jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (25 posts)

AIDS: Bush vs. Obama

  1. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Why is Obama dropping the ball on AIDS? He's fallen far short of his campaign promise in this area. Maybe he feels the US simply can't afford it? And while I agree that Bush did some terrible things, he did show a lot of compassion to African AIDS victims:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/opini … amp;st=cse

    1. brimancandy profile image82
      brimancandyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's kind of harsh to say that any recent president has dropped the ball on AIDS. Treatments have come a long ways, and I recently heard that there is another new drug out there that is having success. So, I would say that it is more of a transition to having AIDS research moved into the hands of the private sector, as more money can be raised for AIDS research by fundraising, then support from the federal government.

      If anyone dropped the ball on AIDS it was the Reagan administration. They knew this disease was growing and killing people, and they did nothing but joke about it, as all it was doing at that time was killing a lot of fags, and they could have cared less.

      It wasn't until Rock Hudson died of the disease, that the Reagan Administration decided to finally take a look at it, and start funding the experiments that were already under way. They were also the ones to blindly push the use of AZT, not knowing if it had any effect at all on the disease just to calm the fears of the mis-informed general public. AZT killed people who would have been better off if they had not taken it.

      It wasn't until Clinton came along that money started pouring into AIDS research. The republican's constantly fought to have AIDS funding cut.
      but, now that things are getting better for those that have HIV, and people with AIDS they seem to believe that the threat of the disease is no longer
      as large a threat as it once was.

      As for Africa, AIDS is just part of the bigger picture there. People are dying faster from AIDS in Africa because there are more diseases there that those people are not protected from as they are in the United States.
      And, it is those other diseases that are making it harder for people with AIDS there to survive. In some places where large numbers of people are dying of AIDS there are no hospitals, and people there have gone for decades without ever seeing a doctor.

      There is talk that AIDS has been in Africa for quite some time, it has gone to such large portions of the people there, because nobody ever knew why they were dying, and worse then the United States, nothing was being done about it. A majority of people who are being treated for AIDS in Africa are being treated by doctors who are from other countries. The local governments there could care less.

    2. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Eh, Bush's financial pledge was certainly one of the best things he ever did, but he also extended the gag rule so it applied to AIDS prevention funding, so ultimately he could have done much better.

      The preliminary studies I've seen on the effects of his policy suggest that the anti-virals saved more than a million lives, but the infection rate stayed stable, probably because he cut off funding to family planning clinics that also offered abortion counseling in favor of abstinence-based prevention programs, which apparently don't work any better in Africa than they do here. tongue When you've got people believing that they can cure themselves of AIDs by having unprotected sex with virgins, you need fact-based education, not morality based education!

      1. habee profile image95
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        All presidents, along with people in general, can always do better. It just seems rather ironic to me that Bush, a born-again Christian conservative, sent so much to Africa for AIDS. According to the article in the NY Times that I linked to, he did a lot of good in this respect.

        As for abstinance policies, you're right - they never work! Sex is a primal urge that WILL be satisfied by most humans.

        1. brimancandy profile image82
          brimancandyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You will probably find out that the only reason the Bush administration sent money to Africa is because the drug companies that put out the AIDS medicines were getting funded by the government, which eventually goes back into Bush's pocket in the form of Political contributions, plus, you can bet the family has business ties to those companies, and therefore he personally would profit from it. Just as the Bush family did with the war in Iraq. When Oil prices went up they made millions.

      2. K9keystrokes profile image93
        K9keystrokesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Outstanding.

    3. profile image61
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let me start by saying that I'm NO FAN of the President. However, part of his view for the country is that America has played too big a role in the world. That in doing so we have caused countries to hate us. In this I tend to agree. While I couldn't care less if other countries hate us, I do believe our resources could be better spent. Charity starts at home.

      1. habee profile image95
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree, C.J. We should take care of our own first. If we have money and resources left, then focus on the rest of the world.

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Under the current circumstances. It will be quite a long time before we can focus anywhere but at home.

          1. habee profile image95
            habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And even that will be a stretch!

  2. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    You know... Obama promised more transparency. He said the people who are "keeping secrets" will be exposed (it's not an exact quote, but it was the same meaning). 

