Proposed regulations for those with HIV

[Guest]

>In his original post, Unicorn compares HIV to other expensive

>ailments like diabetes and cancer, but those conditions are

>not contagious, while HIV, under certain circumstances, is

>transmissible to others. It may not be a popular or

>politically-correct view, but I would think the US government

>is under an obligation to be aware of and monitor non-citizens

>crossing its borders while carrying transmissible diseases.

>

In the part about expensive diseases, I was referring to the section which requires those with HIV, and not those with any other disease, to carry not only health insurance, but a supply of meds sufficient for their entire stay. I can perhaps understand a requirement for ALL visitors to show proof of health care coverage to enter the U.S., or NONE, but it seems clear that singling out those with HIV is only done because of the demographics of those affected by HIV. If we want to insist that ALL visitors to the U.S. document health care coverage, we will have to assess the effect on tourism. I remember in 1987 when France required visas of U.S. citizens, their tourist $$ dropped by some 70%, or something along those lines.

As for HIV being transmissible, well, it is, but this ain't tuberculosis. HIV does not spread to unsuspecting people. We all know how HIV is spread. If someone goes around sharing dirty needles or having unprotected sex, he's going to get HIV without the help of immigrants.

I'm not against certain reforms with respect to health care and immigrants. I treat a lot of immigrants who somehow qualify for Medicaid (the program supposedly for indigents), yet fly around the globe with impunity. This is the time of year when many of my immigrant Medicaid patients leave for the warmer climates of southern Asia, South America, or Africa for the winter, only to come back in April, and get right back on Medicaid and public assistance. I would much prefer a regulation which simply states that if you fly into a U.S. airport, you cannot qualify for Medicaid for at least 6 months, rather than one which just targets those with HIV.

The bottom line is that there is no true rational reason for these severe restrictions applying to those with HIV only. Most people I know with HIV are actually productive members of society. Yet we admit and provide care to those with more disabling (and sometimes more expensive) conditions.

[Guest zipperzone]

>UH....flu shot...antibiotics?

>How old are you again? *wink

 

It is a proven fact that there are varieties of flu that are imune to all vacines. Ever heard of the deadly bird flu? So how old are YOU *oink

 

>and nothing he said was very clear. Between the run on

>sentences, and the shit grammar, and the tons of spelling mess

>up's, I barely understood anything he said.

 

Quite frankly sir, I think you barely understand ANYTHING - PERIOD.

[Guest zipperzone]

>If my mother were

>to travel and Germany did the same thing, I wouldnt have an

>issue with it, because she does in fact pose a health risk to

>people in Germany, wherever she goes.

 

Only if she allows herself to be fucked without protection. She has the ultimate control. Too bad she didn't use it about 9 months before you were born - think of the benefit to the world that would have been. One less thug to deal with.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Speaking about going off tangents, although I've never called

>you a racist or a bigot or insulted you in any fashion, you

>seem determined to lump me in with those who have.

 

Alan: I don't agree that calling someone a racist and/or a bigot is an insult IF the person being called that has, by what he has written, shown himself to be such. It is simply calling a spade a spade. And in our friend's case, he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that the title is aptly applied to him.

 

And while I'm on the topic of insults, he has on many occasions insulted members of this board and used quite foul language to do so.

 

And let us not forget his offers to beat the crap out of people who he doesn't even know. He is little more than a thug - not a class act!

[Guest zipperzone]

>>>I dont care if you are white, black, spanish or purple, if

>>you

>>>are infected, you are not allowed in this country.

>>

>>Your whole ugly personna is "infected" with hate and

>bigotry.

>>And - just for the record, I was not the first one to

>declare

>>you a racist. I just bring it up from time to time, lest we

>>forget.

>

>

>Opinion.

>And yes, you were.

>WHen have I ever said "I hate all blacks" or "i hate

>niggers".

>

>I have never said that. Honestly, just shut the fuck up

>already.

 

No sir, I WAS NOT THE FIRST TO DISCOVER AND ACCUSE you of being a racist. I could search through the various threads and find the posts that would prove you wrong - but quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time and you are just not worth the effort.

 

There are many others on this board who know perfectly well that I am telling the truth.

 

And you can come back with whatever retort you wish. I will not be engaging you again on THIS subject.

[Guest josephga]

I dont really have a problem with hiv + people coming here from other countrys. They cant give it to you unless you choose to have it..

[MiamiLooker]

>Now, you go tell me that I am racist....ignorant....

>But there you have it, that is just one of MANY respected and

>knowledgeable groups saying so.

>

>But I guess these days, in order to love other races and let

>them walk all over us, we have to ignore the fact that most of

>them are AIDS ridden criminals.

 

 

Could you reference just one of your "MANY respected and knowledgeable groups" that identify any race in which "most of them are AIDS ridden criminals"?

 

Perhaps the KKK? American Nazi Party? American Nationalist Union? Aryan Nations? Skinheads?

