November 2, 2009, - 2:05 pm

Dr. Obama @ the Border: Lifts Travel Ban, Lets HIV/AIDs Infected Into US to Hasten ObamaCare!

By Debbie Schlussel

Since he won’t give them gay marriage, Barack Obama, MD is giving gay activists something almost as bad.  And he’s killing two birds with one stone by using a sop to them to speed ObamaCare’s enactment.  It’s disturbing . . . if only people were paying attention. Well, they weren’t paying attention when President Bush put this absurdity into motion. Obama is just finishing the job.

drobama

Dr. Obama has decided that AIDS is no longer a communicable disease of any significance.  And he’s signed an order that will overturn a 22-year travel and immigration ban on those with HIV or AIDS.  Obama announced on the eve of Halloween that he’s going to impose this scary measure, next year (a scary measure President Bush put into play).  The order is set to be signed by our quack-medical-expert-in-chief, today.  And he’s doing it to increase the burden on our healthcare system and force us to sign up for his prescription.

This means that HIV-positive people can get visas for entry into the U.S., green cards, and, ultimately, citizenship.  It’s a sweetheart deal and measure not taken for many others who have illnesses and diseases that are no more communicable than AIDS, but with less active and vocal political activists behind those illnesses.  Do we really have an interest in spreading more disease in America?  Well, we do . . . if someone WANTS TO HASTEN THE SPEED OF GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE.

I did a little research into the proposed changes Obama pushed, and they’re fairly ridiculous.  Plus it has ties to ObamaCare.  Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control has the information listed under “Global Migration and Quarantine.” So the U.S. is supposed to encourage HIV-positive migration to our shores and quarantine this disease here? Sure looks like it . . . all in a bid for ObamaCare.

The language of the CDC proposed removal of the HIV Entry Ban contains these gems:

1. HIV infection would no longer be included on the list of “communicable disease of public health significance”.

Really? Then, perhaps we should stop the billions in politically-charged federal aid that goes to scientific research for a cure of this newly “non-significant” public health issue. If it’s no longer “of public health significance,” why are we funding the research?

2. Testing for HIV infection would no longer be required as part of the U.S. Immigration medical screening process.

3. HIV infection would no longer require a waiver for entry into the United States.

HIV Economic Model

The objective of this model is to evaluate both the potential number of HIV-positive immigrants to the United States and the health system cost over time, given a change in regulation.

(Emphasis added.)

So, why are we letting a big group of diseased people onto our shores when we need to develop a huge economic model to project the increased cost they’ll put on our health system over time?

One word: ObamaCare.

We aren’t going to be equpped to handle these people, most of whom won’t have insurance but do have a pre-existing condition (HIV), which will prevent them from getting it. And the government will have to fund their healthcare. But the government can’t do that, unless “everybody’s in” a/k/a ObamaCare.

Oh, and before you praise President Bush, he signed legislation, last year, lifting the HIV/AIDS travel ban. But Obama signed the final rule putting it into effect.

***

BTW, I predict I’ll get the usual hate-mail and hate-comments from gay activists. But they’ll be on hypocritical ground. You see, as I’ve noted here before, AIDS was originally called GRID–Gay-Related Immunodeficiency–but gay activists got mad. So the politically-correct scientific world changed the name to AIDS–Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome–trying to make us forget how the “Acquired” part of the disease happens. Gays and the media told us AIDS was “everyone’s disease.” But more than a quarter century later, it still remains what it was in America: the disease of gays, intravenous drug users, and others who sleep with the first two categories (plus a few innocents who unfortunately got tainted blood transfusions).

So don’t send me hate mail saying I’m prejudiced against gay people because I don’t want diseased aliens entering my country. Remember, GRID, er . . . AIDS, was supposed to be “everyone’s disease.” Right?

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses

Would the US really let in people with any other communicable disease? Of course not! But the Gay Lobby is politically powerful and the politicians had to reward them somehow. At the expense of the country’s good health.

Its sickening.

NormanF on November 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Its not ‘ObamaCare’, its a Public Health Care OPTION [PCO](not a MANDATORY). If you like your overpriced insurance, then you can keep it. If you want your money to go toward your health care instead of a new pool or private aircraft for a CEO, then you can choose a PCO. Its that simple.

And be careful of the rhetoric that compares it to other countries health care systems, because its not the same. If someone is concerned with Socialism, then they should stop their relatives from using any Medicare, they themselves should stop using the interstate, public school system and the the Police and Fire Departments also.

Lee on November 2, 2009 at 3:05 pm

The feds have been letting folks with TB into the country for years. HIV/AIDS, on the other hand, ain’t even proven as a communicable disease. Here’s one alternative, none PC theory: http://www.duesberg.com/

Manfred on November 2, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Debbie – You are spot on with this as always. It is very scary to see what is happening and any of us who speak out against it are branded bigots.

C on November 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Speaking from a purely scientific perspective, GRID was only a viable name for a short period of time when the condition was not well understood and was observed only in a specific population. However, subsequent, more in depth scientific evaluation found it in several populations and the name had to be changed to maintain relevance and to accurately describe the disease.

The change to this legislation is simply reflecting the reality that allowing people with the disease into the country is not going to cause a massive increase in the rate of infections. According to the CDC, the rate of new infections has been stable since the late 1990s at roughly 56,000 new infections per year. Thus, based on current legal immigration rates of 1.1 million per year, immigrants would statistically bring only approximately 200 new cases of AIDS into the country assuming they were healthy enough to get in in the first place.

