Obama lifts 22 year ban on U.S. entry of those with HIV/AIDS

[Phrozen]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59T35120091030?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama announced on Friday that a 22-year-old ban on allowing people infected with the AIDS virus into the United States will be lifted on Monday.

Obama made the announcement in signing an extension of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Act, which provides for education, prevention and treatment programs for U.S. HIV patients.

Obama said the ban was imposed 22 years ago when visitors to the United States were treated as a threat.

"We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic -- yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country," he said.

"If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it," he said.

He said on Monday his administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the first of 2010.

The AIDS virus infects 33 million people globally and around a million in the United States."


I'm wondering if this will incur serious negative consequences, disease spreads more rapidly if there is a lot of movement within the infected population. Drug uses (needles), negligence in telling a partner, rape, or accidents where blood is drawn, are common ways for this virus to spread..

Also areas where HIV is high are known to have low awareness/education in regards to the disease itself. Also foreigners when compared to the domestic population (due to a lack of social support, and a possible unfamiliarity with the dominate culture) have higher crime rates. Also those who are dropping by, have less to be concerned about if they plan on leaving within 6 months to a year, thus less concern for actions that will take a longer time to be found. These three factors, while definitely not deterministic on said population and may or may not even be applicable to the majority, they are defiantly three strong variables which contribute to it’s spread when one has great movement from an infected population.

Back in the days when people were coming to America from other countries they had to have a health card saying they have been checked for Polio, Tuberculosis, Legions disease and many more. So America extracted all these diseases that did get through with Vaccines. Children have to be vaccinated before entering school. Now we have an increase in tuberculosis and many other diseases that were eradicated in the past. There is no vaccine for HIV, so it’s rise may be greater than other diseases.

We already seem to have a health care crisis, yet we also seem to want to bring more issues onto us, seems more like compassion over pragmatism.

What are your thoughts?

[Bking]

I guess it's up to how responsible the person travling into the U.S. is. If you know you have HIV, dont fuck anyone. I imagine that HIV is trasmitted predominately by the people who don't know that they have it. In which case, the ban had never effected because they didn't know.

[Jonah Davids]

Oh good, another thing for the xenophobic bigoted right-wing dumbass crowd can hate immigrants for: now they're not only coming to steal our jobs, they're coming to give us AIDS and take our health care! ITS CLEARLY PART OF OBAMA'S PLAN TO USE HIS AFRICAN AIDS INFECTED BRETHREN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IMPEACH TREE OF FREEDOM BLOOD OF TYRANTS COMMUNISTS FASCISTS NAZIS.

[Zephyrus055]

The risk of contracting HIV in one episode of unprotected vaginal intercourse is estimated anywhere between 1/1000 to 1/8000. With a condom, the risk is reduced by another 85%.

With those odds, I sure as hell would sleep with a hot woman infected with HIV touring the US, and feel perfectly comfortable knowing I probably would not contract it.

HIV infected tourists really are not a threat.

[stopharian]

The risk of contracting HIV in one episode of unprotected vaginal intercourse is estimated anywhere between 1/1000 to 1/8000. With a condom, the risk is reduced by another 85%.

With those odds, I should as hell would sleep with a hot woman infected with HIV touring the US, and feel perfectly comfortable knowing I probably would not contract it.

HIV infected tourists really are not a threat.


That or feed her to my dog, cause research shows that Canines cannot be infected by ingesting HIV tainted meat.

[Phrozen]

I forgot to add that the current cure-in-progress they are working on for HIV has to be engineered for each genetic strand of the HIV virus (they found a weakness in how fast it mutates, engineering it in such a way to make it fallible), meaning they have to make one for different populations, but for the cure to be effective they need to control the genetic components of the virus.

They plan to try and couple this with the bone marrow transplate technique to make an end all cure for the virus.

I think the goal of the overal reduction of HIV should take precedent over most issues, especially when we are so close.

[MoneyJungle]

What of all that money I donated to the AIDS fence?

[Curtis24]

Why is he lifting this ban now?

[Anonymous]

What are your thoughts?

I guess this is the change that I was voting for. And here I thought he meant politically.

[zago]

This is just what I have always wanted.

