The Men Who Want AIDS—and How It Improved Their Lives

http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/08/02/men-who-want-aids-bronx-new-york

by btown • 13 years ago

31 62 13 years ago

tomrod2• 13 years ago

I think economists can be terrible people. Why? I'm an economist, and my first thought to this article isn't "Hey, that's horrible that people want to contract AIDS!" My first thought is "Hey, this is a natural experiment from which I can estimate discount factors!"

Of course, the second thought is then "Once we know that, we can adjust the benefits ratio to discourage people from willingly contracting HIV."

weeksie2• 13 years ago

While the real solution would be to provide a real social safety net to prevent that from being an incentive in the first place. The US, where you have to be dying of AIDS to get social services.

America shits me to tears. As someone who has lived all over the world, the absolute cruelty of the American system never fails to baffle me. I love a lot of things about the US but the idea that the suffering that lead this man to contract the disease in the first place is just what he deserved because he was unlucky enough to be poor . . . well, words fail me.

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

America shits me to tears

Is this some new turn of phrase I haven't heard before?

tomrod2• 13 years ago

I'm hesitant to ascribe perverse incentives as a function of the American social system only.

I spent some time in Southeast Asia. The government-supplied social net of the US is absolutely fantastic in comparison, though culturally I found that there the social safety net is the extended family. One didn't need to be a certain socioeconomic level to get help if necessary.

diydsp• 13 years ago

I agree a real nationalized healthcare system is in order, with many improvements possible. In the meantime though, you should know:

You don't have to actually be dying of AIDS to get social services, such as public housing, in America.

In NYC, a single person is eligible for public housing if their income is less than $48,000. [1]

For reference, the median income in NYC is $49,461. [2] That implies nearly half of NYC is eligible for public housing, not to mention a myriad of other social services. Contracting AIDS entitles one to social services in addition to what is normally available.

[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/assistance/income.shtml [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/nyregion/rich-got-richer-a...

boards2x2• 13 years ago

Typical of Out/Advocate to feature blacks/browns only in negative/stereotypical stories. Never a black/brown positive story, of success, excellence, achievement or anything constructive.

I've stopped reading ages ago, and they really only represent and advertise for white gay male.

If you really want to see what white gay men do for "fun", watch (better not really, it's a disgusting true story of a "chaser") Todd Verow's "Bottom". Totally not the clean cut wholesome gay white male these publications like to promote, and equally disturbing.

Aloha• 13 years ago

I stopped reading the mainstream gay media a long long time ago. There was a point when I realized it represented a way of life and culture that I had no interest in, and would never welcome me either. The only thing I have in common with much of the mainstream gay community is an attraction to the same sex, my geekiness represents many more important cultural touchstones to me.

boards2x2• 13 years ago

That's really what I do too. My partner still subscribes, so I get a chance to have a look from time to time, and I find it quite upsetting, but mostly tedious/boring.

PS, was going through the comments on out.com, and faire enough, one David Kelsey seems to express the same pov. I guess it's not a coincidence.

(I can't comment there's because I'm not on FB, nor any of the other alternatives needed for commenting. AOL, really?)

petercooper• 13 years ago

This has interesting parallels to a frequent bone of contention in the UK: the role of disability benefits or pregnancies in propping up people's lifestyles.

One of the oldest running tales is of the 16 year old getting pregnant in the hope of getting her own "council flat" (i.e. a place to live) rather than because she wants a baby. This just seems like the more extreme end of the same situation in a country that's not quite so forthcoming with social benefits.

gnarbarian14• 13 years ago

"This cruel paradox — having to get really sick in order to enjoy a better, more comfortable life — has not gone unnoticed. "

There is no cruel paradox here. I cannot begin to understand the level of lazyness, lack of self responsibility, and sense of entitlement that would lead someone to think that contracting full blown AIDS would be the 'only way' to live more comfortably.

