https://www.theunshackled.net/rundown/gay-sex-drug-to-receive-taxpayer-subsidy/ Breaking the chains of control Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://www.theunshackled.net/rundown/gay-sex-drug-to-receive-taxpayer-subsidy/#comment-1253 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:09:00 +0000 http://www.theunshackled.net/?p=7899#comment-1253 A day of reckoning is drawing closer for lovers of faggottry. It always does.

]]> https://www.theunshackled.net/rundown/gay-sex-drug-to-receive-taxpayer-subsidy/#comment-1252 Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:07:00 +0000 http://www.theunshackled.net/?p=7899#comment-1252 I am reminded of the effect of the oral contraceptive on out-of-wedlock pregnancies. It increased them! The reasons are two-fold. The first is that it encouraged certain women to sleep around, but they used them inconsistently. The other was that it removed the stigma from unchastity, with the result that many women slept around without the use of contraceptives.
I predict that the use of Truvada will encourage condom free sex in the homosexual community, while inconsistent use or non-use will increase the infection rate of HIV – not to mention other venereal diseases. $10,000 a year is a lot for the taxpayer to fork out. However, I note that many of the drugs used to treat HIV are even more expensive: http://arv.ashm.org.au/arv-guidelines/limitations-to-treatment-safety-and-efficacy/cost-considerations-and-antiretroviral-therapy
How a cost-benefit analysis will work out is anybody’s guess. One thing is certain: one way or another, the taxpayer is spending a lot to subsidise the homosexual lifestyle. If we want to encourage the use of Truvada, or condoms, or – hell forbid! – chastity, perhaps antiretroviral drugs could be partly removed from the PBS scheme, so that they are required to pay (say) $5,000 a year for the privilege of being kept alive. After all, it’s not as if they have to spend that money on raising a family.

]]>