So instead of paying for ounces of HIV prevention, we end up paying for pounds and pounds and pounds of HIV cure. How is this better for you and me as the taxpayer? Ideally, it would be great for people not to engage in high risk activity. But that's not going to happen in the real world. You can also argue we shouldn't pay for any indigent medicare care either, because that's the only option where paying for the needles is less expensive than paying for the care of HIV patients. But even this comes at a cost, including turning people away for needed medical care because of their inability to pay. And how is this the moral decision? I'm not trying to outsmart anything. I'm trying to be pragmatic. You don't seem to understand the difference.