I guess some people don't want to pay for that as it would be too expensive, so what's wrong with not subsidizing someone who contracts AIDS through reckless sex?

[guyser]

Forestry and fisheries get the gas break too, don't know why other businesses don't get it, they should. Someone else was complaining about farmers with federal subsidies and the like which is why i was pointing out GST and income tax. The point of the matter is small business owners have a much heavier tax burden on them than most other Canadians. Your business should be getting similar breaks, helps out the economy, the extra money you'd be spending would make up for the tax break.

Okay, I see we were mixed up then because I am not against subsidies per se and fell the farmer gets ripped off big time for the labour and effort put in.

What I and others are saying is that we're drawing a line. Blatantly reckless behavior shouldn't be paid for, what kind of an example does that set? The government of Canada already states that some health is covered and not others, Dental, ambulance, and vision aren't covered in Medicare to name a few. I guess some people don't want to pay for that as it would be too expensive, so what's wrong with not subsidizing someone who contracts AIDS through reckless sex?

I know what you are saying, but it is the slippery slope.

If we ban this, then all other actions deemed reckless and resulting in injury would be excluded from healthcare.

That includes....

-your son when he breaks a collar bone jumping his bike

-your neighbour when he decided to test his sons new motorbike "on the driveway" and hit a car and injured.

-the mother up the street who fell asleep at the wheel injuring four others because she was overly tired from the new baby keeping her up all night

-your neighbours son who forgot to put his helmet on and rode off on his bike

-the skier off piste who is trapped in an avalanche

You being a farmer know full well the dangers of farming. How many kids get injured because farmers let thier sons ride the plow or other farm equipment. Wouldn't you be pissed that the hospital sent you away because it was deemed reckless?

[Catchme]

2000 acres of farmland +2 farmyards means I pay more in property tax than gas offsets. Plus paying autopac insurance on 15 different things more than makes up for it. Nice try.

I think and do precautions before my activities, why can't those who contract AIDS sexually do the same thing?

Hmm. I'm profitable and don't use bailouts. All our stuff we get from the feds is what we pay in GST and income tax, no loss to you guys.

What I and others are saying is that you cannot have some "health " covered and not others. It is a slippery slope none of us should go down.

As you said...nice try.

so what's wrong with not subsidizing someone who contracts AIDS through reckless sex?

because you are not ascribing equality of action to it you are ascribing a morality of action upon it.

Then let's not fund those who get diabetes, or heart/stroke disease, or gout, or liver failure, or pancreas failure, all of which come from/through reckless eating.

Then let's not fund injuries caused from reckless sports enthusiasts

Then let's not fund those in accidents while driving during peak commute hours it is reckless after all.

Then let's stop funding health care for home accidents, as really they are the highest cost to medicare and the leading cause of accidental death and everyone in society is well educated about home dangers, so they should not be happening.

[sally]

Sally, sorry to hear of your daughters condition.

I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum would advocate your daughter being cut off from treatment under any premise . There will always be one who falls into the unknown as did your daughter. Most are speaking in larger terms than "one"

Yea,sure

[guyser]

Yea,sure

"Yea sure " in that I am sorry to hear about your daughters condition, or "Yea sure" that most here would not want your daughter cut off from treatment ?

[scribblet]

Sally, sorry to hear of your daughters condition.

I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum would advocate your daughter being cut off from treatment under any premise . There will always be one who falls into the unknown as did your daughter. Most are speaking in larger terms than "one"

Agreed, there are always innocent victims to this, but generally speaking aids could be wiped out if people changed their irresponsible behaviour.

[blueblood]

I know what you are saying, but it is the slippery slope.

If we ban this, then all other actions deemed reckless and resulting in injury would be excluded from healthcare.

That includes....

-your son when he breaks a collar bone jumping his bike

-your neighbour when he decided to test his sons new motorbike "on the driveway" and hit a car and injured.

