HIV Ban Lifted-- for real this time

Get your DTTUSA SWAG here. All proceeds go toward keeping this site online. Go NOW!

• Downloads

[brlukath]

I don't to much work in the HIV community so I missed this announcement: "On November 2, 2009, the Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS)  published final regulations that will soon eliminate the HIV travel and immigration ban once and for all.  The regulations will go into effect on January 4, 2010, following a routine implementation period.  Once finalized, the regulations will remove HIV from the list of “communicable diseases of public health significance.”  The regulations also remove the HIV testing requirement for lawful permanent resident applicants.  As of January 4, 2010, the HIV ban, which has lasted over two decades, will be history."

The actual law change came about a year ago.  More here: http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=5 and the actual regulations here: http://www.immigrationequality.org/uploadedfiles/E9-26337.pdf.  Just one more link from me ... http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-immig-hiv25-2009nov25,0,1137211.story but there are many more.   

Of course, if your SO pops up with HIV suddenly, you may have bigger problems to think about. But for people who know their SO's circumstances and are comfortable with it, it's good. I personally think the test should still be mandatory.  It should be sort of like the IMBRA-- you and your spouse/fiance(e) should both have to disclose your status and declare that it does not affect your decision to petition/apply for the spousal visa. That would avoid problems upfront.

[May]

 
I actually think this ban should stay

[andrelly]

I actually think this ban should stay

Why should it stay? It's not like keeping this ban is going to eliminate HIV in the US. If people insist on being stubborn and not using condoms, HIV will keep spreading regardless of who enters the country. I don't think immigrants should be penalized for having the disease. After all, it's not like they acquired it purposely. They were stupid for not protecting themselves, but they shouldn't be punished all their lives for it.

[May]

I actually think this ban should stay

Why should it stay? It's not like keeping this ban is going to eliminate HIV in the US. If people insist on being stubborn and not using condoms, HIV will keep spreading regardless of who enters the country. I don't think immigrants should be penalized for having the disease. After all, it's not like they acquired it purposely. They were stupid for not protecting themselves, but they shouldn't be punished all their lives for it.

Everyone has their own views on the issue and I respect what everyone thinks but I stick to the fact that trying to contain the spread is better.  Not only that but my tax money will be going towards the expensive treatment and medicaid these people will get.  On top of that I know for a fact many HIV carriers are very malicious and some do not care whether others get it or not.  I am not going to debate back and forth on the issue regardless the ban was already lifted no point in stressing.

[andrelly]

You're correct, no point stressing the issue.

[Ricky]

Just some FOOD for thought....

The REAL reason that the treatment is so expensive, is that the Pharmaceuticals Companies GOUGE their prices on the drugs. The cost is cheap but the PROFITS are out of sight.

What if the person got AIDS or HIV via blood transfusion, or rape or accidentally touching blood from a person that had it?

Should we have compassion for that person?

I have had a 1st cousin die from AIDS with in the last month, I miss him. What ever it cost to treat him, I would gladly pay in taxes. It is MHO that we spend too much on WAR and too little on helping those that we could. BIG Pharm is no friend of ANY of us. 

[Frank the Tank]

The ban should stay. HIV is a communicable disease without a cure. Why not lift the ban on tuberculosis or measles then? Also like has been mentioned the treatments are very expensive and will undoubtedly fall on the taxpayers of this country. 

[brlukath]

The ban should stay. HIV is a communicable disease without a cure. Why not lift the ban on tuberculosis or measles then? Also like has been mentioned the treatments are very expensive and will undoubtedly fall on the taxpayers of this country. 

I have no dog in the fight other than there is no medical logic behind it... but the law doesn't talk about "communicable diseases without a cure" but those of public health significance. There are LOTS of communicable diseases without a cure that aren't on the list (chickenpox, HPV, the flu, etc).    TB is a whole different story-- people can get TB by breathing in air droplets from a cough or sneeze of an infected person. In 1987, we were still confirming how HIV was transmitted now we know you can't get it just by being in close contact with a person.  Good or bad... the reason for lifting or not lifting shouldn't be the mere fact that HIV is incurable or communicable.

As for the $$ issue, there is still a public charge requirement in the immigration laws. So if you have HIV you probably will have a higher burden to show you can pay for your own treatment. If they aren't enforcing the public charge laws, it seems like we should fix that not ban people who have nothing to do with enforcement.

[brlukath]

On top of that I know for a fact many HIV carriers are very malicious and some do not care whether others get it or not. 

