Limbaugh "hazard[s] a guess" that HIV patients, other "loyal supporters" will get "special consideration" under Obama health plan

You mean those gays? Come on, say it. You know you want to.

His caller is on Medicare so the only thing he has to worry about is beating the current life expectancy stats. For the men, women and children (yes, not just those gays) all they have to worry about is affording the drugs that will keep them alive because odds are they either don't have insurance or they've been denied it.

You mean, are AIDs patients being lied to about health care rationing? Of course, you silly caller. Just as you are being lied to every time you tune into the Limbaugh prognostication hour.

I'm glad you've given some thought to rationing of health care. It's an epidemic problem under the current system. You should really look into it. I hope you get 18 more years, though, and that health insurance stops being the destructive force it currently is. No matter how old you are, it should seem pretty obvious that the status quo is certainly not working.

Dear old man,

The only people talking about rationing are lunatics like Rush Limbaugh who can afford healthcare for an entire country, thanks to folks like you.

PS. He's a lunatic.

What about Oycontin addicts, Rush...? Or men who suffer erectile dysfunction?

I am so glad Rush went here, because no better example than chronic fatal illnesses like HIV/AIDS could be offered in making the argument that the pure free market's interests are not aligned perfectly with those of patients and consumers.

Where is there more profit and incentive for a private company: in the development of a one-time treatment that would wipe out HIV/AIDS in a generation, or in the development of a once-a-day pill for which a patient/consumer would have to pay throughout his or her lifetime to manage the disease's symptoms?

This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is economics: a free market is far better suited to the development of profitable chronic treatments over time than it is to finding immediate cures. I'm unaware of any disease in the modern era that's been eradicated thanks to the exclusive funding of the private sector.

Let me be absolutely clear that I don't think private biomedical researchers are somehow intentionally blocking the development of a cure; I'm just saying that from the perspective of the bottom line, there's far greater economic incentive from the private sector for companies to create a more profitable, long-term, chronic treatment than to create a permanent cure. If not for public funding for research for diseases like HIV/AIDS, there would always be greater incentive to manage the disease rather than end it in a one-time, economically unsustainable single shot.