Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

There are plenty of other people that have been diagnosed with deadly diseases. If we had a state run health care system, then we'd need to cover them. We do not. How do you pick and choose which diseases we should provide coverage for?

I think that the issue of which diseases to cover is for another discussion (and boy is it s doozy!!) however my reasong would be this:

We are presently covering HIV/AIDS for whatever reason (I guess because state govt voted to do so) so therefore shouldn't we continue to do so based on the fact that, if the state withdraws that funding and the Fed govt wont pick up the program and fund it themselves, then the drugs will no longer be available for most people and they will die.

I am surprised there aren't more non-life supporting programs that could be trimmed. First and foremost the State's Politicians Wages, Retirement packages, etc.

Stoat adds: We're very sorry to see the state of CA is so far into their list of "trimmable/expendable funds" that they are up to Life-Support programs already !!