This is the line of thinking that only comes from someone that would quite literally rather die a slow painful death than work and support themselves.

lmartel4• 13 years ago

It's pretty hard to get VC funding if you're homeless. But I agree, why do they contract AIDS for food stamps when they could just found bootstrapped SaaS lifestyle businesses? The poor are so fucking lazy.

gnarbarian14• 13 years ago

I'm not implying they should go get funding. but They COULD move to a less expensive city and get a regular job.

There's a big difference between a poor person and someone who thinks contracting a fatal disease is a better approach than finding a job and actually supporting themselves.

But hey, if someone has resigned themselves to leech off society under any circumstance maybe having them contract a fatal disease willingly is simply natural selection at work.

ignostic2• 13 years ago

What's with the demeaning sarcasm? No one - except you - said that building software and getting aids are the only two options. I'm sure you can see what he intended - there are many, many other options, starting with a low-skill low-wage job.

algorias• 13 years ago

You do understand, I hope, that poverty and lack of education go hand in hand. Getting a job is not a trivial matter if you're not well educated. That will manifest itself both in less jobs being offered to you, and being less apt at looking for opportunities in not so obvious places.

gnarbarian14• 13 years ago

Finding a job sucks, but a lack of education will not prevent you from getting a job washing dishes.

*I know because I used to wash dishes.

mikeash7• 13 years ago

Wow, work and support themselves! What an idea! I can't believe nobody thought of that! You must go to New York immediately and tell all these people!

Seriously, though, I'm pretty sure they've already had that idea, and I'm pretty sure there are reasons beyond laziness why most of these people haven't carried it out.

mhb2• 13 years ago

Moral hazard:

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

nhashem• 13 years ago

Yet another handful of anecdotes about a need-based social welfare program.

If you're desperate enough, sabotaging yourself to qualify for a need-based social program eventually becomes the objectively optimal thing to do. This is the first I've heard of that sabotage extended all the way to intentionally getting AIDS and intentionally not seeking treatment, though.

Typically these stories can be dismissed for the anecdotes they are. I have a handful of right-winger friends who love sending me some article from the Wichita Star or something where some woman got promoted at her job, lost her Medicaid benefits, so she quit her job, and now gets even more benefits, or something, and RAAAR $16 TRILLION IN DEBT WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO GREECE MAKERS TAKERS SMALL BUSINESS THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL.

No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and medicine to everyone. Instead, various state and local programs only provide it those things to a fraction of the people who need it, usually based on some seemingly well-intentioned criteria. And then some people have the kind of lives where being a homeless prostitute without AIDS is worse than having a roof and having AIDS, so they decide to do that.

You can accept that any program like this will induce morally hazardous behavior in some people, and look for objective information vs. sensationalized anecdotes to see if that program needs reform. You can also realize any need-based program will almost always introduce said morally hazardous behavior, and the problem is that we underfund these programs so that they need this need-based criteria to begin with.

Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers, and the good news for you is there's already a political party in the US that pretty much supports all that.

maratd3• 13 years ago

Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers

So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts. People gave alms, etc to their local church and then the church rendered assistance. Essentially, the community helping itself. Neighbors helping neighbors, albeit indirectly to preserve dignity.

Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to. Now we tax the shit out of anything that moves and dispense assistance on a federal level, from Washington DC, thousands of miles away, by some faceless bureaucrats. How deranged do you have to be to think that's an improvement?

Guess what? The poor and needy were provided assistance long before the welfare programs came to the fore in the 20s and 30s. They were provided assistance through private channels, through their community. Unfortunately, due to taxation to provide for similar programs on a federal level, quite a few of those channels have dried up. Unfortunate indeed.

npsimons• 13 years ago

There's a name for when the churches ran the world: it's called the dark ages for a reason. I'd rather not have to rely on someone's (supposed) piety on top of the questionable scruples of the church to render assistance. What happens if you're an outspoken critic of the church or (heaven forfend) a "sinner" homosexual? At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.

mikeash7• 13 years ago

You're right, the poor and needy were so much better off before government welfare programs. Ha ha ha ha ha.

subsection1h• 13 years ago

    for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided
    by local religious institutions and local efforts.

