Howard: No HIV-positive immigrants

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_he_me/australia_aids_immigrants;_ylt=Aka9fU6_3V5ugB5TPsxbypes0NUE


Prime Minister John Howard said Friday that people with HIV should not be allowed to migrate to Australia, and that the government was investigating whether it could tighten existing restrictions.

The comments triggered anger among HIV-AIDS workers, who accused Howard of xenophobia and of blaming sufferers for their illness.

Asked in a radio interview whether people with the virus that causes AIDS should be allowed into Australia as migrants or refugees, Howard said he would like to take "more counsel" on the issue, but added, "My initial reaction is no."

-snip-

Don Baxter of the nongovernment group the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations said HIV tests were already among health checks prospective immigrants were given, and most HIV-positive applicants were rejected on the grounds that they could pose an unfair burden on the public health system.

"It's very tight already," Baxter told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
-snip-
---------------------------------


Howard's neo con is showing

I imagine most countries would be wary of welcoming immigrants that suffered from any easily communicable, sometimes fatal disease with a lengthy incubation period. On the surface, doesn't that seem like common sense? :shrug:

You make it sound like TB. I think you are very misinformed here.

It may not be as virulent as TB, but we're not talking about cancer here.

It is not easily communicable. It is communicable through shared needles, some sexual contact, etc. It is not spread through the air or via a toilet seat, which would be "easy".

The fact remains that you're tlaking about people who have an infectious and sometimes fatal disease. I would expect any government to be wary of immigrants with said disease. After all, I thought the reason we had governments was to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry.

research before you embarrass yourself further.

we can quibble over "easy" all you want. But you can't argue that AIDS is not a health risk. I don't think I'm the one embarrassing myself here.

Who argued that AIDS is not a health risk? That's quite different from the hysterical view you presented.

This is really difficult question.

Rejecting someone on the basis of seropositivity alone is very unfortunate.

and if the majority of Aussies support this, well, it's their country...

Jesus Christ, what is this? 1985?

right over the edge. We are not talking about Jews or any other religious of ethnic group. We are talking about someone with a disease that could be a risk for the general population. You really must be kidding.

And for the sake of the general population, let's keep the kids with AIDS out of our public schools too.

I don't want my kids getting the AIDS. They should wear some big sign around their head when they go outdoors.

In fact, let's not let them go outdoors. Let's keep them indoors, in some sort of camp out in Utah, or maybe some Island someplace.

Jews out of a country??? Who said anything about keeping kids with AIDS out of anything? Who said anything about wearing signs? or keeping them indoors? Did you want to have a rational discussion about this or do you just want to rant?

with somebody who wants to keep immigrants with HIV out of the country?

I don't think one can.

:eyes:

and watch the Pandemonium as Australians start worrying about further penalties.

The disease will be driven underground, all of the progresses will come to a screeching halt and watch the nightmare that unfolds.

This Howard guy is a lunatic.

and TB positive immigrants as well.

Just sayin'

to what?

If it's done here, it must be right?

I'm saying that we ARE backwards. I don't agree with Howard's position at all. I'm saying if you're outraged at Australia, then you should also be aware that the US has been doing this for over 10 years.

I am outraged that this country does it.

Sorry I jumped on you.

:hi:

I was appalled when my ex-wife (an immigrant) was applying and had to take an HIV test and realized that they could keep her out of the US based solely on that.

LOL....Sad but true.

almost just as soon as the test for detecting HIV became available, in what, 1985? It was unbelievable to us then and I'd forgotten about it. I thought that it was no longer being enforced. You're telling me it's still in effect?

For a public healthcare system that would be accepting someone with a known condition. And it would represent a significant financial burden for the government to take them in. On those grounds I think it reasonable for the government to say that if you have a preexisting condition we will not burden the rest of our population by allowing them to be made financially responsible for it.

Let's build a healthy society by denying everyone who has any pre-existing condition from coming to our country.

What kind of an argument is that?

Most insurance is based on a level of Risk not a certainty. Accepting people with pre-existing conditions is like giving insurance to people after the hurrican has destroyed their home. Everybody wants it as long as they don't have to pay for it. Australia does have a responsibility to it's people to give them the maximum health benefit with the public funds available. Willfully taking on additional "Certain" expenditures is a misuse of the funds the citizens allocated for healthcare.

That's the nature of National Health.

There is only a finite number of dollars in the Australian health care system. You bring in ten new people at A$12,000+ per year consumption. Somebody is not going to get a Bone Marrow transplant or something similar. Face it in the end this is about who lives and who dies. And Australia saying that they would rather keep their current citizens alive than save some others at the cost of their own citizens.

but then how does the UK make their health system work if they allow people with pre-existing conditions into their country?

Someone here who's taken Econ 101.

Sure, it's transmittable, but it's a virus that requires exchange of bodily fluids--it's just not that big of a risk of infection compared to TB. On edit, I would add that TB can be spread by *sneezing*. HIV, I would like to think most people know, can't transmit it by sneezing, kissing, touching, etc. You need either blood, seminal or vaginal fluids.

The other thing that struck me was that some HIV+ people in other countries, especially where homosexuality is extremely vilified, often seek political refugee status because they have been infected.

Are there any legitimate reasons that a government could cite to keep someone out of a country?

Why do governments exist?

That on a forum where the general belief is that the government should be responsible for health care, education, retirement, etc., someone would ask why governments exist.