Australia Pm Howard: Immigrants With HIV Should Be Banned

[Zandor]

Source: Fox News

Australia's leader said Friday he opposed HIV-positive people being allowed to migrate to his country, triggering anger among health care workers who said he was demonizing foreigners and blaming patients for getting sick.

Other specialists puzzled why Prime Minister John Howard said he would consider tightening laws -- already stricter than those in many countries -- that already rejected the vast majority of prospective migrants and refugees who have AIDS.

The spat erupted when Howard commented on local figures in one Australian state, Victoria, indicating a rise in the number of foreigners living there who had the virus...



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265901,00.html

[laylah]

1. THIS from a country

which was built upon "criminals" and "lepers" of that time (kinda like Newtie's Georgia)? What an idiot. No wonder he is so in tune with *dumbass.

Jenn

[Mika]

2. Doesn't the US do this? n/t

[nodehopper]

4. yes. initiated by Reagan (and Helms) and upheld by Clinton.

not just for immigration, but officially for travel, too.

[aquart]

13. We also turned back immigrants with TB when there was no cure for it.

There was a health check at Ellis Island. No sane nation takes in sick immigrants with communicable diseases.

[nodehopper]

15. TB is airborne and much harder to protect oneself from

you don't catch HIV by sharing public transportation with someone. I fully understand and endorse quarantines of highly communicable diseases that are hard to protect oneself against. But the HIV/AIDS policies were a part of the demonization of AIDS, which is transmitted only through blood or sexually, back when demonization was, essentually, policy.

[aquart]

16. And if you careless fail to buckle on your condom....

You deserve to get sick because your government let in just one more person with an incurable, fatal disease and that one person turned out to be just as careless as you are?

We don't want to catch the disease AND WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR A NON-CITIZEN'S MEDICAL CARE. Which is what it really comes down to and, sorry, I don't mind that a bit.

[nodehopper]

17. first of all no one deserves to be sick, ever

But with HIV/AIDS, for the most part you can control your risk factors. If we are talking about consensual sexual activity, being safe (and the degree to which you are being safe) is a choice, which is not something you get with a highly communicable airborne disease. If you are engaging in unsafe sex regularly, then having the government turn away immigrants with AIDS isn't going to reduce your individual risk if you happen upon an infected partner--be they an immigrant, or not.

I don't think that your logic of dispensing with personal accountability is a sound or ethical basis for policy. As I said, I understand that logic with a disease that you cannot protect yourself from, but that's not the case with HIV. I find it completely pointless to talk about diseases in terms of "deserving" to get sick--that's RW rhetoric--but I don't think a group of people deserve to be turn away so that people can feel better about being careless, especially when that carelessness doesn't eliminate their risk of contracting the disease.

If you don't want to catch the disease, wear a condom, or make sure you have sex with partners who are tested and healthy.

As for not wanting to pay for non-citizens' medical care--the paradox in what you are saying is this:

if people want to LEGALLY immigrate, that means that they plan on becoming legal aliens, then residents, then citizens--once they gain entry into the country, they pay taxes, which means that they are paying into our healthcare system, same as you and me. If they are denied entry on the basis of having HIV, but determined to come here anyway, then they end up being those illegal aliens/non-citizens whose medical bills you don't want to pay.

[barb162]

26. You're incorrect in a few spots here, such as

"...pay taxes, which means that they are paying into our healthcare system,..." Paying taxes doesn't mean you're paying into the health care system other than Medicare, etc. Our medical system is still essentially private through employers. Who would hire someone with this disease? They'd probably right off the bat fall into the public medical system which means big bucks paid for that person's health care by the taxpayers.

There's another thing here that I think is being avoided and that is the person could find sex partners who don't know or think about the disease and then they get infected. Carelessness or not, why add another person to the US population with this disease?

[nodehopper]

30. I think it is incumbent upon everyone to make choices about their own sexual safety

And I don't think that protecting people who "don't know or think about the disease" is good basis for policy. Everyone knows about HIV/AIDS, and people who don't "think" about it are still at risk, whether from their fellow citizens, or illegal immigrants.

Paying taxes means you are paying into a system of a public safety net for people who need it, which actually, largely ends up subsidizing emergency rooms, since they are the only institutions that are legally obligated to treat someone regardless of their ability to pay in the moment--a system that is overpriced, unsustainable and ridiculous, unlike something like medicare or medicaid--and the one that ILLEGAL immigrants are likely to fall into, since they can't get state-subsidized aid.

Also, you will find that there are laws against discriminating against people with HIV status in terms of employment.

I guess it comes down to me believing that it is unethical and immoral to turn someone away for immigration based on a health condition, unless they are an epidemiological risk of the same caliber that would justify actually quarantining a citizen. Someone with incurable TB falls into that category (like that guy who is in a jail in New Mexico or Arizona, who there was a thread about a few days ago--he refused to wear a mask going outside and was put in jail); someone with HIV does not.

