Wentworth Millar coming out as gay (seriously, didn't know that was a secret) made me pose this question and the most simple answer is yes. Unfortunately reading comments regarding him as well as other gay actors/actresses is ridiculously depressing because I see others are stuck in the middle ages and don't feel this way. I've read numerous comments saying that his career is now dead, he will no longer be able to play a romantic lead, how people will no longer watch his films ect. and its stifling. I don't think I've ever interacted with anyone so prejudice and I come from a conservative family, in fact one member actually made a disgusting comment about homosexuals and I have yet to speak to her since that incident.
They are actors, they play characters that a far removed from themselves. I don't understand why their sexual preference, something that is part of their personal lives should affect that, and for me it doesn't. As I mentioned before, I thought he was out already and that never affected my viewing of Prison Break and I had many friends that also watched the show, knowing full well his orientation and it made no difference to them. He was playing a character so his personal life didn't come into it for me. To the people that are saying he should never have played Michael Schofield I have a question for you, should any of those actors been given those roles because they had never broken out of prison? It's pretty much exactly the same thing as you saying that he can't play a straight guy because he's gay. Should these actors play fugitives when they aren't? I bet there would be an uproar if they had actually cast actors that were serial killers and child molesters on the show.
The attitude towards gay actors in 2013 is disgusting, and probably the reason why only a handful of gay actors have actually come out of the closet. And seriously 1 in 5 people are gay and if rumours that that percentage is higher in the performing arts then you can bet your ass that there are plenty more of them are around. We have Neil Patrick Harris, Matt Bomer, T.R. Knight, Zachary Quinto and many other gay actors playing straight and it doesn't make a difference to the writing or the portrayal of the characters because it doesn't matter, all that matters is that they are able to play the character. Neil Patrick Harris was essentially forced out of the closet and did that change anything about How I Met Your Mother? No. And would anyone like to see anyone else take over the role of Barney. Again, no, reinforcing what I said about the personal lives not factoring into the character. I'm not saying everyone is against homosexuals in cinema, it's just that the people that are against it shout louder than the people that support it.The horrible thing is that the studios listen. I'll direct you to a recent blind item here. I get it, you're going to shout that it's a gossip site and it's probably made up but I've been following it and a lot of their stuff pans out. Due to audiences, studios and management people like this actor here are being forced to stay in the closet. I'm not in the business of outing someone if they aren't ready yet but this person is being forced which is awful. Yes, I'm an audience member that loves to be engrossed by films and television shows but I'm also a human being and I feel that everyone should be able to live however they like and not be punished for trying to be someone else. I've said it before numerous times and I'll say it again, it makes no difference who they are off screen as long as they portray the character correctly. I mean, Charlie Sheen is bat shit crazy and probably done way more harm than any gay man or woman in the biz but he's still working on a successful television show that's awful but was renewed for 90 episodes so I don't see why a homosexual can't work. There are numerous straight people that play gay and get applauded for it, why can't gay people that play straight get applauded for it? And believe be, as a women I can say that an actor being gay does not quell my fantasies about him, it probably aids it as they show a tremendous amount of strength by coming out.
Theres a couple of more things that I'd like to address, one of which being the double standards between gay men and women in the film industry. Why is it that when a woman comes out gay or bisexual like Megan Fox or Amber Heard it's hot and commendable but when a male comes out its disgusting and they get abuse hurled at them? They are all equal, we are all equal, and should be respected for taking such a brave step. And also, I take great offence to the next thing I'm going to say. I read someone call Wentworth Millar a pervert. That is despicable. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that they are a pervert. Ted Bundy was a pervert, and was he gay? No, he was not. You cannot put a gay man in the same position as scum like that just because of his orientation, it's not right or fair to others whom these online trolls may influence. It sickens me to know that there's people like that out there.
So I gave you my short answer, I gave you my long rant, but I can't force you to feel a certain way. I hope if you initially had different feelings regarding homosexuals in film that maybe you feel differently. The only way that the film industry can embrace homosexuals is if audiences do too, and we should as the numerous examples that I've listed in this post along with Wentworth are tremendous talents and the film industry would be at a great loss if we didn't have them.
