New drug blocks HIV from entering cells

Just thought I'd poke in to quote the preamble of the US Constitution. Bold mine.

Quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

My general remark goes to the "if the government can do a little of [whatever] then it can do [whatever] all the way", which is bs at multiple levels. First, from a legal standpoint, you can put checks and balances and limit what the govenment can do. For example, it can pass laws, but does it mean it can pass any law it wants? Nope. Similarly, you can define how much it's allowed to tax, or how much or in what very specific conditions it can take something from you. Second, from a logical standpoint: by that reasoning, if I can jump over a fence, I can jump over a house. I wish, but again, there are limits on how high I can jump.

And last, I find it funny that you are in favor of patents (20 (/14) year long monopolies anyone?) and at the same time say "free market". Haha. xD

life is not proprty asnd tax is not 100%, so it does not strip you of all you have earned. it takes some. and at some point you will probably use some of it. maybe not all you've put in. maybe not as much as some people. but you will use it. i know for sure it will take a whole long time before i could ever dream of paying back my schooling, operations, prescriptions, glasses, dentistry, water, uni stuff.

think of it like a lottery. you don't know at any one time how much you will take out. raistlin tomorrow you may contract hep c. or aids. or kidney disease. and if you don't have enough to pay for the treatment. you are well and truly stuffed. but if you were getting treatment under the nhs then you would be fine. they would treat you. they wouldn't bankrupt you for it.

why let the poor die for being poor? is that a justification? if we have the power to stop death should we not? and why can it not be the responsibilty of the state and it's people not to watch people die from this? what gives the rich a right to life above the poor?

Perhaps the government should guarantee employment instead of guarantee income? Welfare is a free ride. I've never agreed with the concept. I believe during the Great Depression, one of the plans put into effect essentially gave manual labor jobs to thousands of men building roads and other tasks. Welfare and unemployment encourage laziness. I know this first hand because I'm currently laid off, and unemployment is making me lazy. There are roads that need to be maintained. There's litter that can be picked up. I'm sure there are government offices that could use secretarial positions. There are tons of ways the government could put the nonproductive to work. The end result would be the same: noone would starve in poverty. The difference would be that money is earned, and noone loses. As welfare currently stands, those who do work give part of their income to those who don't. It's a win-lose situation. Guarantee people jobs instead of income, and society would be more productive.

true but we cannot go back to the work house situation that we had before.

and a line has to be drawn somewhere for people actually unable to work.

but yeah government paid jobs i am all for really. but then it would need to be paid for by taxes. and people would only whine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but yeah government paid jobs i am all for really. but then it would need to be paid for by taxes. and people would only whine.

---

Oh, whining for no reason at all, I'm sure.