Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic.csu.net!beach.csulb.edu!csus.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!usenet
From: GERRI@IBM.COM (Gerri Oppedisano)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <1991Feb21.191804.1145@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 91 18:38:07 GMT
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 22
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 3027

******  The following is a COPY  *****************************

>From: Matthew Rosenblatt <matt@smoke.brl.mil>

In article <1991Feb21.140842.18797@cs.ucla.edu>,
IQTI400%INDYCMS.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Phil Paxton) writes:

>Re: HIV screening.  Conspiracies aside, I'll betcha every blood sample taken,
>    regardless of the medical facility and regardless of the reason for the
>    sample, is screened for HIV and any number of other data items.
>    [Phil Paxton]

>>When we had our son tested for HIV in '86, it cost us $30.00.  Conspiracies
>>aside, who is paying for screening "every blood sample taken"?


Wait a minute.. You aren't seriously suggesting that blood samples (I assume
you mean blood donations?) are not tested for HIV are you? Who's paying for
anything that hospitals normally need to do? (I have no idea) .. Who would
the conspiracy be against if they didn't screen? Everyone?? I don't get it..

gerri@ibm.com