Live Long And Blog!
Related Posts
If You're in the US and under 17 you can't watch a film about Gay activists. Seriously.
Right, you *knew*. You magical homosexuals always claim to know. Even though Wenthworth denied he was gay. Doesn't matter. Nothing trumps the mystical all-seeing gaze of the gay eye.
ReplyDeleteI know gay peope think that it's a horrible injustice that coming out can cost them roles. The problem is not that they are gay. The problem is in sex appeal. When an actor comes out as gay they automatically loose the majority of their sex appeal with the heterosexual crowd. Less sex appeal means less interest in the movie, show, whatever, which ultimately translates to less profit. Look, if this were a perfect world then I would defintiely agree that it's a shame gay actors are treated like this. Then I remember it's not a perfect world and these gay actors make millions and then I don't feel too bad for them.
I totally believe in equal rights for gays and especially the right to marry. However, this is an issue that is really not about gay discrimination. You can't force heterosexual women (or men depending on the case) to find an actor to be sexually appealing.
*sigh* I didn't say I knew magically, I said I didn't know it was a secret. I heard he was seeing a guy and didn't look into it because I didn't care too much. Nowhere did I say that I magically know when people are gay.
DeleteYou can't make a sweeping statement that they lack sex appeal without backing it up, you don't know what every other person on the planet is thinking, this information is just something that has been fed to you. We'll only really know if your statement (it's not a fact) is true if an A list leading man comes out. Even though that hasn't and probably will not happen anytime soon there are many instances that argue against your opinion. Firstly, as mentioned above, Neil Patrick Harris. He currently stars in How I Met Your Mother as a womaniser, and guess what? He has legions of female fan's and there is no uproar about him playing a straight man. He still has sex appeal. Another example would be Matt Bomer, who plays suave, sophisticated, ladies man Neal Caffrey. He frequently charms women on the show and like Harris he has legions of female fans. Legions is actually putting it lightly, last I heard people were campaigning for him to play Christian Grey in 50 Shades Of Grey which I don't know too much about but I know the character is one that women think oozes sex appeal. If your thoughts were correct then he wouldn't be in the frame for such a role, and he wouldn't have snagged the role of a stripper in Magic Mike. You know, a profession thats all about sex appeal. And because I feel generous tonight I'll give you a third example. Zachary Quinto, arguably one of the highest profile actors I've mentioned and his most famous role is that of Spock in the rebooted Star Trek franchise. Admittedly he came out as gay after the first film, but guess what? His relationship with Uhura is still going strong, and in the latest release there were several scenes dedicated to them. There were no pitchforks at that premiere.
I'd also like to address the fact that you seem to look for sex appeal when watching a film. You can say I'm wrong but that is the only thing you addressed in your comment, and frankly it's shallow. Yes, sex appeal can sometimes play a factor in a film but it's not the most important thing. The success of films hinges on script, acting, direction and marketing. If sex appeal is a factor then it would come last, honestly if it comes any higher then I doubt the film is actually worth watching. Theres much more important things about the film than sex.
You say you believe in equal rights for homosexuals, yet you don't seem to want to give it to them. Gay actors' jobs are to work in films, television ect. as are straight actors so they should have the same rights as them, they should have the same chances to get roles and not be pigeon holed just because of they're sexual orientation. It's the same as equal pay between men and women, or do you protest that too?
You may say that it's not a case of discrimination but the treatment of homosexual actors is a prime example of it. And your enforcing the unproven reasoning for it.
Conjureman is right and you're wrong Tharmin. Conjureman is not making sweeping statements at all, there is back up - tons of research has been done by analysts and movie studios themselves. I've seen the paperwork, but you haven't because you don't work in filmmaking.
DeleteNeil Patrick Harris is in a comedic television show, that's the only exception that allows gay people as leading men. Matt Bomer was in Magic Mike, true, but he wasn't the lead was he? Zach Quinto hasn't had any leading roles in major movies since he came out. I fear in fact coming out wasn't a good move for him.
