As a virus that was first identified in the year 1981, HIV/AIDS remains one of the greatest threats to health globally. The virus has an epicenter in acutely affected nations of southern and Eastern Africa. In the United States alone, more than one million people are living with the virus, and one in seven individuals are still unaware of their HIV status (Padamsee, 2018) . The epidemic of the virus is mostly fueled by unprotected sexual intercourse. The virus is heavily concentrated among gay men with African Americans being the most affected across all the key population groups. With the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, it is one of the nations with the most significant amount of caseloads among all industrialized countries. Therefore, every year, the National Institute of Health (NIH) spends over 3 billion dollars on research on HIV/AIDS. Additionally, many cutting-edge treatments and testing technologies have been developed for controlling and managing HIV/AIDS.
To effectively manage HIV/AIDS across the United States, the Ryan White Comprehensive Resources Emergency (CARE) Act was introduced in the year 1990 (Buchanan & Hatcher, 2007) . One of its unique features is that it is not an entitlement like other health programs, and gives its grantees an unusual degree of latitude on how to make use of their grant funds. Both the Federal and the city governments play an essential role in the administration of the Ryan White Care Act in its part A by funding metropolitan areas of the nation. The part B of the Acts funding is left for both the State and Federal government who majorly fund states and territories. It helps states and territories to effectively improve the quality, organization, and availability of health care and support services to families and individuals living with the virus, in addition to medications through early intervention programs (Buchanan & Hatcher, 2007) . Part C of the Act provides funding for early interventions and primary care services while part D enhances accessibility to family-centered comprehe nsive care youths, children and women living with the virus. Moreover, part F of the Act funds the development of innovative HIV/AIDS service delivery models, the Dental Reimbursement program and the AIDS Education and Training Centers Program. However, recent actions to reduce funding of HIV/AIDS prevention programs may put many lives at risk.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conservative Viewpoints
Even though the United States is trying as much as possible to adequately provide half of the foreign aid that is aimed at the pandemic, the funding provided has been inadequate to check the spread of HIV or to stop the continuous deaths. Although HIV/AIDS is now at the forefront of international agenda future global United States policy will remain complicated since the conservatives groups interested in the issue have tactical priorities that could significantly jeopardize broader medical establishments (Boonstra, 2003) . Moreover, they often tend to gravitate to the view that individuals with HIV and AIDS are responsible for their fate. Conservatives have been hostile to some of the essential AIDS-prevention strategies such as comprehensive sex education and condom distribution. Moreover, they are much more enthusiastic about policies such as the promotion of abstinence.
To prevent future uncertainties about the spread of the virus continued funding for prevention policies of HIV/AIDS need to be expanded. The United States should thus focus more towards domestic funding of HIV maintenance and prevention programs for they foster ownership and accountability in the implementation of the national HIV response and increasing their sustainability (Buchanan & Hatcher, 2007) . Moreover, to make significant progress in preventing further spread of the virus, investments to reach the end of AIDS as a global health threat need to be increased, and front-loaded or the country will be continually faced with rising costs.
Liberal Viewpoints
Liberalists have a common view that the government is responsible for the welfare of all the inhabitants of its nation regardless of the behaviors that they might portray. However, the spread of HIV across the country is still unabated even though prevention strategies for HIV by liberalists are in plenty. Liberalists focus on prevention strategies that aim to promote changes in individual behavior to prevent further spread and transmission of the virus (Padamsee, 2018) . These strategies often avoid any regulation, controls and pre scription and trust wholly on the willingness of the sexually active individual of the general population, especially the people that are at risk to cooperate with the messages. However, only a few individuals have shown their cooperation. Currently, there has been a notable increase in the incidences of HIV and AIDS transmission due to the failure of proposed prevention strategies by liberalists. Furthermore, these prevention strategies have not had any meaningful long term impact of influencing those individuals who are more prone to the virus to adopt safe lifestyles (Buchanan & Hatcher, 2007) . To counteract the misuse of liberal prevention strategies, they must be adjusted to real-life situations.
For the U.S. to efficiently accomplish its goals of eradicating HIV as a life threat through the various prevention strategies and programs while addressing its fiscal concerns, it has to adopt a transition model that ensures long-term sustainability. The model will enable the country to assume increasing responsibility for leadership, management and investment resources in preventing the spread of the virus across the U.S. in this case; the state will promote a future of self-reliance and sustainability for its citizens.
References
Boonstra, H. D. (2003). U.S. AIDS Policy: Priority On Treatment, Conservatives' Approach to Prevention. Guttmacher Policy Review, 6 (3).
Buchanan, R. J., & Hatcher, W. (2007). Compassionate Conservatism: Federal Funding for the Ryan White CARE Act During the Bush Administration. Am J Public Health, 97 (11), 2013-2016.
Padamsee, T. J. (2018). Fighting an Epidemic in Political Context: Thirty-Five Years of HIV/AIDS Policy Making in the United States. Social History of Medicine