-the mother up the street who fell asleep at the wheel injuring four others because she was overly tired from the new baby keeping her up all night

-your neighbours son who forgot to put his helmet on and rode off on his bike

-the skier off piste who is trapped in an avalanche

You being a farmer know full well the dangers of farming. How many kids get injured because farmers let thier sons ride the plow or other farm equipment. Wouldn't you be pissed that the hospital sent you away because it was deemed reckless?

what you are pointing out is one of the biggest flaws of medicare. You and I draw the line at different places. Which is why I believe that healthcare funding should be like autopac auto insurance. If you are one that engages in reckless behavior (whatever it may be) and have to go to the hospital you should pay a deductible, but if it's an accident or beyond your control then no extra charge. I'd rather have this as a deduction on a paycheque than E.I. and immune from being funnelled into other government expenditures. IMO everyone uses the hospital, pay for it. You still get dinged for reckless behavior but won't go bankrupt because of it. Kids of course should be immune because they don't know better.

On the job, most farmers with kids nowadays are stressing safety. It's getting safer. Actually what you are saying is probably one of the safest places for kids to be. The danger comes with repairs and older machinery, and being around, not in the machinery. PTO shafts are dangerous, dumping trucks, augers, etc. 20 kids each year die or get dismembered by PTO shafts.

On to the next one...

-Reckless eating/Obesity for sure, it's preventable + no precautions, no funding

-Extreme sports exercise caution, You don't ride sno-cross w/o a helmet, we can't live in jars. If you don't exercise some sort of caution, no funding.

-Car Accidents are most of the time just an accident, no way out, AIDS you can say no.

Reckless sex with no attempt to use caution should not be funded by the rest of us. If a condom breaks well then you may have a point, but a person should know if they get with someone if they have diseases or not. When I met my ex-wife I made damn sure she didn't have any diseases and stuff and was safe.

[guyser]

Agreed, there are always innocent victims to this, but generally speaking aids could be wiped out if people changed their irresponsible behaviour.

Tell that to the Catholic Church then. See how far you get. They are responmsible for plenty of new AIDS cases .

I suspect you dont agree.

[Catchme]

No talking reckless eating is not just obesity, at all.

type 2 diabetes is preventable and skinny people get it, too much simple carbohydrates, sugars, alcohol etc

then we have other pancreatic disorders from the same things and alcohol.

gout and heart disease from eating too much red meat can hit the skinny person just as hard

heart disease and stroke from eating too much fat and trans fat, hits skinny people just as it does obese, in fact more so as skinny people tend to store fat internally.

Then of course there is eating and drinking all the other things that case harm.

It seems some think they are perfect specimens and never do any thing by accident or unknowingly eat things for years that harm their bodies. If that was the case they would all be living 120 year +

bottom line is your argument is inconsistent, and you really would like to target sexually related diseases as being less worthy to be funded. hence why I say you are ascribing issues of morality where there should be none.

[blueblood]

No talking reckless eating is not just obesity, at all.

type 2 diabetes is preventable and skinny people get it, too much simple carbohydrates, sugars, alcohol etc

then we have other pancreatic disorders from the same things and alcohol.

gout and heart disease from eating too much red meat can hit the skinny person just as hard

heart disease and stroke from eating too much fat and trans fat, hits skinny people just as it does obese, in fact more so as skinny people tend to store fat internally.

Then of course there is eating and drinking all the other things that case harm.

It seems some think they are perfect specimens and never do any thing by accident or unknowingly eat things for years that harm their bodies. If that was the case they would all be living 120 year +

bottom line is your argument is inconsistent, and you really would like to target sexually related diseases as being less worthy to be funded. hence why I say you are ascribing issues of morality where there should be none.

Eating is so hit and miss, every person is different, how can you gauge it? People 80 yrs. ago ate like horses and were much healthier than now. Go after the companies making us eat this crap. Every person eats. It's so much easier to practice safe sex/abstain than eat. At what point do these diseases your talking about come into affect? With AIDS its so much easier to cap.

[sally]

I know what you are saying, but it is the slippery slope.