And yes people do look for sex appeal in films - not all people, but most people do. That's not shallow, that's what the research shows. So that's fact really. Yes the fact shows people are shallow, but that doesn't mean Conjureman is shallow just because he's telling you this fact. And Yes sex appeal is the most important thing if you are the one green lighting movies and being responsible for making money for the studio, it is the most important thing in getting seats filled. Once again, research has shown this to be fact. So you can label this shallow or whatever but it doesn't change the fact.
All of your points are what you wish were true, and you're trying to be all politically correct and fair, however you're pretty clueless about what the real deal is. You've not dealt with actually polling audiences, you've not dealt with actual research, and actual study into the human psyche. You just want to wail and whine about how unfair it all is, and label anyone who tells you the real situation as discriminating and shallow - but you fail to see the reality of the human condition. You really are blind to it, completely blind. You're arguing something complex with too simple an understanding. Do the research, poll people, study about human psyche - and i don't mean just with 20, 30 people, i mean do it across the major film markets (US, UK, Aust, Japan, France, etc) and across all ages and genders - do that and then come back to me because you'll then realise that people look for sex appeal and a gay leading man won't have that to offer most of the women.
PS - yes you are right, if women come out as lesbians or bi, men seem to like that. I guess it's in the male wiring to like things like that, but it isn't in the female wiring to find sex appeal in gays despite some women saying they can, that doesn't apply to most.
And Tharmin, funny that you posted the link in your article above but didn't you see this line - 'They do a lot of market analysis in Hollywood'? Do you think what you wish or think trumpets real analysis? Trust me, the analysis shows that sex appeal is most important and most women won't watch movies without sex appeal aka with a gay leading man.
Delete*will have to do the response in parts due to capping of the number of characters used*Hi there Jamie, first of all it's TharmiM. Usually wouldn't make a fuss but it's written numerous times on the page. Also, don't make assumptions about me, you don't know my educational background or my professional one and there is no instance where I mention it. For all you know I could be the head of Marvel. I'd also like to say that I've been frequenting the internet for many years and going onto message boards, fansites and blogs for the better part of around 10-15 years so believe me when I say that it's not the first time someones said they are an industry professional and studied the area of discussion intensely just so people take their word as gospel even though they have presented no evidence to back it up, so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Saying there is tones of research supporting your theory is exactly the same as me saying theres tones of research to support the theory that we derive from fish, not apes.
DeleteThe research that you claim to have seen, how recent was it? Because if you hadn't noticed things have changed significantly over the last few years, and there has been an increase in public acceptance to homosexuals. You can take a look at some of the statistics here -> http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/06/17/global-attitudes-toward-homosexuality/. It features stats regarding country, religions and age and is very thorough. People have suggested that gay actors could not have a successful career if their orientation was outed has been around from the beginning of cinema and people seem to still take this on board even though the attitudes towards them has completely changed since then, as has the attitudes to other races, sex equality ect. homosexuality is not different.
I was wrong before to say that sex appeal doesn't matter in films as it doesn't in some cases, the most poignant being romantic comedies. You know the genre females stereotypically love, get weapy over and fantasise about the guy in it? Well then are you saying it would be ok to have an out gay male playing the romantic lead? I mean you say comedy allows gay actors and audiences can accept them in the role so I guess they also could be seen as sexual beings yes? I feel that your somewhat contradicting yourself just to try and build an argument. How I Met Your Mother is a comedy, but it's one about finding love, so it's a romantic comedy. Even though Neil Patrick Harris' character wasn't the lead originally his romantic entanglements have been front and centre and you don't get people protesting because he's a gay actor.
I never said that Matt Bomer was the lead in Magic Mike, I said that his character is a stripper and was used for his sex appeal, and you said that gay actors don't have that yes? And also, ignoring the fact that I mentioned him being a fan favourite to play the role of Christian Grey in the adaptation of the erotic novel is doesn't make it not true. You could just do a quick google search and find plenty of evidence for that, I trust I don't have to provide you with that. Fans of this book, female fans, have said they think the character embodies every aspect of the lover they would like, and guess what? They want a gay actor, who has a long term partner and children, to play the character. And you really support the theory that the majority of women would shun a gay man in a heterosexual role? I'd support the theory some women do, but not the majority as there is just no evidence. As for Zachary Quinto, he wasn't playing lead roles before he came out, he was always relegated supporting roles (apart from Star Trek obviously) so nothings really changed with his career.