 

Please post a warning here if you ever have the urge to volunteer for Senator Palantine's presidential election campaign.

 

Oh, and by the way, if you're in Tampa, just something for you to keep in mind, the James A. Haley Veteran's Hospital does have a Mental Health Clinic. I'm sure your former commanding officer would provide a recommendation for you. No need to thank me for looking this up for you. I was glad to do it.

[Barry]

>From http://www.immigrationequality.org, here's some info on

>proposed changes. As a physician who treats a number of

>immigrants with some pretty expensive ailments (diabetes,

>cancer, etc), I find regulations singling out those with HIV

>as rather mean-spirited. If you agree, there's another week

>left for public comments.

>

>

 

>Last year President Bush directed DHS to "streamline" the

>waiver process for short term travelers. While using the word

>"streamlining" DHS is actually making it more difficult for

>travelers to get a waiver to the United States.

>

>The new regulations would be terrible for HIV-positive

>travelers because:

>

> * They require absurdly invasive documentation about the

>state of the traveler's health which is not required for

>travelers with any other medical condition.

> * They require short-term travelers to have insurance for

>any medical problem which could arise while they're in the

>U.S.

> * They strip HIV-positive travelers of the option of

>applying for a "green card" while in the U.S., meaning that

>asylees could never get a "green card" here, even if their

>HIV-status was the basis for their asylum grant.

> * They limit HIV-positive visitors to a 30 day stay for no

>reason.

> * They require HIV-positive travelers to carry all

>medication they would need for their entire stay, which

>undoubtedly subject travelers to invasive questioning about

>their medical condition by Customs and Border Protection

>officials.[/font color]

 

I was disturbed when I read your post so I read the proposed rules several times with the intent of submitting a comment. I'm not so sure this is a bad rule. Let me qualify that. I don't agree with some of the regulations for HIV-positive travelers but I don't see where the proposed rules change is making it more difficult.

 

Current regulations include HIV+ individuals in the "inadmissible" category for non-immigrant aliens. The only way to get into the US is to apply for an individual waiver. The process for granting such a waiver is taking each application on a case by case basis. First the application is made to the consular or Secretary of State. If approved at that step, the application is then submitted to the Department of Homeland Security for review and approval. If finally approved there, the issued visa is only good for.....

 

30 days for proven business or family related travel OR

10 days for "the public good" which includes attending conferences or an athlete attending a competition.

 

The proposed rule no longer requires a waiver but categorically allows for a visa if the conditions/requirements are met. The conditions/requirements BTW are the same as are currently prerequisite to a waiver application. While the max stay is still 30 days (which I think is wrong), the changes are.......

 

1. Elimates DHS approval. Consular may issue the visa.

2. Eliminates the 10 day limit for "public good"

3. Now expands to include B2 travel which is "pleasure/tourism"

 

As for the requirements to get a visa, the rule states the applicant "must establish" everything. I don't know if that means prove or fill out a form attesting to the individual requirements. Maybe the lawyers here can help on this one. I'm not sure how someone would prove "that he or she is aware of,understands, and has been counseled on the nature and severity of his or her medical condition." [/font color] or "that his or her admission poses a minimal risk of danger of transmission of the infection to any other person in the United States through demonstration of knowledge of the routes of transmission of HIV, including sexual contact, sharing needles, and blood transfusions." [/font color] These sound like questions on a form to me.

 

As to the invasive documentation of the applicants health, the new rule states "A visa applicant, who has tested positive for HIV, must show a controlled state of HIV infection such that there is no anticipated need for additional medical care during the applicant’s visit to the United States. A controlled state of HIV infection means that the applicant does not exhibit, at the time of application, symptoms indicative of an active AIDS-related condition that is contagious or that requires urgent treatment."[/font color]

 

The medication requirement is the same as it is now. A friend of mine who visits from another country chooses not to bring his meds through customs with him so he sends them to me via FedEx prior to his visit and attests to the fact they are available to him here.

 

Finally on having insurance or assets to cover any medical problems that may arise while here. Personally I think this is a good requirement for any traveller to the US or our travel to another country. Why should any taxpayer or government in the world be expected to foot the bill for foreign travelers?

 

So while I still think the regulations for HIV+ travelers here are unnecessarily strict, I don't see how the proposed rule change makes things worse.

 

Barry

[2hard2tame]

>>Now, you go tell me that I am racist....ignorant....

>>But there you have it, that is just one of MANY respected

>and

>>knowledgeable groups saying so.

>>

>>But I guess these days, in order to love other races and let

>>them walk all over us, we have to ignore the fact that most

>of

>>them are AIDS ridden criminals.

>

>

>Could you reference just one of your "MANY respected and

>knowledgeable groups" that identify any race in which "most of

>them are AIDS ridden criminals"?

>

>Perhaps the KKK? American Nazi Party? American Nationalist

>Union? Aryan Nations? Skinheads?

