HIV executive order

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560
HIV executive order

Executive Order -- HIV Care Continuum Initiative | The White House

Obama Orders Stepped Up Effort Against HIV/AIDS Epidemic In U.S.

Will the executive order required all Americans between the ages of 15-65 be tested for HIV? If it does, will that be a major violation of privacy and intrusion by the Government? Do you support such a mandate?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Totally against... however I am not suprised..
You get government to pay for anything.. there needs to be oversight.
Let's let them pay for our healthcare they said.. what that means.. is they have the right to oversee it now... congrats libs well played.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

I haven't read anything saying it's mandatory, just that they recommend screening everybody for it.

Is there another article saying they're forcing people into it? Am I missing something?

Don't they screen people for other diseases as well?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

Thats not what I'm reading at all. Just that they are recommending it, and part of the task forces job is to find ways to encourage at risk populations to have that testing.

Obamacare should actually help encourage people to be tested and treated, because they cant be denied coverage if they come back positive, while they can be with private insurance.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

I don't think it should be mandatory no. Recent data has come out that shows that HIV infection is increasing again in the gay community. He is just using a politically correct way to address this by including that everyone needs to be tested.

In December 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released startling new data that showed HIV was still plaguing the gay community. While new HIV infections had remained steady in the general public between 2008 and 2010, infections had risen by an incredible 22 percent in young gay men. Gay men represented two-thirds of new infections. And nearly 6,000 gay men were dying of AIDS every year.

The Kaiser Health Foundation recently described the problem of HIV in the city of Washington, where the HRC and many other big LGBT groups are headquartered, as "as epidemic on par with some developing nations."

"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention. "But HIV is not always at the top of the list of priorities for LGBT organizations."

Gay Community Won Battles on Marriage, But May Be Losing the War on HIV/AIDS - US News and World Report

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

I don't think it IS mandatory. It doesn't seem as if that is the recommendation.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I don't think it IS mandatory. It doesn't seem as if that is the recommendation.

The question in the OP says IF it does, would you support it. That is what I was addressing.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

I know here they recommend it in cases of rape and with pregnancy. With our fertility treatments both Sean and I had to be tested.

I don't think they would ever make HIV testing mandatory in Canada.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't think it should be mandatory, but I agree with the recommendation to get tested.

My OB tests for HIV as part of the blood tests that they do at the beginning of each new pregnancy. I think I could waive it, and I guess I might as well have since I know that DH and I don't partake in activities where we could catch HIV but I never really thought to refuse it. Do most OBs do that?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't think it should be mandatory, but I agree with the recommendation to get tested.

My OB tests for HIV as part of the blood tests that they do at the beginning of each new pregnancy. I think I could waive it, and I guess I might as well have since I know that DH and I don't partake in activities where we could catch HIV but I never really thought to refuse it. Do most OBs do that?

I think it is something that has become routine in the past 10 years or so. I was never tested for my earlier pregnancies but they did it on the last one. It didn't seem like a big deal since they did it along with everything else and didn't take any extra blood so it seemed like more trouble than it was worth to refuse it.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

Yep, I was tested for it as well. I also was tested for it when I got my Green Card, but they test you for a LOT of stuff, which makes sense.

I think the idea here is that they'd add it to things they test for, not mandate that everyone show up at their doctor's office and hand over a blood sample.

I don't see why it would be a bad thing to add to the recommendations list. It's an epidemic, and while it is a greater concern for gay men statistically, it can still spread to other people, and it's a life-threatening disease. I don't see what's bad about adding it to the list of things to screen for.

I don't see it as a big deal. Are there any diseases that they force you to test for here? If that's the question then it's not about AIDS, it's about any sort of mandatory screening, right?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

I have been tested for it with every pregnancy, and a few other times as well. My husband occasionally deals with other peoples bodily fluids, and gets tested occasionally, I have in between then gotten tested when we are planning a pregnancy, cause even though it is unlikely he would contract it that way, it is possible, and then it is possible to give it to a baby. It isnt the only thing I get tested for, just to make sure. I dont see the big deal with recommending it. I cant think of any medical procedure I have ever been forced into, let alone testing.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"ftmom" wrote:

Thats not what I'm reading at all. Just that they are recommending it, and part of the task forces job is to find ways to encourage at risk populations to have that testing.