DeleteSex appeal is the most important thing when green lighting a movie? I didn't realised that all the actors were cast before getting the go ahead to start pre production on the film. Also, theres no such thing as casting changes right? I mean the film always falls through when actors leave a project. It's ignorant to believe that sex appeal is the most important thing in selling a movie, perhaps in rom coms as I've mentioned above and things like Transformers, but guess what? There are audiences out there that don't like those sort of films and there are films out there that don't rely on sexuality to get people to watch. Sure there may be attractive people, but thats Hollywood, pretty much everyone is. It's their talent that stands out and if their acting doesn't make an impact then it might as well be a plank of wood playing there character. You can see that theres plenty of hate for the superficial films which again you could probably find yourself by googling it.
Insulting the intelligence of someone you're having a discussion with shows strength in your argument and I applaud you. I haven't had something like that happen before. Like I said before you know nothing of my history but I can confirm that I have had quite a lot of experience within market research, admittedly usually primary research rather than secondary research focusing on their attitudes towards things, preferences and such and such. Never done done it to such a large scale but would love to! Maybe you should try it too before accusing me of something that you're doing yourself, having a baseless argument. And for your information I have studied psychology on and off for the past 5 years as well as homosexuality in cinema and queer cinema, and one thing I have to say to you is that society is always changing, their attitudes towards things are changing. So unless you don't have research from a large sample of people that was done as recently as last week, whatever research you claim to have had access to is pretty useless as markets are always changing. If you don’t trust my word that I am not completely clueless how about copies of grades, degrees and maybe some references? Please don’t call people clueless when you know absolutely nothing about them.
And again with the statements as facts 'people look for sex appeal and a gay leading man won't have that to offer most of the women' 'it isn't in the female wiring to find sex appeal in gays despite some women saying the can, that doesn't apple to most'. You can say 'i presume some people' and you have no clue about numbers. You say that I should go an do some research well maybe you should to, unless you ask every person that watches Hollywood films that you will not have a definite answer. And also, 'the do a lot of market analysis in Hollywood' is in regards to demographics that the actor is popular with, not popularity of homosexual actors as you're inferring. Again, your opinion, not fact. Your entitled to have a different line of thinking than me, but please do not attempt to twist things so support your argument.
DeleteI don’t blame you for having the attitude that you do towards the subject as the idea that homosexual actors can’t be successful has been instilled in us all and of course people believe it when the ideology has been drilled into audiences that much. Maybe it’s because I grew up in Europe that I, and many other people that I have discussed this topic with, are open to the idea of gay actors in cinema as it’s more liberal than other continents (there are certain exceptions of course). It isn’t weird to see openly gay actors playing incredible and complex roles (doesn’t always have to be romantic leads). What’s perplexing is seeing people in the closet because of the idea that they won’t be successful (key example being Luke Evan’s who had a successful career and was out before taking on Hollywood roles). Even people in the industry shun this idea, an example of which is Sir Ian McKellan’s (successful, gay actor. Been out since the 80s. Sure, he isn’t playing lead romantic roles now but what actor of his age does?) response to ‘whether audiences would accept an openly gay actor in heterosexual roles’ was "Bullshit, I think that anyone who believes [that audiences would not accept gay actors] is just battling homophobia within themselves." He has pointed out that one of the first roles offered to him after the public revelation of his homosexuality was that of a notorious womanizer, former British cabinet minister John Profumo.’ (http://www.glbtq.com/arts/film_actors_gay,4.html). I could be wrong, people that support me could be wrong, Ian McKellan could be wrong, you could be wrong but the only way we’ll actually know is if an A list leading actor comes out.
P.S. I apologise if theres any typos or I left anything out, I've been at work all day and had to rush this.
Tharmim, I wasn't intending on coming back to read replies but came to get the link for a friend and saw your reply. About your name, my bad, it was a mistake, it was late at night and the font is very tiny on your site so i saw it as an N, and not M.
