AIDS, swine flu & healthcare reform

last night, jamie and i were doing a run down of today's football games. i told him i'd read on the news that 2 unc players had tested positive for swine flu to which he responded, "isn't it amazing how our world has mobilized against swine flu but not nearly as much against AIDS?" i said i thought the large-scale response to swine flu must be because it's so easily passed from one person to another, thus making infection a large-scale problem. jamie wasn't too satisfied with that explanation, and the more i think about it, the more i disagree with myself.

right now, AIDS deaths and infections are expected to total 100 million by 2012. the majority of those deaths will be in developing nations, many of them on the continent of africa. though people in the US and other developed nations still are being infected, most of the infected citizens of these countries can afford access to drugs and treatment. let me be ballsy for a moment and say that the reason we haven't seen the same large-scale response to AIDS that we've seen to swine flu is that the powers that be -- aka, people in the western hemisphere, in developed nations -- haven't felt threatened by AIDS and thus haven't seen a real need to do anything about it. swine flu, however, has been a different story because i think people have realized we're all vulnerable to infection. the reports on the news that people in the US have actually died of swine flu freak us all out a bit. all of a sudden, it's necessary to report every single swine flu infection on the news and create lists of who should receive swine flu shots first. and i have to ask: when have we ever heard AIDS deaths and infections tallied daily on the news? and when have we ever really seen people prioritize who should get access to AIDS treatment and medicine?

NEVER.

i'm going to take this a step further and say that this is precisely how the healthcare reform debate is going down in our country right now. new data released thursday said over 46 million americans had no access to health insurance in 2008. i get [rightfully] annoyed when i hear people complain that we don't need any healthcare reform because it's exactly the same as all those in our country who are currently freaking out about swine flu but don't give a crap about AIDS in africa. when people don't feel threatened by something, they don't have to care. but when they do feel threatened -- well, that's when we see a bunch of activists coming out and fighting on behalf of...that's right, themselves. people who have health insurance can sit comfortably and complain because they have no clue what it's like to not have health insurance. in their mind, their right to hoard what they have earned is being threatened and thus they need to fight. but for all of us who are christians, isn't that way of thinking backward? aren't we supposed to be considering the needs of others before our own?

i really hate hearing people say they have a right to healthcare simply because they've worked hard to afford it. the reality is, there are many factors beyond our control that contribute to our ability to "work hard." i was born into a good family with 2 parents who provided me a stable and loving environment to grow in. my parents both worked and were able to afford to send me to college. now i'm sitting in graduate school about to finish a master's degree. when i finally get a job and start making money, i'll be careful with how i choose my words because i know my success in life has little to do with my own "hard work" (though, i have worked hard) and more to do with luck or blessing, however it is you like to think of these things. in 20 years, many of the kids in my mom's kindergarten class will probably be without health-insurance because they were born into families who didn't care about their success in life, didn't care about their education, and didn't teach them to "work hard." and if we are oblivious enough to think racism is dead in our country, what color skin you have still determines a lot about how lucky you get in life concerning a job, salary, and a whole host of other things. what's astounding to me is that so many pro-life christians stand opposed to healthcare reform as if their lives are more important than the lives of the 46 million people without access to insurance.

we've had a lot of well-meaning people worriedly ask us if our children will have AIDS. and we always tell them that while we are requesting children without any major medical needs, we see no reason why people who have the financial resources to afford treatment shouldn't adopt children who are HIV positive. tragically, our own state department wouldn't even allow HIV positive children into this country until a few years ago even though people knew AIDS wasn't "contagious" and knew that if these children were allowed into the US they would have a good chance at living long lives because they'd have access to drugs and treatment. the point i'm trying to make in all of this is that, as christians, we can't hoard our resources and we can't decide something is important just because we feel threatened. we see in the bible that the early christians held everything in common. they didn't believe that just because they'd "worked hard" for their food they didn't have to share it. and the same goes for all of us today. we have to be open-handed with everything...including our health insurance (i know someone out there is thinking "holy crap, she's a socialist." but i'm pretty sure this is the gospel and has nothing to do with any political ideology). the lives of children with AIDS are just as important as the lives of children without AIDS. the lives of those of us living in developed nations are just as important as those who live in developing nations. and the lives of those of us lucky or blessed enough to have health insurance are just as important as the lives of those who don't.