In an effort to distribute AIDS funding more evenly, a House committee has approved a spending bill that will send more money to the rural South. While more urban states balk at the idea, insisting that they need more money, the House has rightly deemed the AIDS crisis to be more pervasive than many acknowledge, 365 Gay reports.
The $2.1 billion program shifts its focus from simply patients with full blown AIDS to people who are simply infected with HIV, a move that will hopefully help stem the spread of the virus in areas where it’s just taking hold.
While the funding is undoubtedly needed, politicians from wealthier states maintain that the government should allocate more money nationally, rather than picking and choosing where it sends the dough. For changes to take hold, however, the bill must still pass through Congress.
We’re torn on this issue. While obviously the government needs to remember its citizens in more rural areas, there is the danger of patients in places like New York and Los Angeles losing out. So, readers, we want to know: where do you stand on this issue?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
RJ
Why does it have to be a choice? Since we are spending $1 billion a week on the war in Iraq, you think we could spend more than $2 billion a year on a disease like AIDS. Maybe we should properly fund both rural AND urban areas.
Joel
Four syllables: education. If the government is serious about preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, they need to lose this ridiculous notion of abstinence-based sex-ed. Throwing money at programs and then forbidding them from discussing real issues wastes our money as much as the war in Iraq. I don’t think the issue should be urban/rural. The issue is spending the money more wisely.