ok from what I understand, hepatitis is much more common
and much more easy to catch than hiv. In other words, many more
people have hepatitis than hiv and there is no cure.
so, why do they want to start madatory testing for hiv, but not for
hepatitis?
why do they test for hiv for life insurance, but not hepatitis?
actually before hiv came along I don't think they did any testing for
life insurance,
so why didn't they ever care about hepatitis as much as hiv?
when I go to the doctor for a physical, he does not test me for
hepatitis,
yet there is more of a chance that I could catch it than there is hiv.
thanks,
mike
Psilocybe cyanescens - 23 May 2006 21:52 GMT
ml34b@hotmail.com wrote...
> ok from what I understand, hepatitis is much more common
> and much more easy to catch than hiv. In other words, many more
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> yet there is more of a chance that I could catch it than there is hiv.
> thanks,
I think hepatitis takes much longer to kill you than HIV. I assume
insurance companies began requiring mandatory HIV testing for life
insurance because people would test positive then purchase policies
knowing they would be dead in a few years. Since HIV testing is
completely anonymous, they could learn their HIV+ status without
the insurance companies knowing about it, but for some bizarre
reason hepatitis test results are not anonymous, only "confidential"
which means the insurance companies will know ("confidential" in
this sense means they don't publish the results on the front page
of the newspaper, but everyone in government and private industry
has access).
hiv.aids.poz@gmail.com - 24 May 2006 12:55 GMT
Far as I know, HepC is curable (no cure for AIDS/HIV) and therefore I
would rather have HepC than the AIDS I have now which isn't cureable...
http://www.HIVforum.com
http://www.HIVsearch.com
http://www.HIV-AIDS-Chat.com
http://www.HIVAIDSsearch.com