Reckless sex with no attempt to use caution should not be funded by the rest of us. If a condom breaks well then you may have a point, but a person should know if they get with someone if they have diseases or not. When I met my ex-wife I made damn sure she didn't have any diseases and stuff and was safe.

What are you saying?

Before you fucked your wife for the first time ,you had her tested?Maybe thats why she is your X.

You are a loser who now spends his time on a forum spreading lies.

Agreed, there are always innocent victims to this, but generally speaking aids could be wiped out if people changed their irresponsible behaviour.

Ever wonder how the very first case of aids came about?

Unprotected sex?

but if it's an accident or beyond your control then no extra charge.

An accident beyond your control.Now thats a good one.It wouldn,t be an accident if it were your fault.

You are just like a lot of farmers.

You are a failure at what you do and you expect taxpayers to bail you out.

A$$hole

[scribblet]

Agreed, there are always innocent victims to this, but generally speaking aids could be wiped out if people changed their irresponsible behaviour.

Tell that to the Catholic Church then. See how far you get. They are responmsible for plenty of new AIDS cases .

I suspect you dont agree.

???

Sexual promiscuity and high-risk behaviours are what spreads the disease, doesn't matter that the RC church says.

[Catchme]

No talking reckless eating is not just obesity, at all.

type 2 diabetes is preventable and skinny people get it, too much simple carbohydrates, sugars, alcohol etc

then we have other pancreatic disorders from the same things and alcohol.

gout and heart disease from eating too much red meat can hit the skinny person just as hard

heart disease and stroke from eating too much fat and trans fat, hits skinny people just as it does obese, in fact more so as skinny people tend to store fat internally.

Then of course there is eating and drinking all the other things that case harm.

It seems some think they are perfect specimens and never do any thing by accident or unknowingly eat things for years that harm their bodies. If that was the case they would all be living 120 year +

bottom line is your argument is inconsistent, and you really would like to target sexually related diseases as being less worthy to be funded. hence why I say you are ascribing issues of morality where there should be none.

Eating is so hit and miss, every person is different, how can you gauge it? People 80 yrs. ago ate like horses and were much healthier than now. Go after the companies making us eat this crap. Every person eats. It's so much easier to practice safe sex/abstain than eat. At what point do these diseases your talking about come into affect? With AIDS its so much easier to cap.

No it is not easier to cap, nor is there any need for any caps, if there are no caps on equally expensive, if not more, diseases that ARE actually self inflicted and NOT given to someone else, by someone else, there will be NO caps anywhere.

How dare you want to caps on where you believe there should be morality ascribing to regulate/cap things.

No it is not easier to practise abstain than it is from eating things that are bad. Or we would not be having millions with type 2 diabetes, or pancreatitis, or heart disease, or suffer from strokes, or gout.

Again you want to punish for what you feel are breaches in morlaity, and how dare you, there should never be morality ascribed to sexual acts any more than any other bodily action.

sally is corrrect regarding the RC's furthering the spread of AIDS.

Not only that take a look at STD rates in the youth of the Chrsitian right in the USA, they are sky rocketing, and see where preaching abstinence and no condom use gets you.

[scribblet]

Eating is so hit and miss, every person is different, how can you gauge it? People 80 yrs. ago ate like horses and were much healthier than now. Go after the companies making us eat this crap. Every person eats. It's so much easier to practice safe sex/abstain than eat. At what point do these diseases your talking about come into affect? With AIDS its so much easier to cap.

Exactly, especially in developed countries. Undeveloped countries given the resources and political will can help to cap it. Not too many people are willing to give up sex but they don't have to, fidelity would also help to cap the spread.

[Catchme]

men are spreading AIDS to women, but yet we see nothing but condemnation towards women!

[White Doors]

men are spreading AIDS to women, but yet we see nothing but condemnation towards women!

So AIDS is man's fault?

Poor innocent women? go to sleep and wake up with a limp and a disease to boot!

[scribblet]

Aids isn't ALL the man's fault, but certainly the majority (well IMO )

Do Muslim nations have the same problem, from what I've read they don't, and if not why not?

[guyser]

???

Sexual promiscuity and high-risk behaviours are what spreads the disease, doesn't matter that the RC church says.

Instead of dismissing the RC church as a problem, look into the African AIDS epidemic and find out what is fueling a large part of it.

The church advocates no condom use....hmmmm.....condom use helps prevents AIDS. The religious in Africa have a belief that sex with a virgin will not result in AIDS.

IN the same vein of stupid blankets statements.....The Pope causes AIDS .

[blueblood]

Since so many people in Africa have AIDS, do you know if getting born with it now spreads the disease faster than having sex with someone who has it, sharing needles etc.

If that's the case then theres a big problem

1. Person is born w/AIDS, said person is a virgin

2. Guy knows girl is virgin believing he won't get AIDS and does so

3. Child born from them has AIDS

The RC church are also big believers in Abstinence as well, but very very few people follow them on that.

The big probem down there is more of a lack of education, condoms can run out knowledge can't.

[geoffrey]

men are spreading AIDS to women, but yet we see nothing but condemnation towards women!

Do women not know how to say no... or to require their partners to wear condoms???

Women are getting AIDS from men, but they have to make a string of poor choices for that to happen.

STDs/unplanned pregnancies are a 50/50 responsibility.

[Catchme]

Yes, still blaiming women, when it is men who give AIDS to women, and not women who give AIDS to men.

I guess this must go back to the sky God myths and the original sin eh?!

Condoms break, men are out cheating on their wives, gf's etc and women think they are in monogamous relationships and get it because of their promiscuous partner.

That is why AIDS is increasing amongst middle aged women who have long been in relationships.

Or amongst the youth, aprticulariliy females, coming from the religious right, who have only been educated into abstinence as opposed to safe sex.

Abstinence does not work, safe sex does.

And it is men who are the issue for spreading it NOT females.

[White Doors]

what???

Woman can and do give aids to men!

what SPIN!

holy cow!

Women also cheat on men too you know.

you hate men don't you?

[geoffrey]

Yes, still blaiming women, when it is men who give AIDS to women, and not women who give AIDS to men.

That comment is on par with the ideas of the witch doctors in Africa promoting sex as a cure to AIDS.

Condoms break, men are out cheating on their wives, gf's etc and women think they are in monogamous relationships and get it because of their promiscuous partner.

Women never have cheated???

Or amongst the youth, aprticulariliy females, coming from the religious right, who have only been educated into abstinence as opposed to safe sex.

Tell me where this exists in Canada.

Abstinence does not work, safe sex does.

Actually, abstinence does work as well if not better than safe sex when both are practiced.

And it is men who are the issue for spreading it NOT females.

Sexist comment. Grow up, STD transmission is a two way street... both people have to neglect responsibility for it to happen.

[blueblood]

Yes, still blaiming women, when it is men who give AIDS to women, and not women who give AIDS to men.

I guess this must go back to the sky God myths and the original sin eh?!

Condoms break, men are out cheating on their wives, gf's etc and women think they are in monogamous relationships and get it because of their promiscuous partner.

That is why AIDS is increasing amongst middle aged women who have long been in relationships.

Or amongst the youth, aprticulariliy females, coming from the religious right, who have only been educated into abstinence as opposed to safe sex.

Abstinence does not work, safe sex does.

And it is men who are the issue for spreading it NOT females.

So if I get with a woman who has AIDS without wearing a condom, I won't get it? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious, and if that's true you have a bit of a point.

Women cheat on their husbands, bf's etc and men think they are in monogamous relationships get diseases possibly AIDS if women can spread it. I've seen plenty of good guys get their hearts ripped out due to cheating wives/gfs and likewise you've seen plenty of good girls get their hearts ripped out due to cheating husbands/bfs.

Abstinence only works if you take it seriously enough, and if you get with someone you know doesn't have diseases and that.

Since most people don't practice abstinence then safe sex does work. I also believe safe sex is more than condoms and birth control.

If you are right and females don't spread it to their sexual partners then by all means target the guys.

Education also works pretty good too.