Isn't this an issue of individual responsibility? I feel sorry for anyone who contracts HIV from someone who KNEW he/she was infected, but I also place blame on the "victim". Each person should take responsibility for their own health. If you get in bed with someone and you don't know their STD status, you are playing with fire.  AND however you get burn--AIDS, herpes, HPV, syphilis or nothing--is as much your responsibility as the person who passed it on to you. (I could be wrong, but the HIV rapist is a rare phenomenon--though I think someone who purposely infects another person with ANYTHING, rape or not, should rot in jail for a longtime.)

I also feel bad for health professionals that contract it on the job because of some sort of error, but a medical professional signs on for those risks, just like a policeman or fireman. I think they accept that...

There may or may not be good reasons to keep the ban--I don't care either way as long as the logic is good. I just think the reasons they were using either didn't make sense or applied to so many other conditions that they couldn't justify the ban without making the USA look far more hypocritical, sanctimonious, and evil than necessary.

[miguelito]

The ban should stay!
It doesn't make any sense what so ever.
Problem is, our representatives stop representing us long time ago, but what else is new. It's nauseating to watch how they are bending down backwards, trying to accommodate every special interest group, trying to impose their will on the rest of the country.
When approving or rejecting an immigrant petition, 1st thing the Consulate should concider is an interest of American people.
Allowing a thousands HIV+ in the country will put a great additional burden on American taxpayers. At THIS TIME it would be criminally irresponsible, almost suicidal.
I would make an exception though for some, that could be sponsored by some bleeding hearts liberals. (I mean FOR REAL)
Any takers?

[twincactus]

There is no reason this should be lifted other than Obama making a name for himself (again).

Listen, I have a very good friend who has HIV, and I know it isn't transmitted easily, but that doesn't change the way I feel, that people should be tested before coming in to this country. No, it probably won't help the spread of the disease but for me it was one more assurance that my wife was "clean". I just think this was done at this point in time as political grand standing, not for any real reason.

-Tim

[brlukath]

There is nothing I hate more than providing fuel for the majority position  (just kidding), but as a sign of my nuetrality I feel obligated to share this headline:

HIV Man Injects Sleeping Wife With Own Blood

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091206/twl-hiv-man-injects-sleeping-wife-with-o-3fd0ae9.html

Not sure what this should mean for the ban.... except that the IMBRA-type notice requirement I suggested and I think Tim was also advocating doesn't seem like it would be enough. Of course, (read the story) I think if you decide to stay with an HIV positive person you have to make sure both of you are comfortable with how the conjugal relations issue is addressed. It sounds like one or both of these people were probably a little of kilter to begin with.

[brlukath]

There is no reason this should be lifted other than Obama making a name for himself (again).

BTW-- I actually think it is John Kerry who is getting the credit for this, and the real change happened during the later days of the Bush administration. Bush was either too smart or too stupid to take the credit.

[Ennovi]

I actually think this ban should stay

Why should it stay? It's not like keeping this ban is going to eliminate HIV in the US. If people insist on being stubborn and not using condoms, HIV will keep spreading regardless of who enters the country. I don't think immigrants should be penalized for having the disease. After all, it's not like they acquired it purposely. They were stupid for not protecting themselves, but they shouldn't be punished all their lives for it.

Are you kidding me??  Once they come to the US. Guess who is going to end up paying for their EXPENSIVE HIV treatments?   TAX PAYERS !! that is ...

The Ban should stay!!!!

[Ricky]

Guess who is going to reap Extraordinary PROFITS from the Drug companies get for GOUGING the AMERICANS that are being treated, the insurance companies then drop for pre-exsiting conditions and then 9 times out of ten driven into bankruptcy because of cost, and then we the tax payers will give subside the Drug Companies with Medic-Aid Payment for the indignant & indigent AMERICANS.

THE COST DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ULTRA HIGH

Just think of all those THOUSANDS of poor Dominicans and others coming here to raid your purse. GOD forbid...those immoral Haitians and Africans too.

[andrelly]

Umm...this is where I get confused.

Everybody is worried about us paying for their treatment, yet don't they have to provide documentation BEFORE entering the US that they won't become a public charge? Furthermore (like BRK said) if they test do come out that they are HIV positive don't you think that the US government will but them on a higher sliding scale for the poverty line?

I don't think the tax payers will be hurt by this at all.

[D-mo]

Umm...this is where I get confused.

Everybody is worried about us paying for their treatment, yet don't they have to provide documentation BEFORE entering the US that they won't become a public charge? Furthermore (like BRK said) if they test do come out that they are HIV positive don't you think that the US government will but them on a higher sliding scale for the poverty line?