[Robotron]

Oh good, another thing for the xenophobic bigoted right-wing dumbass crowd can hate immigrants for: now they're not only coming to steal our jobs, they're coming to give us AIDS and take our health care! ITS CLEARLY PART OF OBAMA'S PLAN TO USE HIS AFRICAN AIDS INFECTED BRETHREN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IMPEACH TREE OF FREEDOM BLOOD OF TYRANTS COMMUNISTS FASCISTS NAZIS.

I like the merit of your hypothetical opponent's argument and yours being only distinguishable by the designation of capital letters.

[MacGuffin]

The risk of contracting HIV in one episode of unprotected vaginal intercourse is estimated anywhere between 1/1000 to 1/8000. With a condom, the risk is reduced by another 85%.

With those odds, I sure as hell would sleep with a hot woman infected with HIV touring the US, and feel perfectly comfortable knowing I probably would not contract it.

HIV infected tourists really are not a threat.

UNLESS THEY'RE GAY!

:shock:

[Phrozen]

Why is he lifting this ban now?

No clue, I haven't read anything in regard to the timing.

[last_caress]

why stop there? what about leprosy, gonorrhea, syphilis, and tuberculosis?

[doob]

UNLESS THEY'RE GAY!

:shock:

Nah, all men having sex with HIV infected women have the same risks, women having sex with other women (gay) have little to no risk.


why stop there? what about leprosy, gonorrhea, syphilis, and tuberculosis?

Actually...


On Wednesday 30 July 2008, President Bush signed a new law that provide $48 billion to combat AIDS and other diseases globally and ends the U.S. ban on foreign visitors and immigrants who are HIV-positive.
Attention now turns to the US Department of Health and Human Services: in 1987 they placed HIV on a list of diseases barring entry into the U.S. under a separate prohibition measure to the the congressional travel ban. With the legal ban repealed, federal health officials are no longer bound by law to keep HIV on the list. Other diseases that trigger the U.S. travel ban include leprosy, gonorrhea and tuberculosis.

Neither Health and Human Sciences or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have commented on when HIV will be removed from this list, but things remain hopeful because they already proposed removal back in 1991 in a move that failed then under a deluge of pressure from religious conservatives which effectively derailed the plan.
A public consultation period today might result in a similar battle but Victoria Neilson, legal director for New York based organisation Immigration Equality says that public attitudes have changed, however, and the debate may be different today. During Senate debate on reauthorising the PEPFAR bill this month, conservatives steered clear of a fight over the provision to repeal the travel ban.

"People understand it's a virus, not a black plague or something. There's no reason for a disease that isn't airborne to be on the list," Neilson said.

11 other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Colombia, maintain similar travel bans.

looks like we were keeping good company.

[dubbeltop]

Obama lifts 22 year ban on U.S. entry of those with HIV/AIDS

So this is what they call health care reforms.

[Jonah Davids]

I like the merit of your hypothetical opponent's argument and yours being only distinguishable by the designation of capital letters.

I will give you that if you can accurately tell me what my argument actually is.

[Robotron]

I will give you that if you can accurately tell me what my argument actually is.

The one not in all caps.

[Jonah Davids]

My argument is that right-wing xenophobes will seize upon this news event to justify their anti-immigrant, anti-Obama and/or anti-health care attitude.

And my argument's merits are, unlike the conspiracy morons I am mocking, 100% correct because right-wing xenophobes are indeed doing that.

From here:
http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board/print?board.id=news&message.id=1182258&page=1&format=page

The bill will let thousands of people with HV and AIDs, primarily from Africa, into the USA. A large percentage of them potential college students. What portion of the USA population are these new immigrants likely to have sexual relation with ?

Under the upcoming Universal Health Care Legislation all of these legal immigrants will be entitled to full medical coverage.

What does it cost to treat an HIV positive person a year? $ 40,000 or $ 70,000.

Full onset of AIDs will be well over $ 70,000 a year each. Mexico and Central America exported their poor to the USA, now Africa can export their sick to the USA.

He's letting in the infected! (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=1033937)


You've probably all seen the news by now. The gates are now open for HIV infected individuals. According to obama, if America is to be the leader in the war against AIDS, then this is necessary.
Does anybody else not agree with this? The way I see it, this is just going to increase HIV cases. It's not like America will be letting in innocent infants and nuns that just happen to have HIV. HIV cases are now going to skyrocket with the influx of carriers engaging in unprotected sex and drug use.
It seems that everything Obama does is to destroy America.