DeleteAs for your educational background, aren't you a film student or studying film as a course? And judging from your writing, i sense you don't know a lot about actually WORKING in the film industry. This isn't an insult, so don't take it the wrong way, you come across as a film student who has fantastical ideas about hollywood and the world - but many of these ideas aren't real.
The research I wrote about is REAL. But as you said, you don't have to believe me, doesn't make what I say less truthful. So, whether you believe or not, what I'm saying is the truth. You just have wishful thinking, but not based on facts at all.
As for comedies - yes leading men can be gay if they're in comedies. Romantic comedies though are another matter. You keep referencing How I met your Mother but Patrick Harris as you said isn't the lead, so his character being a slutty dog has no bearing on this discussion about gay LEADING men.
As for Matt Grey, i didn't say he and other gay men aren't able to portray sex appeal, i said the women in the audience who KNOW he is gay won't FEEL connected to that sex appeal. Please don't take things out of context. Grey can play all the supporting strippers and hookers he wants - but he'll never be the lead.
As for the online polls where he's popular, online polls are always populated by warrior keyboardists - look up how reliable polls like these are, *I* don't have to give you evidence of this, do I? Just ask any researcher working for research orgs! Proper research is a LOT more reliable than online polling. So in the REAL world of REAL reserch and REAL facts - The Studios will never cast him, you'll see.
I didn't say greenlighting a movie is based on the actor's sex appeal - i was making a tongue in cheek statement that when YOU are in charge of millions of dollars and of a film making profit, of course an actor's sex appeal is number #1 in consideration.
You can go on whining and whining about how you WISH things were, but I have access to research done all the time, recently too, yes days ago even. Yes I have FACTS. All you have is wishful thinking and opinions. So I don't have to justify things to a film student who doesn't have a clue at all about how society and hollywood works.
It's nice to have ideals. But you will see the truth and reality one day. I just hope you aren't too shocked.
What would you do if you had huge parasitic cysts? That could burst at any moment? And spill thousands of babies?
ReplyDeleteLarval tapeworms, are acquired by ingesting tiny eggs passed in the stool of animals or humans carrying adult parasites. Silently breaching the intestinal lining, then morphing into juvenile stages, the microscopic parasites eventually find their way into a congenial organ. Then they slowly grow ... and grow ... and grow. Pork tapeworm larvae typically lodge in the human brain and can eventually cause seizures, severe headaches and blockage of cerebrospinal fluid.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/12-huge-parasitic-cysts-threaten-to-flood-a-mans-body-with-tapeworm-larvae#.Uha1OD-_jIE _____
___________________
Is coprophagia dangerous?
Initiates in the "brown arts" are susceptible to many of the same ills dogging devotees of anilingus, ******** following anal intercourse, and other more widely studied pastimes. Risks include viral hepatitis and parasitic intestinal infections such as giardiasis (symptoms include nausea, sulfurous belches, diarrhea, and weight loss), amebiasis (bloody colitis in extreme cases), cryptosporidiosis (nausea, vomiting, low fever, cramps, diarrhea), shigellosis (nausea, diarrhea, fever), campylobacter enteritis (in extreme cases, severe diarrhea with blood and pus), and strongyloidiasis, or infestation with roundworms (which in sufficient numbers can cause intestinal blockage).
Of special note: A reported case of a brain-damaged person who, asphyxiated on a hardened stool.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2600/is-coprophagia-dangerous
Sorry, I don't really have time to discuss matters with someone who copies and pastes scientific terms that they most likely don't understand. I'll just give it to you simply, gay or straight, whatever sex you have there is a likelihood that you may catch something. Sometimes dangerous, sometimes less so. Picking amd choosing something just because it marginally supports your prejudice. You could die by getting an infection, you could die by getting hit by a bus. In the end of the day it doesn't matter.
