Hi Tracy,

while I agree that giving out tax money is something governments do much too often (and without any real effect), I am even more against spending of tax funds on humanitarian grounds. The only logical reason for governments spending money IMO is to curb further spreading, as this might endanger the "spending" states citizens - and having less people infected also translates to less suffering. But probably most strings attatched will not make much difference.

Let's say your neighbor has a canalization problem. Sometimes there are pieces of your garden under water. Why not give him a few hundred bucks to specifically fix this ?

>>"The initiative is based on the success of Uganda, which achieved the greatest decline in HIV of any country of the world. The success there was broadly based on AIDS prevention messages as in the 'ABC' approach (which included abstinance and being faithful to your partner) as well as treatment. This was supposedly recognized worldwide as the most successful program in the world to date.

Since I had to wait on a few machines getting through with their runs, I googled a bit on the keywords - basic numbers quite often do not support the interpretation set forward in arguments. Quite a lot of the decline in Uganda stems from people dying off early without medication. Or to turn the argument around, the "civilized" world could better their stats by curbing medication, since here more people get infected than are dying off, to argue from the cynical side. So mentioning "treatment" when describing reasons for decline of HIV in Uganda is wrong or also a bit cynical.

regards

thomas