Carrot and/or stick approach! Paying gay men $ if they test negative?

[marylander1940]

Paying gay men if they test negative? Would that increase the use of condoms?

 

Obviously providing free condoms ain't working...

 

"The "carrot and stick" approach (also "carrot or stick approach") is an idiom that refers to a policy of offering a combination of rewards and punishment to induce behavior". (Wikipedia)

 

http://erakablog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/carrot-stick.jpg

 

I know, this subject of "prep", condoms and BB keeps coming up in this forum and I hope I'm not redundant. I've lost friends to HIV in the 80's, and I'm shocked about all this BB mania spreading among younger folks and guys who are close to make it to Social Security.

 

I believe we're individuals who make choices based on our own interest, right or wrong, we value consequences of our actions based on our own reality. If Truvada is offered for free (by some city governments and health care providers), why using condoms? That seems to be the way a lot of folks think now a days. It's like an encouragement to misbehavior instead or giving a reward to gay men who test negative.

 

I wonder if paying gay men who test negative twice per year a certain amount of money in cash or tax reduction, would be a way to encourage them to use condoms and avoid getting infected and pass the bill to their healthcare provider and the whole society.

 

The bolsa famillia approach.

 

Bolsa Família (Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈbowsɐ faˈmiliɐ], Family Allowance) is a social welfare program of the Brazilian government, part of the Fome Zero network of federal assistance programs. Bolsa Família provides financial aid to poor Brazilian families; if they have children, families must ensure that the children attend school and are vaccinated.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia

 

http://pennsid.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bolsa.jpg

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

I wonder if paying gay men who test negative twice per year a certain amount of money in cash or tax reduction, would be a way to encourage them to use condoms and avoid getting infected and pass the bill to their healthcare provider and the whole society.

 

Marylander - While the idea is interesting, I don't think it is practical. (a) if the carrot was only available to gay, negative men, then we would have more 'straight' folks claiming to be gay just to get the incentive - - and it would be difficult to prove that someone was in fact gay. (b) folks in the closet would feel even more pressure to come out just to get the incentive. © Would the incentive need to be repaid if down the road, the guy marries a women and commits to a monogamous relationship for next forty years? How often would someone need to engage in gay sex to continue to receive the benefit - - monthly, once a year, once every five years? (d) Would it create a new industry for criminals to create fake lab results that would not only help get the carrot, but also be used to convince unsuspecting partners to go bareback?

[caliguy]

Paying gay men if they test negative? Would that increase the use of condoms?

 

Obviously providing free condoms ain't working...

 

"The "carrot and stick" approach (also "carrot or stick approach") is an idiom that refers to a policy of offering a combination of rewards and punishment to induce behavior". (Wikipedia)

 

http://erakablog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/carrot-stick.jpg

 

I know, this subject of "prep", condoms and BB keeps coming up in this forum and I hope I'm not redundant. I've lost friends to HIV in the 80's, and I'm shocked about all this BB mania spreading among younger folks and guys who are close to make it to Social Security.

 

I believe we're individuals who make choices based on our own interest, right or wrong, we value consequences of our actions based on our own reality. If Truvada is offered for free (by some city governments and health care providers), why using condoms? That seems to be the way a lot of folks think now a days. It's like an encouragement to misbehavior instead or giving a reward to gay men who test negative.

 

I wonder if paying gay men who test negative twice per year a certain amount of money in cash or tax reduction, would be a way to encourage them to use condoms and avoid getting infected and pass the bill to their healthcare provider and the whole society.

 

The bolsa famillia approach.

 

Bolsa Família (Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈbowsɐ faˈmiliɐ], Family Allowance) is a social welfare program of the Brazilian government, part of the Fome Zero network of federal assistance programs. Bolsa Família provides financial aid to poor Brazilian families; if they have children, families must ensure that the children attend school and are vaccinated.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia

 

http://pennsid.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bolsa.jpg

I think offering subsidized Prep and Doctor monitoring would be more practical.

[paulsf]

I shouldn't have to have my tax dollars going to people that don't believe in "personal responsibility".

[marylander1940]

I shouldn't have to have my tax dollars going to people that don't believe in "personal responsibility".

 

I'm on your side, and I'd love to have you talk about personal responsibility next time some guy on here plays the victim card.

 

Marylander - While the idea is interesting, I don't think it is practical. (a) if the carrot was only available to gay, negative men, then we would have more 'straight' folks claiming to be gay just to get the incentive ...

 

You have a strong point, it would be a good idea for 5% or 10% of gay men, but if all of the sudden we pay 99% of men if they remain negative the "incentive" compared to "Truvada on demand" wouldn't be big enough to make someone change his mind.

 

Would you consider a similar program to keep teenager from getting pregnant while in High School? I know, different subject, but similar approach.

 

I'll send you a PM about this too, I'm glad you posted, you really changed my mind.

[+ friendofsheila]

Marylander - While the idea is interesting, I don't think it is practical.

(a) if the carrot was only available to gay, negative men, then we would have more 'straight' folks claiming to be gay just to get the incentive - - and it would be difficult to prove that someone was in fact gay.

(b) folks in the closet would feel even more pressure to come out just to get the incentive.

 

I'm doubtful the incentive is big enough to make these two happen in these two populations.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

Would you consider a similar program to keep teenager from getting pregnant while in High School?

 

Probably not, but for different reasons. Teenage moms already face enough obstacles that additional focus on what a bad decision "cost" them probably doesn't warrant the benefits.

[marylander1940]

Probably not, but for different reasons. Teenage moms already face enough obstacles that additional focus on what a bad decision "cost" them probably doesn't warrant the benefits.

 

We go back to zero!

 

if you get infected with HIV, don't worry here's your Truvada, now let's keep BB and making us proud.

 

No incentive for inner city poor girls and redneck youth to use condoms either?

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

No incentive for inner city poor girls and redneck youth to use condoms either?

 

I'm all for education programs for practicing safe sex and birth control and if part of those programs provide condoms, I'm all for it.

[Steven_Draker]

I shouldn't have to have my tax dollars going to people that don't believe in "personal responsibility".

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7039/6984450046_75e6bec320_z.jpg