DeleteSodomy Costs Money: The Impact of AIDS
DeleteWe all know that AIDS is a very expensive disease and that it started with male homosexuals and spread from them to others (e.g., drug abusers, wives, prostitutes, blood recipients, etc.). Today, half (50.3%) of the people in the United States living with AIDS are males-who-have-sex-with-males [MSM]. And, after a bit of a lull in the 1990s, the proportion of HIV infections in MSM is once again rising. In 2002, for those whose risk category was identified, 56% of new HIV infections were among MSM. 1 So AIDS started out as a gay disease, remains primarily a gay disease, and is increasingly a gay disease.
So how expensive is AIDS? One report from the Los Angeles Times in 1995 summarized various academic and governmental research, arriving at an estimate that AIDS would consume 0.9% to 1.1% of the nation's annual Gross Domestic Product [GDP] by the year 2000. 2
One percent of the GDP is HUGE. AIDS is, in fact, close to having had as great an overall impact as the Spanish flu of 1918-1919 in which 675,000 Americans died (0.6% of the population). The Spanish flu left devastation in its train. Unlike the Civil War — which didn't cause a population decline — the overall population of the U.S. verged on it during the Spanish flu. In 1917, the U.S. population was 103,414,000; in 1918 it was 104,550,000, and in 1919 it was 105,063,000.
Unlike most flu, which kills the very young and the old, the Spanish flu tended to kill those aged 20 to 40 years of age, so its impact was probably on the order of 3% to 5% of GDP for the two years at its height. But it left and life resumed. HIV is ‘hanging around and around,' steadily infecting more and more of the sexually loose and drawing down society's resources.
Disease and GDP
DeleteWhile cancer and heart conditions incapacitate and kill many more people per year, these diseases generally happen to old people. As a class, the old generally draw from, rather than contribute to GDP. But that is the way it is supposed to be. The old worked hard when they were younger, contributed more than they got to society, and then live a few years on society's dime. The old are not a net drain on GDP. They paid in, they get some back.
On the other hand, a debilitating disease when one is young or middle-aged means consuming large amounts of society's resources. He or she draws from the GDP during the time when they could be making their greatest contribution. Unlike the old, they haven't paid off their keep, nor have they added more to the economic pie prior to retirement. Instead, they have contributed a little and now take a lot. This is how those who engage in sodomy seriously impact the GDP.
Right now, in the world's wealthiest and most prosperous city, about 3% of all the men in New York City have HIV. In our prisons, the prevalence of HIV is about 17 times as high as outside the prison gates. 4 These are not the elderly. Rather they are men in their prime, when they should be most productive.
The United States labor force — all those 16 years and over who work for money or profit, about 142 million workers — is the world's most productive, generating over $10.2 trillion GDP in 2001 (all figures are from the 2002 Statistical Abstract of the United States ). So, on average, each worker produced about $73,000 in value. Of this amount, workers were rewarded for their labor, with the average household bringing home about $42,000 in income, and much of the rest going to profit, regulation, taxes, capital replacement, research, etc. They were also rewarded with the benefit of highways, dams, and other infrastructure.
One percent of GDP in 2001 equaled about $102 billion. Since gays account for somewhat over half of those suffering from AIDS, at least half of this total or $51 billion was the cost of sodomy-that-led-to-AIDS. So the ‘gay sodomy tax' for AIDS alone in 2001 was about $359 for every U.S. worker. In 2002, the sodomy tax was a little bit more.
At present, about 6,000 males-who-have-sex-with-males [MSM] a year die of AIDS and about 20,000 MSM per year are getting infected with HIV. Obviously, unless the costs of medical treatment and other AIDS-related expenses drop significantly, the prospects loom for AIDS to cost appreciably more GDP in the future.
Cost in Perspective
Putting this in perspective, President Bush has talked about landing men on Mars as soon as possible. If his vision were adopted, analysts estimate an expenditure of around $20 billion a year for many years would be required. The total projected cost of getting men to and from Mars would total about $750 billion. 5 That is, a Mar's landing would cost about as much as 15 years of the ‘gay AIDS tax.'
