[paviva]

PrEP is very likely cost-saving, i.e. it costs less than the life-long treatment of new HIV infections it will have prevented.

Unless you're willing to argue that treatment for HIV infections should not be covered, your argument against PrEP is pretty weak here.

[wtdata]

You know what costs even less, has zero side effects and protects you for a range of STDs instead of just for HIV? Condoms.

People on this thread are going around in circles arguing that:

1 - they are entitled to my taxes/insurance paying their expenses with PrEP, because they don't feel like using condoms.

2 - thinking it's reasonable, going around spreading all pretty kinds of STDs (that PrEP doesn't protect from) yet again, because they don't feel like wearing condoms.

[paviva]

So what, you'll end up paying less for their PrEP than for their HIV infection.