Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) Newsgroups: net.motss,net.med,net.kids,net.singles Subject: Re: Politics of AIDS, of Foster Care Message-ID: <865@burl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 21:14:24 EDT Article-I.D.: burl.865 Posted: Wed Sep 11 21:14:24 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:52:58 EDT References: <858@burl.UUCP> <1554@bbncca.ARPA> Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC Lines: 62 Xref: watmath net.motss:2040 net.med:2349 net.kids:1950 net.singles:9199 Summary: In article <1554@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: > [<<<<<<<======THAT'S JACKSON!!] > >What's wrong with insurance companies using HTLV-III bloodtests >to assess applicant risk for life insurance? The danger is that >test results will be used to deny coverage, & not just raise >premiums: Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY), chair of the subcommittee that >oversees Health & Human Services, expressed this fear, but my >posting did not mention it. > >If results were used to deny coverage or put an astronomical price >on premiums, most gay men in many urban areas would be effectively >denied life insurance. Rates of positive test results among gay men >have been as high as 70-80% according to surveys in a number of large >US cities. > I still don't see any problem as long as the rate increases are well- correlated with the chances of contracting AIDS if one tests positive and with the chances of death resulting from contracting AIDS. >Even the military case isn't uncontroversial: despite catch-22, the >military can't simply do anything it wants, at least not without >serious challenge. If the military has a justification for HTLV-III >testing, it would be specific, such as avoiding contact with blood >& blood contacts plentifully available in combat or even in some >forms of training. But it wouldn't extend to noncombat personnel >or civilian employees. > Or that they admittedly don't know enough about AIDS transmission yet to risk the human and legal dangers of forcing non-HTLV-III-positive persons to share barracks and combat training and common wash areas and etc. etc. with persons who have tested positive. I know this is REALLY stretching things to make an analogy, but imagine you are told that you must continue to stay in a barracks where there is a very mild flea problem but you know that some of the fleas have been shown to carry bubonic plague... My original point stands -- smokers pay more insurance than non-smokers, people in certain [often NECESSARY] high-risk jobs pay much more insurance. If I was an insurance company (I HATE insurance companies, BTW; just trying to be unbiased here), I would view a male positive-HTLV-III homosexual with just as jaundiced (from an insurability standpoint) an eye as I would a professional highwire performer. The highwire performer will probably not use a net and the gay guy will probably not refrain from anal sex. All it means to me is that I'm going to pay through the nose when they croak. I think that the real horror of AIDS is that even when a cure/serum is developed it will take 2 or 3 years to hit the market due to the FDA red tape -- I think it is highly criminal that a patient, particularly a terminal patient, often cannot get a doctor to use them as a guinea pig for a new drug or technique. I for one would be VERY upset if I knew that I had a chance to raise my probability of living from 0 to .3 but couldn't get anyone to help me do so due to legal restraints. BTW, I suppose I should have said 'admitted homosexual' above; have you noticed how even the 'responsible' press ALWAYS uses that adjective 'admitted'? No wonder it took so long to get funding for AIDS... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj