Huckabee Madness: Quarantine AIDS victims. Homosexuality could pose pose "a dangerous public health risk."

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_el_pr/huckabee_aids

Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients

Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague," Huckabee wrote.

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

The AP submitted the questionnaire to both candidates; only Huckabee responded. Incumbent Sen. Dale Bumpers won his four term; Huckabee was elected lieutenant governor the next year and became governor in 1996.

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee complained that AIDS research received an unfair share of federal dollars when compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote. "An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Huckabee did not return messages left with his campaign.

When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.



As a Democrat my only response is Go, Huck, Go.
Win that nomination!

 

[woodie1]

Sounds like Huck may be on to something.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Sounds like Huck may have been on something back then.

Fixed. I'm sure he's changed his positions now that he wants to hold higher office.

 

[imported_inspire]

To be fair, AIDS was understood much differently 16 years ago. Also, homosexual males contract AIDS a rate higher than that of the overall population.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: inspire
To be fair, AIDS was understood much differently 16 years ago. Also, homosexual males contract AIDS a rate higher than that of the overall population.

How is that "fair?"

 

[imported_inspire]

I only meant Huckabee's opinions from 16 years ago need to be judged in light of how things were 16 years ago.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Bye bye hucky bee! Making Ron Paul look better and better

 

[Narmer]

The question we should be asking is whether or not we should make it illegal for people with such diseases to have sex with other members of society without telling them they have said disease. And, a far easier question to answer, should we allow them to live longer "healthier" and increase the chance of passing the disease to unsuspecting individuals or should we let them die earlier to lower such odds?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: inspire
To be fair, AIDS was understood much differently 16 years ago. Also, homosexual males contract AIDS a rate higher than that of the overall population.

When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.

To be fair, you didn't read the whole post.

 

[ProfJohn]

To be fair (as if that means anything on here) his comment on funding is right on the money.

We spend way more money per aids patient than on many other illnesses that kill more people.

In 2002 about 16,000 people in America died from aids.
Twice as many died due to the flu.
Nearly half a million die from cancer yearly.

For every aids death the National Institutes of Health spends $178,000 (2007 figures)
That is 10 times the amount spent for every Breast Cancer death ($17,000)

For all cancers we spent only $5.5 billion in 2007 while for aids we spent $2.9 billion.
link

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To be fair (as if that means anything on here) his comment on funding is right on the money.

We spend way more money per aids patient than on many other illnesses that kill more people.

In 2002 about 16,000 people in America died from aids.
Twice as many died due to the flu.
Nearly half a million die from cancer yearly.

For every aids death the National Institutes of Health spends $178,000 (2007 figures)
That is 10 times the amount spent for every Breast Cancer death ($17,000)

For all cancers we spent only $5.5 billion in 2007 while for aids we spent $2.9 billion.
link

Yes, but aids is a communicable disease. Also, aids research is applicable to many, many other diseases as much aids research is about understanding the bodies immune system.
Aids research has already helped in the treatment of other diseases and may actually provide a kind of silver bullet for a host of them, if we can get the bodies own immune system to more strongly attack diseases.
Plus, aids research is a kind of foreign aid/military aid program in that aids has destabilized many countries of the world and has left them vulnerable to religious fundamentalists.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To be fair (as if that means anything on here) his comment on funding is right on the money.

We spend way more money per aids patient than on many other illnesses that kill more people.

In 2002 about 16,000 people in America died from aids.
Twice as many died due to the flu.
Nearly half a million die from cancer yearly.

For every aids death the National Institutes of Health spends $178,000 (2007 figures)
That is 10 times the amount spent for every Breast Cancer death ($17,000)

For all cancers we spent only $5.5 billion in 2007 while for aids we spent $2.9 billion.
link

Yes, but aids is a communicable disease. Also, aids research is applicable to many, many other diseases as much aids research is about understanding the bodies immune system.
Aids research has already helped in the treatment of other diseases and may actually provide a kind of silver bullet for a host of them, if we can get the bodies own immune system to more strongly attack diseases.
Plus, aids research is a kind of foreign aid/military aid program in that aids has destabilized many countries of the world and has left them vulnerable to religious fundamentalists.

Not only the Immune System, but there's also an increase in the understanding of Viruses.

 

[gururu2]

we've come a long way in understanding HIV since 1992. unfortunately we haven't been able to curb the spread so much. this is definitely due to the lax policies regarding those who test positive. tests are confidential, treatments are optional, disclosure is rarely required, and you are basically free to run your social life as if you did not have the virus. now the things we tout are the prolonged lifespan of HIV carriers due to drugs. this is well and good but will only lead to further increases of infected individuals.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: gururu2
we've come a long way in understanding HIV since 1992. unfortunately we haven't been able to curb the spread so much. this is definitely due to the lax policies regarding those who test positive. tests are confidential, treatments are optional, disclosure is rarely required, and you are basically free to run your social life as if you did not have the virus. now the things we tout are the prolonged lifespan of HIV carriers due to drugs. this is well and good but will only lead to further increases of infected individuals.

