As predicted, give these people a little bit of power and they will run amok.
MAGA Blocks HIV Meds
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
In what way is anybody running amok?
LikeLike
KIlling people because they do not like the sexuality of some of the people using a particular medication is an example.
The haters and extremists at the core of the MAGA movement just do not know when to stop. This ruling is an example of that. Some of the things they do are just laughable (banning participation trophies) and some are deadly. This is one of those.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “KIlling people because they do not like the sexuality of some of the people using a particular medication is an example.”
That’s ridiculous. No one is actively killing anyone as a consequence of the ACA administrative ruling.
LikeLike
Avoidable deaths will be the consequence of making this life-saving preventative medicine less likely to be used. That is close enough to killing people for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s that fascist impulse again. You seek a remedy and want to force someone to provide it.
LikeLike
“There’s that fascist impulse again”
“Fascist?”
Again you prove you are monumentally uncivil and – dare I say it – stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am happy to be uncivil where fascist impulses are concerned. I wasn’t, but I’m happy to.
LikeLike
“ The Texas judge found that this section of the 2010 law could no longer be enforced against employers because “compulsory coverage for those services violates their religious beliefs by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”
So people who get HIV for whatever reason not necessarily related to gay sex or drugs are lumped in with the “unclean”.
Why not remove coverage for any STD’s. Alcohol related injuries or diseases? Tobacco related diseases, even second hand smoke? Sprained ankles from dancing? Any medication at all for Christian Scientists or similar beliefs?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “So people who get HIV for whatever reason not necessarily related to gay sex or drugs are lumped in with the ‘unclean’.”
Why not? The one who pays the premium should be able to buy what he wants, right?
LikeLike
Depends. Employees pay the premiums.
Think about this. You accept a job and the compensation for your labor are wages, 1/2 of FICA, maybe 401k matching, and premium coverage for health insurance. That is what the company has agreed to compensate you to get your work. Add up all those, and that is your compensation that you work for.
In other words, you agree to work and that is what the companies pays you in a combination of wages and benefits.
Now, ACA is the law. If a company won’t cover your needs, they should pay you the amount it would have paid out to cover your agreed to compensation for health insurance. Otherwise it is reneging on the employment contract.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indirectly, employees do pay for the insurance.
So, we all have a risk of needing high blood pressure medicine, and I don’t mind paying my share. But I am at no risk of needing HIV prevention medication, as needing that medication requires an irresponsible choice, unprotected anal sex with uncertain partners.
Why should everyone bear the cost of choosing risky behavior?
LikeLike
…”requires an irresponsible choice, unprotected anal sex with uncertain partners.
So you believe that the ONLY way to contract HIV is through anal sex with uncertain partners? Idiotic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s the only one that you would use the preventative drug for.
You would not, for example, use it for a routine transfusion or before taking illegalintravenous drugs.
LikeLike
No more flu shots for anyone. Or pneumonia or shingles or anything else.
Making laws based on morality can have some serious side effects.
LikeLike
That’s just silly.
It does not take any extraordinarily risky behavior to get the flu.
And no one is saying they can’t have the medication, only that they can’t force their employer to pay for it.
LikeLike
No more silly than requiring a 15 minute wait for a 15 year old to buy an AR-15 rifle.
Preventative dentistry. Did you still care for patents with employer provided insurance who chewed tobacco, smoked, sucked coffee out of a straw, drank red wine or any other risky (for teeth) behaviors? Were their premiums higher because of that?
LikeLike
In what state can a 15 year old legally buy a rifle?
LikeLike
Hyperbole? A little.
But of course you refused to comment on my preventative dentistry question. Typical.
LikeLike
“It does not take any extraordinarily risky behavior to get the flu.”
Going shopping, to school, church, the movies, a country concert in Las Vegas is currently extraordinarily risky these days. And not just catching the flu, but catching bullets.
LikeLike
“Why should everyone bear the cost of choosing risky behavior?”
How far are you going to take this nonsense?
I do not smoke but what I pay for health insurance helps treat those who do. I never speed but what I pay for health insurance helps treat those who do. I never drink to excess but what I pay for health insurance helps treat those who do. I am faithful to my wife who is faithful to me but what we pay for insurance helps treat those who suffer from STDs. I never eat raw oysters but what I pay for health insurance helps treat those who do. And so on ad infinitum.
What I see in the tolerance of the suggestion that HIV sufferers “should be euthanized” and this comment about selective “risky behavior” is profound homophobic bigotry. And that fits right in where MAGATS are trying to take our politics. Disgusting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note that I did not say people should not have the drug available, I said they should pay for it themselves.
LikeLike
Simple concepts, you play in feces for your jellies, you pay to play in feces for your jollies. You choose to use intravenous drugs, you pay to use intravenous drugs. Either party of the above should be euthanized for being responsible for spreading AIDS to the innocent few.
LikeLike
Watch out at your next transfusion….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr. Tabor – is advocating mass murder okay with your standards for this forum?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Better question is, is falsely claiming (intentionally lying) advocacy for mass murder acceptable by anyone’s standards in this forum? Anyone but the perpetual liar, you, says no.
LikeLike
Advocating mass responsibility certainly is allowed.
First, this is a preventive drug, used to reduce the risk of infection when you are engaging in risky behavior. It is not for people already ill.
So, is it reasonable to compel an employer to subsidize risky behavior absent other precautions like condoms?
Just because you don’t get something for free does not mean you can’t get it. Those who wish to engage in unprotected anal sex with partners likely to be infected can still do so, they just have to pay for their own 2nd line of defense.
If I decided to fly experimental aircraft, am I justified in demanding the government or my employer pay for my parachute?
LikeLike
Pull your head out of your ass. I was referring to Mr. Smith’s proposal that homosexuals and drug users be euthanized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you think that very risky irresponsible people who infect others with dea d ly disease should be free to sentence innocent people to death? Must be a liberal concept.
LikeLike
They have to stick together. They can say whatever they damned well please and nothing NOTHING ever comes of it. Not even a “hey, play nice.”
Meanwhile, you and I are threatened REPEATEDLY with banning or censure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, how is this MAGA, other than you just like to smear Trump supporters?
The judge was a Bush appointee ruling on a religious exemption.
LikeLike
Smear?
So you agree that the ruling is bad?
Whoever appointed this judge he is clearly an activist pushing the MAGA
antiwoke agenda. His ruling makes no sense otherwise. You get a religious exemption from a secular law because some people may have gotten sick doing things you don’t approve of? Really?
LikeLiked by 1 person