Free Anti-HIV daily pill for California

[Tyrillia]

So I get home from work and start reading a yahoo story about this awesome sounding drug. What a wonder way to prevent such a debilitating disease.

http://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-...pUcksAzN1XNyoA

Then I get to the comments. I know some of them are just trolls being trolls, but even the small percentage of people that are serious....My mind is completely blown. Do these people not understand that, yes, making it free would come out of the tax payers pocket, but that it would also lower the chances of new cases. Its like they all think its some gay thing. Its not the 80's. We know better.

Would these people be ok with it if it meant their kids who are more than likely doing things they don't know about (aka risky behavior as the commenter put it) or would they still be pissed because "HURRDURR CELIBACY! NOT PAYING FOR YOU TO GET SHIT ON YOUR DICK!"

Would you be ok with having higher taxes to stem this disease?

Edit: And sorry if this has been posted. I called myself looking but I can be a bit of an oblivious airhead.

[Replica]

gunna do my best `murica now, here we go

"THEY MAKIN ME PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES SHIT? FUCKIN OBAMA!"

[Masark]

We know better.

Would these people be ok with it if it meant their kids who are more than likely doing things they don't know about (aka risky behavior as the commenter put it) or would they still be pissed because "HURRDURR CELIBACY! NOT PAYING FOR YOU TO GET SHIT ON YOUR DICK!"

1. Collectively perhaps, but there are non-trivial numbers of people who don't.

2. You're talking about people who throw their children out on the street if they find out they're gay. What do you think?

[Herecius]

California's taxes are already pretty crazy. Frankly, while I do very much love the idea of this pill, I'd really like our state congress to somehow get its budgetory act together before adding more burdens to its taxpayers.

Exactly how much 'extra taxes' does this entail, anyways? Estimations?

[Darsithis]

This shit is so frustrating.

I take Truvada and Isentress to control my HIV. But thanks to dipshits like Scott Wiener, I've just been told by my insurance that I have to get my doctor to fill out a form every time he submits my refills to explain why I'm taking it or they won't refill it - just in case I'm abusing it like they do. On top of that, people using Truvada to avoid HIV infection are participating in risky behaviors because they like the illusion of safety it gives.

[Tyrillia]

California's taxes are already pretty crazy. Frankly, while I do very much love the idea of this pill, I'd really like our state congress to somehow get its budgetory act together before adding more burdens to its taxpayers.

Exactly how much 'extra taxes' does this entail, anyways? Estimations?

I believe they said it would be 14k a year.

[Kujako]

Last I checked CA still had a budget surplus...

[Deleted]

This is why you never take the people seriously, most of them are fucking retards who drive the country into the ground in just one week if there was a true democracy.

[Darsithis]

From what I understand, risky behavior aside, as long as the person sticks to taking it everyday, it lowers the chance of infection by 99%:

Taking the pills is a practice known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, and some researchers believe it may reduce the risk of infection by 99 percent if patients take their medication daily as prescribed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/up...abt=0002&abg=1

Pretty much as safe as a condom. Of course it will not protect you from other STD's, so a condom should still be used, but still, it would help with the infection rate in high risk communities. Personally, I think its a good idea, as long as the person is also responsible.

It doesn't make sense to me to swallow a pill like this to avoid an HIV infection when you can avoid pretty much all infections just by using a damn condom. I mean, Truvada and other medications like this have side effects. Condoms do not.

[Deleted]

I think they need to find a cure for it already, it's been a long time coming, hopefully someday soon.

Didnt they already cure that basketballer? Oh right, he had money.

[Darsithis]

I agree, but unfortunately, sometimes condoms are not available, or you think with the other head. They can also rip. But that begs the question, if the person is going to be irresponsible in the heat of the moment, if they are the type of person likely to stick to taking it every day. *shrug*

I have heard that the side effects are pretty bad though, but they do not happen to every person who takes it.

This is sort of of like the HPV vaccine thing for women.

I think they need to find a cure for it already, it's been a long time coming, hopefully someday soon.