The spread in the First World has been curbed very significantly.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_el_pr/huckabee_aids

Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients

Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague," Huckabee wrote.

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

The AP submitted the questionnaire to both candidates; only Huckabee responded. Incumbent Sen. Dale Bumpers won his four term; Huckabee was elected lieutenant governor the next year and became governor in 1996.

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee complained that AIDS research received an unfair share of federal dollars when compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote. "An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Huckabee did not return messages left with his campaign.

When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.



As a Democrat my only response is Go, Huck, Go.
Win that nomination!

And you're afraid of Ron Paul, really?

I think that the top tier Democratic candidates are pretty bad too when it comes to homosexual rights.

Clinton: "You can have second-class marriage rights under civil unions....maybe..."
Paul: "Gays are individuals and should not be viewed as groups. They can unite under any sort or relationship and call it whatever they want. The Federal government should not be involved with marriages for all individuals."

What Democrats say now is going to be viewed just as asinine as what Huckabee is saying here in the future.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: gururu2
we've come a long way in understanding HIV since 1992. unfortunately we haven't been able to curb the spread so much. this is definitely due to the lax policies regarding those who test positive. tests are confidential, treatments are optional, disclosure is rarely required, and you are basically free to run your social life as if you did not have the virus. now the things we tout are the prolonged lifespan of HIV carriers due to drugs. this is well and good but will only lead to further increases of infected individuals.

The spread in the First World has been curbed very significantly.

its very surprising that the U.S. has been saying 40,000 new infections per year for the last 7 years. i don't quite know what to make of that. some recent reports indicate that more accurate numbers might be 35% higher for recent years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/h...07-12-03-cdc-hiv_N.htm

 

[First]

Am I the only one that gets a kick out of Prof John when he's in damage control?

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Am I the only one that gets a kick out of Prof John when he's in damage control?

He raises a valid point of expenditure, what is so funny about that?

He may have been crude, but his point is not invalid. Agree or disagree it is something that is worth considering.

 

[First]

^ He actually brings up some good statistics, you're right. The problem with them (and he knows this because he's intellectually dishonest) is that they're completely devoid of context. Like the fact the CDC rates HIV (especially the new killer strain) as the most dangerous disease in the U.S. that must be thwarted by early detection to prevent AIDS; which is another fact left out, that people can live for far longer nowadays with HIV, reducing total death counts per year. So using death counts, generally, is just beyond asinine.

Literature for those not aware of the seriousness of HIV, and why it's more important than the flu:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media...ssrel/2007/r070927.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...2.htm?s_cid=mm5647a2_e

 

[GenHoth]

Well put, I agree that HIV/AIDS deserves a lot of investment because of its effects on the research into the general immune system.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: gururu2
we've come a long way in understanding HIV since 1992. unfortunately we haven't been able to curb the spread so much. this is definitely due to the lax policies regarding those who test positive. tests are confidential, treatments are optional, disclosure is rarely required, and you are basically free to run your social life as if you did not have the virus. now the things we tout are the prolonged lifespan of HIV carriers due to drugs. this is well and good but will only lead to further increases of infected individuals.

The spread in the First World has been curbed very significantly.

its very surprising that the U.S. has been saying 40,000 new infections per year for the last 7 years. i don't quite know what to make of that. some recent reports indicate that more accurate numbers might be 35% higher for recent years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/h...07-12-03-cdc-hiv_N.htm

That is curbed significantly compared to what it would have been.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: inspire
To be fair, AIDS was understood much differently 16 years ago. Also, homosexual males contract AIDS a rate higher than that of the overall population.

When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.

To be fair, you didn't read the whole post.

Actually, I did. There's been a lot of progress in understanding AIDS since 1992. Did you have a point that somehow addressed what I said and not what you thought I said, or do you simply make a habit out of being a jerk?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: inspire
To be fair, AIDS was understood much differently 16 years ago. Also, homosexual males contract AIDS a rate higher than that of the overall population.

Exactly, the world had different views on it in 1992, though I think in health class I knew back then it wasn't contagious except in intimate circumstances.

Actually, I did. There's been a lot of progress in understanding AIDS since 1992. Did you have a point that somehow addressed what I said and not what you thought I said, or do you simply make a habit out of being a jerk?

All you said is it was differently understood, which of course is true. You are right and judging huckabee by 2007 things is a bit off. That said, I think we knew it wasn't airborne or whatever.

More to the point: it doesn't matter; this is not something that would look good if dems went on the warpath should he get the nomination.