CDC's top laboratory on STDs is shut by Trump administration

> A system that expects all worthwhile things to be profitable will simply fail to do all worthwhile things and society will be worse for it

I agree with the spirit of your message, but you're going way too far using all there. Some are not profitable, and the society is likely better off to socialize these. As a simple example: it's not profitable to provide food and housing for people without means, but if you don't, your society will be worse off - simply because these people will be forced into directions that are generally harmful to your living spaces.

Sure, you could increase police presence in this particular example, but that'd still be an effective socialization, because now you just put them on jail, which is even more costly then just providing them housing and food.

I'll frame that in a more European way for you: Preventative care and managing contagious diseases is cheaper in the long run.

Framing it as "not profitable" is conservative messaging trying to drown out the idea that externalities exist.

[dead]

> But this is the problem with capitalism and health care, the providers just stop if there's not enough money in it for them.

Is this supposed to be a flaw?

If the cost of a lab is $500/patient then the patient (or their insurance) pays the $500 and the lab exists. If the cost of the lab is $50,000,000/patient, the lab probably shouldn't be funded, because its cost/benefit ratio is very bad and the same money could have saved more lives by putting it somewhere else.

What would you do in the alternative? Have the government provide unlimited funding for things that cost more than they're worth?

Just flag the 4 word comment that obviously wasn't made in good faith and move on.

Yet they have also gotten involved in a very destructive war that destroyed their fossil fuel markets, made them a pariah and wasted their Soviet heritage military arsenal. Would not count it as development.

If we look back in time we find that promiscuous behavior and dangerous back-alley abortions existed well before STI treatment and safe, legal abortions.

But no, I don't value "chastity" or -- to phrase it more accurately -- denying women control over what happens with their own bodies.

People should have lots of sex! Sex is great!

Isn't the simple answer to that question just to look at history?

It is no coincidence that the rising availability of contraception coincided with the swinging 60s.

I completely disagree with the parent post's politics but he's right-- abortion providers are frequently compared to Hitler and regularly come out with higher numbers too. If these are your true beliefs, you are a coward for not taking action.

Not if you choose that, but there is a problem attempting to coerce people into it by cutting off any fundings of STD research. And as for yourincontrovertible truth, many people have vasectomies or have contraceptives, so babies aren't actually an inevitability.

> Is there something wrong with the practice of abstinence, or marital fidelity?

No, and there never has been and there are exactly zero people on Earth saying there is.

The problem with this viewpoint is that as soon as people say “hey, let’s not punish people” then people crawl out of the woodwork and cry about others attacking monogamy. Sigh, nobody is attacking monogamy. You are the status quo, you can calm down now.

> But we were designed that way, yes?

We were “designed” in a lot of ways, many of them stupid. For example, the infant mortality rate should be closer to 50%. That’s what it’s always been. Humans are extraordinarily shit at giving birth. It’s almost impressive how bad our bodies are at pushing out babies.

But it’s not, because of medicine. Even just since the 70s infant mortality has gone down significantly.

Appeal to nature is lame. I don’t even know what you consider is nature, and furthermore I don’t know why it’s good. You have to explain why what you’re saying is good. You didn’t do that, people with the argument usually don’t. That means you aren’t worth listening to.

I'm gay, how does my having sex create babies?

But that's all beside the point, none of this is something the government should be acting to coerce. Abstinence is fine as a personal choice.

is there something wrong with drinking? depends on your culture, if we're being honest. There's no obvious benefit to your body to drink in the 20 century or later.

unlike drinking, we have quite a few ways to enjoy sex without having babies.But some of those methods can still cause STDs. a vasectomy won't save you from herpes.

That's the wrong question to ask under these circumstances, since nobody else is imposing their beliefs on you and preventing you from practicing those.

The real question is, must sex invariably lead to pregnancy when there are known ways to prevent it? Because that's precisely what you're trying to impose on others. Your answer is clear from your comment. But it's completely illogical.

Nothing in the laws of nature say that humans or any other creature can't use their creativity to disrupt the natural order of things to make life more comfortable. To my knowledge, no other creature uses fire to cook food. Yet, human digestive system is uniquely adapted to that. And other animals don't cultivate food on the scale that humans do. Many of the food crop species won't even survive without human effort. I also don't see many other animals using clothes or money. So are you ready to give up those unnatural things - cultivated and cooked food, clothes, money and all modern technology?

The same goes for vaccine - the natural way of diseases is for children/people to simply die on a massive scale. What's the point of going through that when we have a way of preventing it? Why must it be any different for contraception and treatment of STDs?

The real issue here is the imposition of certain beliefs and moral values that are stale by a few millennia on an unwilling population.

Why are you having a debate here? People are trying to understand the benefit for Trump voters, they are not directly taking a position.

Abstinence and fidelity are good things, and so is curing diseases.

Nothing wrong with that. This is my practice as well.

But you seem to have a short-sighted view on what sex can be.

There's a mentality that isn't uniquely American, but definitely permeates the culture, and it explains why people would support something like this against their own interests. It has facets with some combination of:

* Rugged individualism: I stand on my own as an upright citizen made morally righteous by my (or my ancestor's) contributions. I have never needed nor would have accepted welfare (and all the welfare I actually did accept was not actually welfare and was mine by right).

* Moral indignation: there are freeloaders, scammers and grifters everywhere that are unfairly dependent on the welfare state. There's little agreement on who these freeloaders are, other than it's not the wealthy or powerful or people like themselves.

* Religiosity: America was founded as a Christian country and should return to its roots. Often, all the bad things happening in America are God's punishment, the work of the devil, or the natural consequence of wickedness and deviance.

* Anti-intellectualism: Book learning and higher education are just a program of radicalization to promote moral relativism and unjust authority of "elites", and a "culture war". Moreover, all the intellectuals/elites are equally suspect, even those that claim to be helping everyone by advocating for environmentalism, cures and prevention of disease, sound economic policy, social advocacy, etc.

* A desire for positional authority, both above them and for themselves: A sense that people that are rich or powerful are rightfully so. The pastor of your church is the positional moral authority. Your boss is the positional fiscal authority. The police are the criminal authority. The supreme court is the positional judicial authority. The president is the positional executive authority. A father has positional authority over his children. And (unstated), "real Americans" have positional authority over marginalized groups. Any sense that the authority must be earned, maintained or justified is rejected.