Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (4699)	2/3/2001 11:20:49 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Okay, here's a big juicy one. Why on earth should U.S. taxpayers be obligated to pay for safe sex in sub-Saharan Africa? So global prosperity will not crumble? Excuse me. Not going to happen.

To: E who wrote (4699)	2/3/2001 11:33:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

LONDON -- The most profound and immediate threat to life on earth is the AIDS epidemic. I'm not sure that that is true but it is a threat to many people's lives, its particular bad in the third world. Those realities made it shocking that George W. Bush, in his first major decision as president, took an action that will increase the spread of AIDS. That was his decision to deny U.S. aid to family-planning organizations abroad that inform women about medical options including abortion. Mr. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, explaining the decision, said, "The president does not support using taxpayer funds to provide abortions." But that was a non sequitur. Government funding of abortions abroad has been prohibited by law since 1973. The Bush rule says that clinics in developing countries will lose U.S. funds if they even discuss abortion with their patients. If a group that recomends or refers for or performs abortions recieves money for other uses that frees up the money that it would have used for that function. That money can be used to perform abortion. Are there no family planning orginizations that do not recomend, or perform abortions? The gag rule on discussing abortion It really is no such thing. It doesn't force people to shut up about abortion. It is just a decision on what federal money can go to support. Similarly not funding controversial art exhibits is not censorship. Free speach means free of government force to prevent you from talking. It doesn't mean free in terms of money. In the United States and Europe, the anti-retroviral drugs that have made AIDS a containable disease for many sufferers cost either the patient or the society $10,000 to $15,000 a year. It has been widely assumed that poorer countries cannot afford them, and in any event do not have health systems that could use them effectively. Ms. Rosenberg showed that those assumptions are false. Brazil now makes the drugs itself and has cut the cost by nearly 80 percent; government commitment has produced clinics to supervise the treatment effectively. Many lives, and much money, have been saved. I am glad that the people of Brazil can get drugs that they need. I am somewhat concerned that this is to an extent stealing the work done to develop the drugs from the drug companies. I feel that perhaps intelectual property rights are somewhat less obvious and fundimental then rights to physical property, but I still believe in property rights. On a practical level I am concerned that if this idea spreads there may be less incentive to develop new drugs, although I suppose the rich countries markets are more that patents on drugs are going to start being ignored in the US, Western Europe, or Japan. It would still reduce the incentive to develop drugs for specific disease that mainly effect only third world countries but AIDS exists all over the world. Tim