Looked at another way, the CDC has estimated that the medical costs of all accidents in the U.S. — auto, home, work — total about $117 billion per year. 6 Quite a few people — 45 million people or 16% of the population — required treatment for injury in 2000. Indeed, injuries accounted for about 10% of all medical expenditures. Likewise, smoking — practiced by about a quarter of all adults — is estimated to consume at least 6.5% of medical costs. So AIDS is almost as expensive as all the medical costs associated with accidents. And each year, the ‘gay AIDS tax' would pay for nearly all the costs associated with smoking, and about half of the costs associated with accidents.
Or consider education. The U.S. spends about half a trillion dollars per year on K-12 education. At over $50 billion, the male homosexual portion of AIDS expenditures is comparably about 10% of this figure.
So Where Does All the Money Go?
DeleteHealth care : In 2000 there were about 31.7 million hospital discharges. Of these, 173,000 (0.55%) involved AIDS sufferers. But those suffering from AIDS stayed in the hospital longer — 7.3 days compared to the average stay of 4.9 days. This means that almost 1% of the nation's hospital days were AIDS-related. MSM accounted for about half of this expense – or about 0.5% of all U.S. hospital days in 2000.
Medicaid is the largest U.S. payer for medical services to those with AIDS. Indeed, about 50% of AIDS patients' treatments were paid for by Medicaid in 2000. 7 The lifetime treatment costs per patient on protease inhibitors (the current drug regimen of choice) range from $71,000 to $425,000, depending upon when the patient dies. For those merely infected with HIV (but who haven't progressed to AIDS), the protease inhibitor drugs cost $14,000 per patient per year, which then increases to about $35,000 per patient per year at the onset of various AIDS-associated complications.
Now, not all AIDS sufferers qualify for Medicaid, since they don't meet the required definition of ‘disabled.' However, “the majority of these individuals who are uninsured receive their care through the Ryan White CARE Act programs,” yet another layer of taxpayer-funded federal legislation.
Still another source of federal money is the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs [ADAP] which “buy 20% of the HIV drugs prescribed in the U.S., enough for 92,000 people. (The other 80% have insurance or are covered by federal programs).” 8
The Washington Blade reported an even larger estimate of the number of drug regimens purchased, namely “more than 100,000.” 9 The Blade pointed out that 3,010 (48%) of the 6,212 AIDS cases in Virginia were covered by ADAP. In addition, ADAP enjoys a charmed existence. In 7 years, it's budget has jumped from $52 million to $714 million — a 1373% increase! Name another federal program with such a growth curve!!
The bottom line on all these federal programs is that AIDS is one of the very few diseases where the government assumes almost all the costs of treatment for those without private insurance. Accident victims don't have all their bills covered. Nor do those with heart conditions, cancer, or diabetes. Yet ADAP is eating up ever more of the possible health-care pie that might be directed to other kinds of health sufferers.
Research : AIDS research is also expensive, and it has sucked funding from the research funds for other diseases. The National Institutes of Health has allocated $2.5 billion in research funds for AIDS (14,175 people died of AIDS in 2001), $790 million for diabetes (from which 71,372 died), $640 million for breast cancer (421,809 deaths), $595 million for Alzheimer's (53,852 deaths), and $345 million for prostate cancer (30,719 deaths). 10
Translated, these figures amount to about $178,000 per AIDS death, $16,000 per breast cancer death, and $11,000 per death for diabetes, Alzheimer's, and prostate cancer. Privately funded research is similarly biased toward AIDS. We will never know, of course, how many sufferers from cancer or Parkinson's would have been saved if research efforts hadn't been diverted to AIDS.
Tharmin,
ReplyDeleteI never saw, nor will I ever see Magic Mike, so I can't comment on that. Spock is pretty much a sexless being and it's weird alone he has interest in Uhura to being with. NPH is playing a comedic role. If you haven't noticed all of the out-gay actors who continue to work usualy are cast in comedic roles. I really like Went. I remember him back when he was on Buffy, "Dude, what is that foulness?" LOL But seriously, he's a very attractive man. He's not really the comedic type or hasn't presented himself as such. He's prett much the shy, sensitive introvert who just happens to be incredibly good looking. If you don't think his sex appeal with straight women helped his career than you would be decieving yourself. Also, I'm going to say this. I think Went only came out because he knows his acting career is over with. He's moved on to writing and no one cares if a writer is gay or not.