Should we let people with HIV/AIDS into the US?
By sedel1027
@sedel1027 (17846)
Cupertino, California
August 11, 2008 12:33pm CST
I just read an article that states that the US has a ban on letting people with HIV/AIDS into the country. However good ole President Bush just signed a bill that drops the ban (this bill also allows us to give more money to Africa for their AIDS Problem WTF?).
Since AIDS is a world wide epidemic, should be ban people with the disease from entering the US?
Personally, I feel like the ban should stay in place for various reason. The main one being that we don't have a good control on the disease here, so why make it even worse. Why is Bush giving away more money! The US barely as a decent economy right now and we need resources to help people here. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the people in Africa, but I doubt even 1/8 of what we send even gets to the right people.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@icyorchid (2564)
• United States
13 Aug 08
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
Bush is STUPID! He has us paying to rebuild Iraq and now this! I wish he wasn't so into spending money so freely!
I don't think we should allow people with any deseases like HIV/AIDS into our country! They need to stay where they are. We have our own problems here, what the heck are we suppose to do for the foreigners? We need to help our own people!
@moonlitmagikchild (22181)
• United States
12 Aug 08
i didnt even know we had a ban.. im guessing then you have to get tested for everything before coming here?
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
11 Aug 08
I agree with you that the ban on people with HIV/AIDS is still a good idea. Other countries also have such bans. You are wrong, however to blame President Bush for this, considering that congressional support was bipartisan and strong, with few in opposition.
There is a fair amount of screwed up thinking involved in the decision, apparently. Some focus on the scientific/medical aspect, saying that aids is no longer the lethal mystery it was 20 years ago when the ban was put in place.
You say President Bush should have put the veto to this bill. Do you think most Americans would agree with him also killing the $48 billion dollars of aid to fight aids? This is just another case where the line item veto may have made a difference.
The action kind of contradicts itself. Now the Dept. of Health and Human Services needs to delete HIV from the list of "communicable diseases of public healtth significance". If HIV can come off the list, it doesn't need the $48 billion dollars.
At a minimum, those coming in with such a disease should have their own health insurance. I don't want to pay for it.
djbtol
@urbandekay (18278)
•
11 Aug 08
Well, I think it is mad, lifting the ban that is.
all the best urban
@psphacker (1053)
• United States
11 Aug 08
yes because they are humans just like us and if one of them kills it for the rest than the answer will be a no.