Obamacare should actually help encourage people to be tested and treated, because they cant be denied coverage if they come back positive, while they can be with private insurance.

ITA with this. I don't think HIV testing would ever become mandatory, even under Obamacare. First, it's simply not cost effective. Only 0.36% of the U.S. population is HIV+ so we'd be testing 99.64% of the population that doesn't need it, and that's horribly wasteful. Also, because your negative status has the potential to change after every sexual encounter or bodily fluid exchange, mandatory testing would have to be done a regular & frequent basis to provide any meaningful results. I simply can't see testing all 315 million Americans on an annual basis, or more, just to find the estimated 250,000 that are believed to be HIV+ and not know it. That would be an insane amount of cost, and time for the lab techs, and it would probably bog down the testing system to the point where results are delayed so long they are no longer valid.

But sure, I'll play along and assume that mandatory testing somehow got passed. I think that's a good thing, because everyone *should* know their HIV status. Not knowing puts yourself at risk, it puts your sexual partners at risk, it puts your future children at risk, and it puts everyone close enough to you to help you put on a bandaid, or whom you would help put on a bandaid, at risk. Not knowing costs our society hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare costs that could be easily avoided if more people knew their HIV status. As long as confidentiality laws remain in place, I see no harm, and the potential for a lot of good, from making sure that everyone knows their HIV status on a regular basis. It never made any sense to me why the state wanted to test me for rubella before I got married, but didn't care if my husband passed HIV to me.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

I don't think we want to live in a country that forces everybody to march to a clinic or hospital and give a blood sample for testing for anything, do we?

You can add it to a standard screening, that makes a lot more sense. But there would be mass outrage, and rightly so, if the government started telling every citizen of a certain age to go hand over a sample.

And I didn't have to do any kind of blood test before getting married! Do they still do that? I've been married for almost 12 years.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I got married in 1994 and California still had mandatory blood tests at that time but I think only a handful of states still have them now. We got a "confidential" license which required stating that we already lived together, and blood tests and witnesses weren't necessary. We did get HIV testing on our own, though. I also did it with both pregnancies, even though I trusted that DH had been faithful to me, I didn't want my kids to pay the price for it if he hadn't.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I got married in 2003 and we had to have blood work but it's not required anymore.

I am not on board for mandatory testing at all but that's not what this is.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

Sorry for posting this and then leaving. I have been out at a curriculum fair all day.

Last night my FB wall was blown up with outrage over this saying that the testing was now mandatory. Reading the actual article myself, I do not see where it says that it is required. (I could be missing something) I was tested with each of my pregnancies, but I would guess I could opt out if I wanted to. It does not bother me in any way for there to be a recommendation to have testing done, but I would be very against making it mandatory.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Blllllllaaaahhhhhh death camps!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

As far as getting married, I am not sure that we got blood tested or not.. it was in 97.. is it a federal or state mandate? And.. if one has HIV or AIDS are they then not allowed to get married? What is the point of the test?

fuchsiasky's picture
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 955

"mom2robbie" wrote:

I know here they recommend it in cases of rape and with pregnancy. With our fertility treatments both Sean and I had to be tested.

I don't think they would ever make HIV testing mandatory in Canada.

It was part of the regular pregnancy testing process for me. They didn't even ask they just put it on the first round of bloodwork. I see no reason to refuse.

I don't think they would ever make it mandatory here either. But there is a push in BC to have everyone tested. It is reasonable to me if we want to make sure those who need it get treatment as soon as possible.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"Rivergallery" wrote:

As far as getting married, I am not sure that we got blood tested or not.. it was in 97.. is it a federal or state mandate? And.. if one has HIV or AIDS are they then not allowed to get married? What is the point of the test?

Here the HIV test was optional then but we were required to take a syphilis test. I don't know if they don't let you marry but I guess it's to make sure disease didn't spread when the other party may not know?