I don't think the tax payers will be hurt by this at all.

Andrelly, you seem like an intelligent young lady....MOST of the time.

Yes, this is the way it SHOULD be, BUT when these ignorant politicians decide to start messing with policies, nothing good ever comes of it. The ban should stay in place if for nothing more than to ENSURE that these expensive treatments DO NOT become a public charge. The law in the U.S. is ......that if a sick person enters a hospital, the hospital MUST treat, reguardless of insurance or income. Typically, the treatment won't be the best....but never the less, the hospital must treat. If a person has NO money, who is going to eat that cost? TAX PAYERS. I don't know a whole heck of alot about hospital funding, but I'm sure that a portion of every hospital's Government (whether it be Federal or State) funding goes to non-pay billing.

AND knowing that in many countries, protection during sex is usually almost always an AFTER-THOUGHT, it is probably really not a good idea to let people with this lack of self control roam the streets in the U.S.  You, yourself are proof of that with your recent posts. and NO, I'm not attacking you, just think about it! It only takes one forgetful encounter to become pregnant. It would only take one forgetful encounter to become HIV+ also.

[miguelito]

Guess who is going to reap Extraordinary PROFITS from the Drug companies get for GOUGING the AMERICANS that are being treated, the insurance companies then drop for pre-exsiting conditions and then 9 times out of ten driven into bankruptcy because of cost, and then we the tax payers will give subside the Drug Companies with Medic-Aid Payment for the indignant & indigent AMERICANS.

THE COST DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ULTRA HIGH

Just think of all those THOUSANDS of poor Dominicans and others coming here to raid your purse. GOD forbid...those immoral Haitians and Africans too.

This is for a second time on the same page, you brought an issue of a price gouging. Can you back it up? Where did you get your info?
Do you have a names and numbers? Do you know, the price gouging is illegal? Do you think, if there was a grain of truth in it, the press and the congress didn't investigate it by now? Do you know the cost and the risk involved with developing, manufacturing and marketing a new drug?
What's wrong with making a profit?
And the last, but not least:
If you don't have an answer to the above questions - play the race card! We selfish Americans simply do not care about "poor Dominicans, immoral Haitians and Africans too"
Who would dare to challenge you on that...

[Ricky]

The back of the postcard explains: “Richard T. Clark, CEO of Merck & Co. Pharmaceuticals, is wanted for pricing Merck’s HIV/AIDS drug Isentress so high that it is now the most expensive first-line HIV/AIDS drug. Recently approved by the FDA as a first-line treatment, Isentress is up to three times more expensive than other first-line treatments -- as much as $12,864 per patient per year. This criminal pricing threatens to limit the ability of Medicaid and AIDS Drug Assistance programs nationwide to provide crucial lifesaving drugs to its patients.”

    “It is criminal for Merck to have priced its newest HIV/AIDS drug, Isentress at an astronomical $12,864 per patient per year—especially now that the FDA has approved the drug for first-line use, vastly increasing the drug’s market,” said Michael Weinstein, AIDS Healthcare Foundation President. “AHF has repeatedly requested that Merck lower the price of Isentress so that more patients will be able to access it. Merck has refused to do so. Cash-strapped ADAP and Medicaid programs will go bankrupt if these government programs -- and the taxpayers who fund them -- are forced to continue subsidizing the cost of new medicines like Isentress that are priced unjustifiably high. . . .”

here is the link to the ENTIRE article http://www.aidshealth.org/news/in-the-media/advocacy-group-merck-price.html

This shows how OUR American Government is being GOUGED

[Ricky]

Guess who is going to reap Extraordinary PROFITS from the Drug companies get for GOUGING the AMERICANS that are being treated, the insurance companies then drop for pre-exsiting conditions and then 9 times out of ten driven into bankruptcy because of cost, and then we the tax payers will give subside the Drug Companies with Medic-Aid Payment for the indignant & indigent AMERICANS.

THE COST DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ULTRA HIGH

Just think of all those THOUSANDS of poor Dominicans and others coming here to raid your purse. GOD forbid...those immoral Haitians and Africans too.

If you don't have an answer to the above questions - play the race card! We selfish Americans simply do not care about "poor Dominicans, immoral Haitians and Africans too"
Who would dare to challenge you on that...

Are you implying that I am a BLACK AMERICAN? My skin is as white and or WHITER than yours 

List of Scheduled Appointments

Resource Page

Medical Exam Info

Domex

NVC Contact Info

US Consulate

Case Status Online 

2009 Poverty Line Guidelines

About Us

Advanced search