>

>Please post a warning here if you ever have the urge to

>volunteer for Senator Palantine's presidential election

>campaign.

>

>Oh, and by the way, if you're in Tampa, just something for you

>to keep in mind, the James A. Haley Veteran's Hospital does

>have a Mental Health Clinic. I'm sure your former commanding

>officer would provide a recommendation for you. No need to

>thank me for looking this up for you. I was glad to do it.

>

>

 

Congratulations! You are in the same IQ and maturity level/group as Zipperzone.

I am impressed as it takes considerable effort to lower ones' self in order to reach that level.

 

 

How come people are so quick to label when they don't understand? "OMG! He doesn't adore and worship the shit (insert race here) that comes out of their asses, so he much be racist, KKK, white trash, etc etc.

 

 

Oh, the comment about finding my "CO" is pitiful and sad. You couldn't find the flap of skin you call your penis even if you had help, much less be competent enough to do anything you just threatened.

 

And even then, IF you DID find him I doubt he gives a shit as I am a civilian. I wouldn't normally go this far replying to your bullshit, but as I said, you managed to drop low as Zip in one fucking reply. That in itself deserves a reply.

 

 

Last thought: So if one doesn't believe popular opinion, and swallow everything they are told, and actually has their OWN opinion about things, they are psycho/crazy/racist/fill in typical Zipper rant....

 

 

Gee, what does that remind me of. OH WAIT NO SHIT! I know what it is. Could it be that you and the likes of Zipper are doing the very thing that we have been fighting since when? oppressing those who are difference or think differently from we do?

 

Yes, I use language. Big fucking deal, matter of fact, the more people that complain, the more I am tempted to insert another "fuck" word.

I think its so funny that you and zip are such tools. And when I say that, I am referring to the fact that you are doing the same thing on this forum to me, that gays, blacks, Spanish, Jews, and whoever else have been fighting for freedom of thought, speech and opinion.

 

So who is the crazy one now?. Did you ever stop to think that there are in fact many people on this board who dont think as I do? That are reading this as we speak and mostly likely disagree with me?

 

I know there are, as I also know what I believe isnt popular. But the difference between them and you and Zip, is that instead of criticizing, talking down and hounding all over the boards like immature 5 year olds screaming about shit they dont like, they actually take time to DISCUSS these issues. Inst that what this is about?

 

 

 

If you can go back and get past the threats and talk like a mature adult, then I will do the same.

 

Personal attacks/threats are in violation of the message center rules and were removed.

[MiamiLooker]

>How come people are so quick to label when they don't

>understand? "OMG! He doesn't adore and worship the shit

>(insert race here) that comes out of their asses, so he much

>be racist, KKK, white trash, etc etc.

 

You're the one that posted about other races "that most of them are AIDS ridden criminals." If you don't have "STATISTICS and REALITY" to support that statement, just say so.

 

 

>Oh, the comment about finding my "CO" is pitiful and sad. You

>couldn't find the flap of skin you call your penis even if you

>had help, much less be competent enough to do anything you

>just threatened.

 

Sorry, I can't help you out on that one. Unfortunately, I have no way of contacting your former CO (and my post did not imply that I could). You'll have to do that yourself. He can probably confirm the need to get help for you as quickly as possible. From your post, it appears it can't be too soon.

 

As I posted once before, I certainly hope whatever career your pursuing has nothing to do with law enforcement.

 

 

ML

[Guest]

I agree with most of your post. According to your research, it's not clear why immigration equality thinks this is a step backwards, although we'd agree it isn't far enough. One change which they mention as being worse for those with HIV is (according to them) that those granted asylum due to HIV will never be able to apply for Permanent Resident Alien status. This certainly leaves them in a no-man's land.

My partner got asylum due to being gay, not to having HIV. Along with his application to adjust his status to Permanent Resident Alien, he had to show he was HIV-negative (among other things). I can tell you that traveling abroad with only a Refugee Travel Document is tougher than traveling with both a Refugee Travel Document and a Green Card (Permanent Resident Alien card).

The question of whether we should require all visitors to the U.S. to show that they have health care coverage for the duration of their stay is a complex one. Would this apply to Visa Waiver countries such as the E.U. countries and Japan? I'm not sure if the national health care programs of those countries covers their citizens or subject when they're abroad. I know Medicare doesn't cover Americans when they're abroad. Yet I don't know of any country which requires Americans to prove they have health care coverage--even really hard-nosed countries like the Russian Federation. I certainly feel it's unfair to apply such a rule only to those with HIV.

[Guest zipperzone]

I think the US is going to find that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they put these regulations in place, they are going to find that other countries will follow suit. When US citizens start having their freedom of movement similarily curtailed, they can only blame themselves.

[+ Lucky]

The Chronicle says the deadline for comments is tomorrow, so if you haven't, now is the time!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/BAJ6TO8E0.DTL