Bill To Outlaw Genetic Discrimination In US 353
fatduck sends us a brief note from New Scientist about the overwhelming passage in the US House of Representatives of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. As written, the bill would prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates, and employers from discriminating in hiring, based on the results of genetic tests. A Boston Globe editorial notes that the bill has been held up in the Senate by the action of a single senator, who has an (outdated) objection based on his anti-abortion stance. President Bush has said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
Not sure how to think about this. (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of auto insurance customers are up in arms about the "insurance score" that most US auto insurers use to determine part of your premiums. For those who don't know, the insurer runs a credit report to see how responsible you are with your finances. I guess the idea is that someone who doesn't pay their bills on time is most likely to commit fraud or be absent-minded and get into more accidents. Basing part of your life insurance premiums on a known portion of your long-term health history seems fairer to me than this.
I hope we do wind up with most of the genetic puzzle solved sometime in my life. We could wipe out most inherited conditions in 2 or 3 generations. A lot of people think it's too much like engineering a society, but I think it would be a great service to the species. There should be some limits, but who wouldn't want to get rid of conditions that produce people who are a burden on society? (retards, etc.)
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly the case for nationalized health care. Insurance companies are about mitigating risk. Once you've tested positive (at least for some conditions), you're no longer a risk. A rational insurance company would then set your rates at the cost of treatment.
However, as a society, we expect to have a certain incidence of these genetic disorders. It's unfair to expect the individual to pay for it -- they did nothing wrong, they shouldn't be punished. We as a society either need to decide that we don't care to help these people, tough luck for them, or we need to decide that we look out for our own and pay for the health care for these sorts of disorders.
Alternatively, we could come up with some plan that said that whoever your insurance company is when you have the test, they're on the hook for all future related bills -- but that's really just the same thing as society paying for it, we've just migrated the cost from a tax into insurance premiums, and it seems to me that hiding it that way is a bad thing.
This is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
If we aren't allowed to "discriminate" on the basis of criteria we see fit, we are being denied the use of our most precious human asset: our neurons.
However, since the government insists on interfering in family matters by prohibiting euthanasia within the family setting -- the government thereby must pay the full costs of humane care for people thereby kept alive.
PS: I do not by the way consider it unethical to encourage my relatives to avail themselves of every benefit available to them under the law. I consider it unethical merely to fail to speak out against such laws given the benefits accruing to me indirectly via them. The same standards of behavior should hold for anyone who benefits from any form of "anti-discrimination" law.
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
So? "Economic efficiency" isn't the highest good in the world. And they're not "just" making the economy less efficient, they're potentially giving people access to lifesaving treatment that they might otherwise not be able to afford. If we save a few lives at the expense of a little efficiency, I'm all for it.
Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, although it is by no means an ethical duty of my family members to avoid passing on "defective" genes, the lines containing these genes are in-laws to my nuclear family and, yes, the Huntington gene is not being passed on -- although given the fact that the gene has been identified and may be amenable to editing even in the germ line in the near future renders it far less urgent that it not be passed on. The genetic susceptibility to aspergers is another matter entirely. Environmental triggers of autism spectrum have yet to be identified so it isn't reasonable to expect people with autism spectrum disorders to terminate their bloodlines simply because some corporations or governments have imposed environmental disaster upon them.
If you want people with genetic defects to stop having children then you should take your case up with Ashkenazi Jews who seem to have a preponderance of genetic disorders which are -- interestingly enough -- highly correlated with higher cognitive performance. You can tell them "correlation doesn't imply causation" or something to get them to disappear from the face of the earth... Go for it...
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:1, Interesting)
The compassionate side of me says, "Shouldn't those with genetic diseases but covered under Medi-care already? Wouldn't that make "geneticly high risk" a non issue for insurence companies?
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, imagine other cases:
Imagine being fired because you carry a gene that is linked to an increased likelihood of problematic behavior (certain genes associated with certain forms of alcoholism, for example, or maybe genes associated with aggressive tendencies). We already ban discrimination based on other genetic factors such as race, why not prevent people from discriminating against people on the basis of what they might do or what they might cost based on genetics tests?
Re:Not sure how to think about this. (Score:5, Interesting)
My sister is mentally retarded. Whereas I agree with your statement in part (i.e., ridding her of her condition would be a wonderous thing for her), I strongly disagree that she is a burden on society. Rather, society places a much, much larger burden on her because of her condition. She is gainfully employed and pays taxes, what more would society want from anyone? I don't think that "retards", as you so kindly refer to people like my sister, are as great a burden as those who seek to committ homicide. Maybe there might be a genetic condition associated with such behaviors. Anyway, the bigger problem is who becomes the genetic "gold standard" and who makes the descision. Should that be left up to companies that house their employees in creepy sterile office buildings [thinkquest.org]?