In short, this is hardly a driver for the socialized medicine that many fear as a result of these immigration changes. If there are fears over immigration levels, that is a different debate entirely and one that is not served well by the concerns raised in your article.

References:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm

Wellescent Health Blog on November 2, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Don’t worry, Debbie and all other conservatives.

So long as you don’t have unprotected sex with them or share needles with them, you’ll be safe.

Brad on November 2, 2009 at 7:21 pm

*The change to this legislation is simply reflecting the reality that allowing people with the disease into the country is not going to cause a massive increase in the rate of infections.*

I don’t think that is true. It probably won’t affect the rate of AIDS infections much, but it will increase the number of sick people in the general population. One of my friends has a PhD in microbiology from Johns Hopkins, and he said that people with AIDS because of their lowered immune systems get sick more often and then they pass on these viruses and colds to other people. People with AIDS do cause health problems for other people.

So by increasing the number of those with AIDS in America, you are increasing the number of people without AIDS who are going to get sick.

JM on November 2, 2009 at 7:24 pm

So let-s see — they are messing up distribution of the H1N1 vaccine, and putting older people near the bottom of the list (preparation for reducing care for older people under Obamacare to save money( and now they’re making it easier for Aids patients to enter the country; a twofer; eroding physical health, and eroding moral standards at the same time.

Little Al on November 2, 2009 at 7:53 pm

The comment about the rest of us being OK if we don’t have unprotected sex with them is off the mark.

Obviously HIV positive people are at higher risk for all kinds of other STD, especially Herpes. Herpes is notoriously contagious, and even normal safety techniques produce only “safer” sex, not “safe” sex. Also, many with STDs will not tell potential partners if it is not obvious. After all, they want to have sex, and are probably not our leading moral citizens. So I’m afraid it’s not as easy as to ‘avoid them’ or to ‘have safe sex’ as too many seemingly sophisticated people don’t completely understand what is involved in safe sex.

Little Al on November 3, 2009 at 2:55 am

[Debbie:Really? Then, perhaps we should stop the billions in politically-charged federal aid that goes to scientific research for a cure of this newly “non-significant” public health issue. If it’s no longer “of public health significance,” why are we funding the research?]

I had a professor in my MBA program tell his class that there is no financial incentive for any drug company engage in research to cure AIDS. This is because of the ridiculously high research costs and the fact that the drug companies will not be able to sustain a high cost for the medicine to cover the research costs and make a profit (poorer countries that cannot afford the drug will violate the patent and make it themselves in quantities that will allow them to sell what they don’t need around the world).

The money being spent is only what the drug companies believe is enough to keep groups like “Act up” quiet and not a penny more. While my professor did not mention government aid, I believe the same principle applies.

I_AM_ME on November 3, 2009 at 9:44 am

Hey lee where have I had the stupid arguments that if i don’t want socialized medicine I shouldn’t use police and fire departments? Oh yeah, it’s one of the Dem talking points. There is zero connection between those functions and having the government take over 1/6 of the economy.

And read the bill. You cannot keep your current insuranec plan, that is a lie. Once the bill is singed into law private insurers will be forbidden to add any new customers. They will not be able to amend plans in any way. How long do you think they can stay in business that way? Not long, and as more candid politicians like Barney Frank have admitted this is designed to lead very quickly to a single payer system.

And the new “opt out” option in the bill? Well you can opt out of using the public option but not out of paying for it. That’s like saying you don’t have to drive a Government Motors car but you still have to buy one. What a nice choice.

What in history makes you believe the government will be able to run a massive health care system with rationing, fraud, waste and corruption? Please point to any government program of that size that is not bankrupt. Do you like the waiting lines at your typical motor vehicle department or post office? You’ll love waiting 6 months to just see a doctor, let alone receive adequate treatment. The President’s adviost Ezekiel Emanuel says if you under 15 or more than 40, your health care access will be controlled by a government board that will decide if you’re productive or potentially productive enough to deserve treatment.

Greg on November 4, 2009 at 12:05 am

I have a master’s degree in Public Health and am working on my master’s in Healthcare Administration. The lift of HIV is a positive move toward de-stigmatizing the disease. I am really disappointed at my fellow Americans for still holding such a bigotry belief in individuals with AIDS and HIV. The disease is just that– a disease. People tie to too much to a “moral issue.”
Where is your compassion and Christian attitude in all of this? When did you decide to leave your humanity behind and and turn up your self-righteousness when HIV is placed at your doorstep. It is 2009 American. AIDS is not a contagious disease nor should not be something to be afraid of. The irony in all of this is that the countries that hold such a ban are socialist ones like China and Russia. You are scared of being a “socialist” country, however are willing to act like one.

AIDS is a disease just like any other. I am assuming the majority of comments are coming from individuals whom have no health care background, which is the reason for such ignorant comments. AND is also the reason the ban has been in place for more than 2 decades. We have non-healthcare professionals having too strong of an influence in healthcare related decisions. Let’s leave it up to public health and healthcare professionals.

P.S.- I suggest the majority of everyone pick up some literature on the virus. It effects children, women, and men. And though you might discriminate, the virus will not. Look outside your “bubble” and realize the world is a much bigger place.

Eric on November 23, 2009 at 8:13 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field