[katsy]

3. And I think that pompous dictator wannabes from australia

should be cooked in oil andd seasoned to taste.

[deadmessengers]

5. This is the negative part of socialized medicine

...you're looking at it, right here. Governments *will* seek to control costs, and one way is to exclude sick people who will almost certainly end up seeking expensive maintenance for their condition from migrating. Perhaps if they implemented some "pre-existing condition" rule - maybe that would be a workable compromise. But, if people think they can get their anti-retroviral drugs at someone else's expense by moving, they will, and I would imagine that Australian taxpayers might have an objection to that.

[Hekate]

7. This really has nothing to do with the cost of universal health care

Americans already pay more for their health care through the insurance industry than any other nation on earth, and we are the only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. Our access to health care is "rationed" in ways other people can hardly believe: if you have enough money, you can have whatever you need and want, and if you don't have enough money you can go bankrupt, lose your home, and die. What a system.

Immigrants don't really factor into it, as they are rationed the same way the rest of us are.

Hekate

[pitohui]

8. hiv-positive immigrants are banned from usa and we have no health care

while it may be logical to ban heavy users of health care from immigrating to your country -- example -- canada knocks off points if you are over age 45, no doubt out of fear that they would be simply overwhelmed by health care refugees from the usa -- socialized health care isn't the reason for making a point of banning hiv-positive patients

is australia also banning immigrants w. cancer or other expensive diseases? do they ban older immigrants? then you could say it's caused by cost control

however i suspect that, as in usa, the hiv-positive immigrant is banned or restricted because of fear, hysteria, hate, the usual suspects

hope i'm wrong but that's what my gut is telling me

[barb162]

27. I think the economic issue is super important

This is an expensive disease to treat. And as far as fear goes, you have no idea or control when someone comes here how or if they will be sexually careful.

[NormanYorkstein]

9. more about immigration

It's not a negative aspect of universal health care, it's a negative aspect of immigration.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. This is a "pre-existing condition" Howard wants

He's only talking about banning people who are HIV-positive, isn't he? There aren't any immigrants who say "I'm expecting to become HIV-positive some time in the future", are there? So a "pre-existing condition" rule is hardly a compromise.

[flaminbats]

18. sorry but Australia doesn't have "socialized medicine"

New Zealand and Canada do, but not Australia! and besides...since when has paying taxes, and expecting something back for that money been socialized medicine?

people pay high premiums, then they get zero coverage once the insurance company believes they might be sick. at least these people should something in return for their money, even immigrants shouldn't be taxed..and later told they can't be eligible for the same programs taxpaying citizens are!

[Violet_Crumble]

21. We don't?

I think you'll find we do have a universal healthcare system. It's called Medicare and here's some information on it...

What is Medicare?

Medicare ensures that all Australians have access to free or low-cost medical, optometrical and hospital care while being free to choose private health services and in special circumstances allied health services.

Medicare provides access to:

• free treatment as a public (Medicare) patient in a public hospital
  
• free or subsidised treatment by practitioners such as doctors, including specialists, participating optometrists or dentists (specified services only)
  

Australia’s public hospital system is jointly funded by the Australian Government and state and territory governments and is administered by state and territory health departments.

Medicare enrolments and medical benefit payments are administered by Medicare Australia through its network of Medicare offices and other information claiming services.

Your contribution to the health care system is based on your income and is made through taxes and the Medicare levy.

http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/yourhealth/our_services/medicare/about_medicare/what_is_mc.shtml

[depakid]

22. Australian Medicare isn't socialized medicine

It's a two tiered system (meaning many people also have private insurance for various things, including private hospitals and treatments that aren't covered).

It also pays out benefits to providers and entities that aren't government "owned." Contrast that to the British NHS.

Indeed, the system's having difficulty for this very reason. "Free" (or bulk-billing) providers are increasingly hard to find, particularly in rural areas. That would be far less of a problem in a "socialized" medical system.

Not that I'm necessarily an advocate socialized medicine. It has its benefits (and its drawbacks) yet it's impractical to implement in countries that didn't have the foresight to set it up years ago.

I am however, a big fan of universal basic benefits though a single payer system that cuts private insurers out. In my considered opinion, Australians would be far better off had they remained a clever nation, and not strayed from the Canadian model.

A recent article bears this out:

Australia's Medicare and private plans
The private life of health care

The Sydney Morning Herald
April 6, 2007

In just 10 years, the health system many were dreading has arrived. Spurred by the Federal Government’s campaign to push Australians into private health insurance and exacerbated by difficulties in finding care in public hospitals, the balance has tipped in favour of private hospitals. Our system is now a genuinely two-tiered model: the wealthy and privately insured get timely health care and the rest, unless they are critically ill, can wait.

In the past decade, a clear division of labour has evolved: public hospitals are now dominant in emergency surgery and medicine, while private hospitals rule in elective surgery, accounting for 55.7 per cent of all operations.

