2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I understand the reasoning behind wanting more people tested but disagree with testing without informed consent. Who would pay for this mandatory testing? And who would help the patient who tests positive and whose insurance company drops them? And, if testing is mandatory, how do you deal with the privacy and security of those results? Jobs could be lost, families destroyed if privacy isn't assured. Oregon's health system cannot handle the patients now who need health insurance, how in the world would they handle new HIV patients?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context