By Paul Nachman
01/12/2010
The Los Angeles Times has an article today (U.S. rules altered for foreigners with HIV, by Jill U. Adams, January 11, 2010) that is pretty well summed up by its sub-headline:
In a policy shift, infection with the virus will no longer be a factor in deciding whether to admit travelers or allow people to become permanent residents.
Basis for the decision is that HIV isn’t contagious in the way that, say, tuberculosis is. You can read the article for the details.
However, the article doesn’t address the question that concerns me, so I sent a query on that subject to the reporter:
Regarding your article about HIV and immigration, I understand the point about contagiousness (or lack) and how that played into the decision.But my concern is that HIV people will become expensive public charges because of their medical conditions. Do you have information about the ongoing treatment costs for those who are "merely" HIV positive and for those who develop full-blown AIDS?
Aren’t the drugs used in these instances quite expensive and, thus, the probability of such people burdening taxpayers high?
I've no idea if the reporter will respond. My batting average in such cases isn’t high.
In the meantime, I wonder if VDARE.com’s readership might have the expertise to answer my question and educate the rest of us. Are there any health-care professionals reading this who can knowledgeably weigh in? i.e. We need data!
If you have such data, I encourage your letters to VDARE. For publication here. (Pseudonyms are allowed.) For information but not for publication here. Or you can write to me, and I'll repackage it.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.