“Since 1982-83, Australia’s hospital system has witnessed a massive shift of activity to the private sector,” Bill Nichol, an assistant director in the federal Department of Health, writes in the study.

“The private sector’s role has increased to dominant player” in several categories of care, including eye, cancer, ear, nose and throat and the male and female reproductive systems, Nichol says.

More: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/april/australias_medicare.php

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Then what's the difference between universal healthcare and "socialised medicine"?

Because if Australia doesn't have a universal healthcare system because there are private insurers as well as Medicare, then neither does New Zealand, and the poster I replied to was claiming that it did...

In many rural areas, there are problems finding a GP, let alone one that will bulk-bill. There are very few incentives for a GP to work in sometimes very remote areas, and even if every private health fund vanished tomorrow, that problem would remain. When it comes to bulk-billing at GP's, all concession card holders and children under 15 (at least that's how it is with my GP) are bulk-billed. And at one point when I'd just got out of hospital and was having to go to my GP once a day, he suddenly started bulk-billing me, even though I have no concession card....

And I'm going to call bullshit on that article. My mum isn't in a private health fund, but a few months ago was told by a specialist that a skin graft on her leg was going to have to be redone. There was nothing of a critical and life-threatening nature about it, so I figured she'd be waiting up to 18 months to have it done, but she was in and had it done within two months of seeing the specialist. And me, no-one would describe me as wealthy, but I've got private health cover for the reasons that I'm covered for dental, and now my salary is approaching the threshhold where I get penalised tax-wise for not being in a private fund I worked out it cost less for me to join a private fund than to pay the extra tax. So far, every time myself or my daughter have anything done in the hospital, I get asked if I want to go in as a public or private patient, and every time I opt to go public...

So when Australians are paying the Medicare levy, and all Australian (and New Zealand) citizens are covered by Medicare, I'm finding it very hard to understand why anyone would say that we don't have a universal healthcare system...

[depakid]

29. I don't think anyone said or implied that you all don't have a form of univeral health care

Some of did us however make the distinction between socialized medicine and single payer types of systems.

If you want to understand the difference(s) -don't ask a stupid American like me. Ask a Pom.

Compare & contrast- see what you think.

[Hekate]

6. This is nothing new nor is it unique to Australia. People were turned back at Ellis Island...

Masses of would-be immigrants were inspected by doctors for health problems that might lead them to become "public charges" and/or spread disease among the populace. Sometimes families were separated because one member failed to pass and the family decided to immigrate without that person, who had to sail back alone.

Earlier on during the Irish Famine "coffin ships" had to remain offshore until it could be determined that shipboard fever (typhus) had burned itself out.

If you are interested, a simple Google search for "19th century public health policy + Ellis Island" will give you some good resources.

I'm not going to argue the merits of Australia's case in particular, but I do believe that governments and countries have a legitimate interest in the health of immigrants -- consider highly-contagious drug-resistant TB, for instance.

Hekate

[Kaotac]

11. Damn cockroach eyebrows.

Hopefully Rudd will be PM before Howard's given a chance to try implement this.

[SpikeTss]

12. And criminals who took part in the blitzkrieg against the Iraqis should be prosecuted

Just like the war criminals in Nuremberg in WW2. Why does Howard still wear expansive suits and is not in an orange jumpsuit in Den Haag?
Curious minds would like to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[depakid]

14. This is nothing new.

All applicants and their family members applying for permanent visas for Australia must meet strict health requirements. The standards are designed to protect Australia from high health risks and costs and increased demand for scarce health resources.

Medical examinations are carried out by panel doctors selected by the Australian authorities (not by your GP!), and usually include a chest x-ray, clinical examination and some laboratory tests (HIV, Hepatitis etc).

The Australian authorities make their decisions firstly on detection of tuberculosis, however old or small and then of medical conditions, which require significant health treatment and community service costs or those conditions, which require treatment or services in short supply.

A lot of people have concerns that existing medical conditions such as diabetes, asthma, eczema, high blood pressure and epilepsy will mean that they will be unable to satisfy the health standard. Whilst these types of conditions will need to be declared and may require applicants to provide specialist reports or further investigations, they would generally not result in a person failing the health standard.

http://www.australiamigrate.co.uk/healthrequirements.htm

[treestar]

19. This kind of thing is useless in the modern world

it does exactly zippo to protect Australians from AIDS. Every country has its own AIDS victims. AIDS doesn't spread easily, so why in essence trap every AIDS victim in his own country, which is what logically follows from every country doing this.

[closeupready]

20. Xenophobia is what he seems to do best.

Why would we expect anything better?

[dysfunctional press]

23. and the aborigines long ago said that immigrants with criminal records should be banned...

look how far that got them.

[chknltl]

25. Yes of course they should be banned:

Banned from finding out where this asshat Prime Minister lives. Public lynchings are never pretty!

[entanglement]

28. Howard NEVER misses an opportunity to bash immigrants or whip up xenophobia

What a reactionary thug!