For thousands of years, inadequate support was provided. People used to die in the streets. Furthermore, such support has historically not been provided to unpopular minorities, unless you consider slavery "support".

    Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related
    to religion needs to be eradicated

Show me a single poll of which the results show that more than 2% of participants want "anything even remotely related to religion" to be "eradicated".

    Now we tax the shit out of anything that moves

Okay, now I think you're just trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Mariginal_Tax_R...

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts.

No, for thousands of years, we had an economic system in which the needy who were physically able to work were likely to be able to do work in the most common jobs available (largely, barely-better-than-subsistence farming), where the needy that weren't able to work might get some support from religious institutions (not necessarily local), individual authorities or, where it existed, the state, or elsewhere, but mostly just suffered and died. (And were often criminalized.)

Evolutions of property arrangements (including those that enabled capitalism), population density, and industrialization eliminate the easy access to basic work in the developed world (in exchange for more productive work where work was available) before much changed in the way that the "needy" were treated.

Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to.

Neoliberalism [1] is not particularly concerned with religion, pro or con, nor does it generally support replacing private charity with public social support (it generally opposes public social support, and isn't particularly enthusiastic about private charity, though forced to choose between the two -- or just as a convenient way of selling opposition to public support -- neoliberals will back private charity, including religious.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

j2d3• 13 years ago

This is interesting, I didn't view this article the same way.

"No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and medicine to everyone." - this does seem to be true, and I view this article as a criticism of this decision, not as a criticism of the programs these people are seeking to get benefits from.

I think this story highlights the absurdity of not having unqualified assistance for housing, food, and healthcare. If people take this as a reason to eliminate these programs, well... I'm sure people will view it that way - well, I don't know what to say about it. I mean, I can at least agree with this: "THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL."

nickff2• 13 years ago

Some see the main problem here as being moral hazard, which causes social welfare programs to become very expensive, with most of the resources going to people who have been lured in by the promise of 'money for nothing'. This is a normative argument which is what I think you are critiquing here.

I would put forward another criticism of need based programs which is positive, and has recently been made with increasing frequency. This argument is that the nature of many programs induces dependence among the recipients; the principal example of this being US federal disability benefits. These benefits can be permanently forfeited if the recipient earns more than a given amount over a certain time frame, which forces the recipient to consider trading in a long term cash flow (disability benefits) for greater income with uncertain future prospects (a job). The result is that many people with difficulty working, who could do some limited work are disincentivized from ever taking a job; this is especially apparent during recessions. [ http://economics.mit.edu/files/7388 ]

The other problems you can have when you begin to hand out government aid are moral ones, which you may agree with. Those who are lazy and collect benefits get to take from those who work hard; even more troubling is that the workers have no way to force the slackers to do anything, while the slackers can use regulation and taxation to manipulate the workers. This argument does not address people who are unable to support themselves.

SapphireSun2• 13 years ago

The real problem with these programs is that they are designed with a hard cut-off point rather than reducing the compensation at a slightly slower speed than private employment ramps up. For instance our tax system works in a rational fashion: you pay say 0% on the first 8k, 10% on the next several thousand and so on. In this manner, you are never disincentivised from trying to get more money because it's always positive (though more inefficient money accumulation wise).

What I don't understand is why we don't have programs (say unemployment benefits) where when you finally get work, the money you earn above the cut off replaces need based compensation dollar for dollar until you're free of the system. It makes no sense to cut people off the soon as they get a job when the job pays less than the program.

ignostic2• 13 years ago

I find it interesting that you dismiss the evidence as anecdotal, then proceed to come to conclusions about society based on said evidence.

hedonist• 13 years ago

“I was going to buy an outfit, but it was so hot.”

TL;DR Talk about First World Problems.

The Men Who Want AIDS—and How It Improved Their Lives

Related Stories