Wednesday, 29 March 2017

Gay AIDS patients should pay for hospital treatment - Christian Democratic Party candidate


One of Fred Nile's mob, but even Fred and the Christian Democratic Party (CDP) itself is distancing from the comments of their ACT candidate, saying it's not the policy of the CDP. One wonders then if the candidate is making such outrageous propositions on social media, then why is he even a CDP candidate? Surely he should be dis-endorsed?

So, Rev Dr David Kim (above left) has made an extremist comment about LGBT people who have AIDS (a rarity these days BTW with modern medication). On a Facebook post about Safe Schools, he came out with this little gem:


The LGBTI patients of AIDS should not be freely treated at the public hospitals Hack
I note he uses the word "AIDS" and not HIV. This so annoys me as AIDS has been deemed no longer a public health risk in Australia. If someone presents to hospital with AIDS they get given HIV meds which reverses the condition and gets the HIV virus under control. Yes, AIDS is no longer the killer it once was and is now considered a reversible condition. 

Dr Kim goes on to say in the article thus:

Dr Kim confirmed to Hack that he wrote the post, but said it was part of a broader discussion on sex education in schools.

 "I don't want to judge one group of people," he said, admitting that the subject was "sensitive".

 Dr Kim said treating AIDS cost the public purse "really big money" and that LGBTI people have a "very high chance of getting HIV", the virus that leads to AIDS.

 According to the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO), nearly seven out of ten new infections of HIV occur in gay or bisexual men.

 Excluding gay and lesbian AIDS patients would ensure that "ordinary people" have access to public funding in the future, Dr Kim said.

 Increasing the financial burden on patients may limit the spread of the disease, he said.

 "We don't want to encourage [gay sex]," Dr Kim said. Hack
Lovely :s The very last comment is the telling one. Because of his religion he doesn't like gays having sex. The inference in this case being that gays are a disease carrying burden to the rest of society and should be singled out and punished for it.

I worked thirty years hard labour in the printing industry, raised my daughter and looked after my sick wife until her death, paying full time tax through all of it often through the nose. That of course including the Medicare levy which funds the health system. To assume I'm now a burden on society because of a specific illness is offensive in the extreme, and victim blaming. How typically christian.

Perhaps the churches should start paying tax like everyone else. Why should taxpayers have to carry them?