Your opinion on these budget priorities?

The United States funds basic medical research into alot of different areas.

Admitting im biased, because I have family members with cancer.

But the following, just doesn't seem right to me.

The US spends 21 billion a year on Aids research.
The US spends 4.7 billion dollars a year on Cancer research.

There are 400,000 americans with Aids.
There are 10,000,000 americans with Cancer.

There are 15,000 Aids related deaths each year in the US.
There are 500,000 Cancer related deaths each year in the US

Now it seems to me, we should be spending the 21 billion on Cancer and the 4.7 billion a year on Aids research.

Based on the number of people affected.

Yes, I know, we could be spending more on each.

But, shouldn't we be spending more on a diease that effects the most people ?

Im posting this in both the politics and health sections, since it deals with both issues.

NOTE:

The reason im comparing these two, is because they receive the most funding.

Maybe it's because they believe they can stop aids. Whereas, cancer is looked upon as a lost cause. I do not believe that it is. It's just a thought I had that might be a reason why.

If you stop the spread of aids. If, somehow all people with aids were ... isolated (I don't think we should isolate everyone with aids, I'm just using this to explain my idea) then, those people cannot spread the disease to anyone else. When those people grow old and pass away, there is no more aids.

With cancer, even if you isolate everyone with cancer, there are still going to be people out there who get cancer. It's not spread the same way aids is spread.

Maybe aids poses a larger POTENTIAL risk. Like, if there was an pandemic outbreak everyone would die. That can't really happen with cancer...as far as we know.

I want you to know I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not saying that I agree with their funding choices. I'm just trying to argue for the other side, just for the sake of discussion.

I think the funding amounts are very far apart. Perhaps they should be closer together (21 and 4 is a big gap...especially when talking about millions!.....excuse me, BILLIONS!).

Part of the answer is globalisation. AIDS affects Amerias new out sourced manufacturing bases in countries that produce cheaply. Don't want them to dying on you.
Another reason is it would be irresponsible to allow a disease to wipe out the rest of the world (as there are many more people dying of aids than cancer in other countries) just because it's under controll in the US.
Another reason is AIDS research gets better press with people like Bono from U2. - Cancer should get a Bono.
Another reason AIDS generally kills younger people. Children young adults. With cancer you've generally had longer life by that time. Although I know it can hit early.
Another reason is that the bleeding heart ngo's and international lobbyists are just better at directing funding thier way.
Another reason is purely political. In that if the US can cure AIDS it will certainly gain them good favour with a lot of poor countries that are sitting on the fence right now.
That's all I got.