I can see someone who made a mistake in the heat of the moment using it. But taking HIV medications preemptively? Ridiculous. That's like taking anti-depressants "just in case".

Didnt they already cure that basketballer? Oh right, he had money.

Magic Johnson is not cured.

[Darsithis]

He became undetectable. But you can do that with the normal regimen now. The virus kinda "sleeps" in cells, and when you stop taking the drugs it comes back again.

They think they cured it in a guy who had a bone marrow transplant though.

http://www.sciencealert.com/news/20142107-25894.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828640

It came back.

Anyway, we digress. The point is I think it's a terrible idea to provide this medication for free for preventive daily use. I think it should be provided for the emergency case, but not for people to just start taking because they think they want to go bareback and not worry.

[Debased]

So I only skimmed the article. Is it a daily pill? Is it as effective if taken only once here and there before funky time? I can't imagine it would be as effective as it should be if that's the case. Also frankly I don't think anyone should give two shits about the 'general populations' input for matters like this. Half of them still wholeheartedly believe in Jesus while the other half define their lives through local TV and Fox News.

[Herecius]

I believe they said it would be 14k a year.

The cost of the yearly regimen does not equate to the cost to the taxpayer.

[Deleted]

I think there's a bit too much scare for a virus like HIV.

It's not everyday the human race finds a disease which can be stopped by simple rubber.
And trust me, they do not cost 14k a year.

[Lenonis]

It doesn't make sense to me to swallow a pill like this to avoid an HIV infection when you can avoid pretty much all infections just by using a damn condom. I mean, Truvada and other medications like this have side effects. Condoms do not.

1) Condoms aren't 100% effective. They break or are applied improperly.
2) Sex happens under a variety of circumstances where poor or no decision making is made. Drunken sex or rape.
3) If someone wants to have a backup plan if the condoms don't work, the pill makes sense.

Every and any step to curb this disease is a welcome play in my book.

[Darsithis]

1) Condoms aren't 100% effective. They break or are applied improperly.
2) Sex happens under a variety of circumstances where poor or no decision making is made. Drunken sex or rape.
3) If someone wants to have a backup plan if the condoms don't work, the pill makes sense.

Every and any step to curb this disease is a welcome play in my book.

Drunken sex or rape can be combated with the megadose. You shouldn't need to take a $15,000-a-year prescription when you don't actually have the condition required for it.

[Lenonis]

Drunken sex or rape can be combated with the megadose. You shouldn't need to take a $15,000-a-year prescription when you don't actually have the condition required for it.

You are essentially arguing against preventive care.

You don't always know when you've been exposed and by the time you find out you are infected it is too late to prevent infection. There is really no valid reason to not take this treatment if you don't have side effects and have insurance and/or resources that cover the cost of care.

In order to make an effective argument against preventive care you have to show that the treatment's risks and problems outweigh the potential good -- something you've failed to do.

[TZK203]

OP, please edit the title.

There is no such thing as "free" goods or services. Someone always has to pay for it.

In this case, it would be the taxpayers of California.

[Darsithis]

You are essentially arguing against preventive care.

You don't always know when you've been exposed and by the time you find out you are infected it is too late to prevent infection. There is really no valid reason to not take this treatment if you don't have side effects and have insurance and/or resources that cover the cost of care.

In order to make an effective argument against preventive care you have to show that the treatment's risks and problems outweigh the potential good -- something you've failed to do.

There are arguments:

1 - Cost. Having expensive prescriptions like this drive up costs for any insurance plan. No insurance? It's going to be about $1500 a month.
2 - Overuse of drugs. You're in the industry - you know what happens when people are prescribed drugs willy-nilly for every little headache. We're getting mega-strains of bacteria that doesn't respond to treatment from overuse. Now we're handing out Truvada like candy to people who don't have HIV.
3 - Truvada has a host of side-effects: lactic acid buildup, liver issues, kidney failure, body fat changes, and bone density issues, especially in females or those who take it long term.

I don't see the potential good. Condoms aren't 100% effective - but neither is Truvada. It can't prevent HIV for sure. I'd rather use a condom (too late for me, though), than use a life-threatening drug.