How about that. I'm not just hallucinating stupid right wing xenophobes nor am I accusing them of behavior they do not do.

[Robotron]

You mean to say that your editorializing of events is more sophisticated than theirs? Way to totally transcend the dichotomy paradigm of pop politics and see which side is really the wrong one.

[last_caress]

My argument is that right-wing xenophobes will seize upon this news event to justify their anti-immigrant, anti-Obama and/or anti-health care attitude.

And my argument's merits are, unlike the conspiracy morons I am mocking, 100% correct because right-wing xenophobes are indeed doing that.

From here:
http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board/print?board.id=news&message.id=1182258&page=1&format=page


He's letting in the infected! (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=1033937)

How about that. I'm not just hallucinating stupid right wing xenophobes nor am I accusing them of behavior they do not do.

who cares what they think.
why don't you tell us what the upshot is?

[kble]

Chastity belt boom. --> Everybody happy.

[Notsweetynice]

This is a really bad idea considering there are many subtypes of HIV and some are even resistant to antiretroviral meds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtypes_of_HIV

Subtype A is common in West Africa.[2]
Subtype B is the dominant form in Europe, the Americas, Japan, Thailand, and Australia. [3]
Subtype C is the dominant form in Southern Africa, India, and Nepal.[3]
Subtype D is generally only seen in Eastern and central Africa.[3]
(Subtype E) has never been identified as a nonrecombinant, only recombined with subtype A as CRF01_AE.[3]
Subtype F has been found in central Africa, South America and Eastern Europe. [4]
Subtype G (and the CRF02_AG) have been found in Africa and central Europe.[4]
Subtype H is limited to central Africa.[4]
(Subtype I) was originally used to describe a strain that is now accounted for as CRF04_cpx, with the cpx for a "complex" recombination of several subtypes.[citation needed]
Subtype J is primarily found in North, Central and West Africa, and the Caribbean[5]
Subtype K is limited to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon. [4]

As you can see many of these subtypes are limited in scope. Would gaining new types and perhaps mixes of types be a very good idea?

[CreativeChaos]

UNLESS THEY'RE GAY!

:shock:

Lol! I got that joke, even if no one else did.


My argument is that right-wing xenophobes will seize upon this news event to justify their anti-immigrant, anti-Obama and/or anti-health care attitude.

And my argument's merits are, unlike the conspiracy morons I am mocking, 100% correct because right-wing xenophobes are indeed doing that.

From here:
http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board/print?board.id=news&message.id=1182258&page=1&format=page


He's letting in the infected! (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=1033937)

How about that. I'm not just hallucinating stupid right wing xenophobes nor am I accusing them of behavior they do not do.

Gee! So you're on these forums? I've never heard of them. I will admit that seeing this announcement struck fear into my heart.

It seems to be a political decision. If we are one of only 12 countries that prevent people with HIV/AIDS from coming into our country. But frankly, who knows what goes on in the mind of the President?

[Jonah Davids]

I'm not on those forums, no.

[attila_the_hunny]

I've played Resident Evil enough to know how to handle this.

[aphill20]

You mean to say that your editorializing of events is more sophisticated than theirs? Way to totally transcend the dichotomy paradigm of pop politics and see which side is really the wrong one.

:theclap:

[Jonah Davids]

You mean to say that your editorializing of events is more sophisticated than theirs?

I was predicting their editorialization of events, while they were simply editorializing events (in a predictable way which I find worthy of mockery.). But oh, you got me - I think I'm superior to these morons. Ow! My exposed hubris!


Way to totally transcend the dichotomy paradigm of pop politics and see which side is really the wrong one.

Way to totally assume I give a shit about "transcending the dichotomy paradigm" and to, based on this lofty assumption guilt trip me into somehow admitting that oh gosh yes, what I've done in this thread is exactly what they are doing.

It isn't. You haven't shown that it is. I think you prefer to make snappy little got-ya's to the emoted applause of aphill20.

[Lateralus]

How does this benefit American citizens?