    Since then, republicans got all crazy, crazy like they are trying to cover some stuff up and for what reason?

    See, people cheered transparency and Obama is a very intelligent man. The unfortunate consequence to his administration and to us is that he is and does expose those people for what they really are.

    It cannot get any more transparent than that.  So it makes perfect sense that the ones who feel threatened by exposure of their dirty deeds have created a diversion and have stopped everything from proceeding.

    We can complain about this and that, but don't forget that Obama wanted Health Care for our country!  OUR COUNTRY! 

    To woe over not giving as much support to foreign AIDS victims is no more immoral or unethical than the cries from the people about how come we cannot take care of our country and our people first so when he does it is more "controversy"?

    Obama is the MOST transparent and he really is doing what he said he would do but some folks in the government just don't like it and will do ANYTHING, anything at all to make sure they still have public support, they get Republicans back in office and their secrets are kept that way.

    1. habee profile image95
      habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So you don't think Obama keeps any "secrets"?? I fully believe that ALL politicians have lots of secrets. A liberal democrat friend of mine thinks that if the American public really knew what was going on in DC, we'd freak out. I think she's probably right! lol

      I agree with you about taking care of our own country first, which is why I mentioned the possibility that BO isn't sending as much AIDS help to Africa because we just can't afford to do so now.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Of course he has secrets!  Just wondering what he found that is so secret that exposing that secret is causing such a furry.

        Besides, I read the other day that ALL but 1 president are all related to the same guy.  Some former king of England. big_smile

        1. habee profile image95
          habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I read that, too, Sandra! Weird, huh?

          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Weird?  I don't know if that is the right word.  It is not like it is a coincidence. 43 Presidents all in the same family.  Weird, no.   Creepy...maybe.  Selected regardless of their ability to govern...I am thinking there are some inner workings going on and it really, really doesn't matter who we vote for.

            I don't find it realistic to think that billions of people who don't know each other or talk to each other just ended up voting for the one who just happens to be in the same lineage as the last one. 

            We should find out who is next in line to be the successor and have a our own secret pool on who will be the next president.  Lottery!  Psha, why gamble. lol

  3. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Do I even need to ask which of the 44 is NOT from that English nobility lineage? Hmmmm.

    As to why AIDS funding for Africa may not be as high a priority as Obama promised/hoped coming in, I think you're right. We can't be all things to all people. When Obama made his campaign promises he did not plan on several money-sucking events:
    1. Financial meltdown requiring bailouts and stimulus money
    2. Extended unemployment benefits
    3. A massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
    4. A devestating earthquake in Haiti
    ... etc., etc., etc.
    I'm probably missing some obvious ones....

    I also agree with comments that where initiatives can be and have been shifted to the private sector, the need for government funding should be proportionately reduced....

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well if you were going to guess Obama, you are wrong.  Obama is one of them.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    I have no clue who the maverick president is. Can you reveal?

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Martin Van Buren. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/first-family/masthead_image/8mv_header_sm.jpg?1250871051

  5. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Okay, so their Ooober Great Grand Daddy was King John of England.  I was just checking around on wiki and this is fascinating....

    King John was the first person to impose an income tax.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Uh oh! Don't go there! Don't start talking about TAXES.
    Dirty word, dirty word!!!

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I apologize.

  7. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Sandra said the "T-word"!!!

    1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image60
      Rajab Nsubugaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks habee for the post! God could not have punished Bush with both hands! He failed in so many aspects but he really did the best when it came to fighting HIV aids in Africa. The problems of Africa are many even for a fellow African! Most of the funds were swindled by gov't officials that they never served the intended purpose.

      Aids in Africa affects mostly the women. This due to the fact that they are largely dependent on their male counterparts. The means through which the infected persons are to be helped are again dominated  by men. In a way it becomes a viscious circle. That adaughter of  a victim will contract aids in trying to secure drugs for the mother.

      The arvs are a necessary evil. In that they prolong the life of a victim but in the same way prolong the line of persons that the victim  as infected over time. It is a catch 22  situation!

      1. habee profile image95
        habeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for the African perspective, Rajab!

 
working