First phone call I make when this passes... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will "illegal" mean it won't happen? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why Labor Day is my favorite holiday. We celebrate easter and Christmas for a guy that is arguable if he even existed let alone died for you. Yet on labor day it is documented on the record that many workers died for the rights we have today. It boils my blood when people get trampled despite those rights.
What about Army, Navy, Airforce? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not sure how to think about this. (Score:3, Interesting)
But they CAN discriminate once sick ????? (Score:2, Interesting)
While that makes sense, the more heinous discriminate is doing so against a person once they are sick.
So once they ARE sick and HAVE a bad gene, then they can really ratchet up the premiums.
Since no one mentioned this, I expect that will be possible under this bill. (If this WAS included in the bill, THIS would be the true strength of the legislation)
The fact that so many representatives voted for it and the power of the insurance companies, make it likely that this, again, will be the case.
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
You are a fool. You have no idea how your gene expression will change as you get older, and until you've been genotyped you have no idea what chronic diseases are in store for you.
I'm fine with society at large stepping in and covering/mitigating their medical problems(because we are wealthy beyond imagination), but the idea that they can buy insurance against a condition after it is known is simply wrong. It's cost sharing with no risk component at all.
In other words, we should use our insurance system to incentivize people to have fewer genetic defects!
We can start by allowing insurance companies to surcharge black people for sickle-cell anemia. It isn't fair that white people should have to pay for a disease they don't even get. It's cost sharing with no risk component at all.
Re:So what is the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we go... (Score:3, Interesting)
insurance is not a charity (Score:5, Interesting)
If you go into a policy with a "prior condition" that changes the odds dramatically, and they have to adjust the cost of your policy accordingly to keep in the black on the average. This is not unexpected and not unfair. If they are fairly sure they are going to have to pay out on you, your rates are higher because on the average, your payout will be higher than their average customer. The rest of their customers do not want to have to pay for your increased risk
Of course with unknown preexisting conditions like say, a congenitcal heart defect, they won't win that bet, but they can't know. So they raise *everyone's* rates a hair to make up for the unknown.
What these ppl here want to do is to take what should be a higher policy rate for them, and dump it onto all the rest of us, a little bit for everyone. That's NOT how it's supposed to work, and I really don't feel like helping you to pay for your insurance policy.
IMHO, insurance companies should be allowed to conduct any test they want on you. Companies with more tests or more invasitve tests will get less customers so free market will keep the abuses in check. If you don't want to submit to tests, you will probably have to get a different, more expensive policy, and that is to be expected. Though if you pass their tests you get a lower rate than you would have otherwise. Fail the tests and owell, high rates. Quit crying, it's not their fault, that's how life works. Go blame god or something, don't hike MY rates.
Surley Not?! (Score:3, Interesting)
But Insurance?? Really??
I pay more on my car insurance because I am a Male who is under 25. (well I did until I turned 25)... so that would be in violation of both age and sex descrimination laws wouldn't it??
Insurance works on statistics... as a <25 year old Male, I am statically more likely to act like an idiot and crash my car.. so, chances are I pay more insurance than your mother would.
This is 'fair'
So... if we move onto health insurance, and you have a genetic predispisotion towards obesity, high blood pressure and diabeties you are 4 times more likely to cost the health system more money than a healthy, young male. Tell me why I should be paying the same health insurance premium as you?
Insurance companies have had their day (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Convince people they need insurance to cover the cost X of Service S.
2) Insured people can now afford to pay more so provider charges X+Y for service S.
3) Rising cost of (X+Y) means people can no longer afford service S so they must buy more insurance.
4) ??? Profit
5) goto step 1
Insurance companies don't need the ??? step and they don't need all of the advantages they've been able to buy from congressional and state representatives including:
1) Require that everyone buys insurance (I'd love to see a law requiring everyone to buy my company's products.)
2) Require that everyone buys extra insurance to cover those who break law 1.
3) Don't sell insurance to those who are likely to collect. (e.g. Don't sell earthquake insurance in earthquake zones or flood insurance in flood zones) Instead, let the federal government create a "federal flood insurance" or go ahead and sell disaster insurance in if a disaster occurs, file chapter 11 bankruptcy and leave town fast!
4) Don't provide medical insurance for those with medical conditions. (e.g. if there is ANY gap in insurance coverage due to a job loss or inability to pay COBRA, you will be considered a new customer by all insurance companies and your condition (diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure) will be considered a prexisting condition. If you can get coverage at all, you'll be paying upwards of $2000/month.
Example, someone I know has a child with diabetes. A false workplace claim by a compulsive lier cost him his almost decade long career and corporate health insurance coverage. Every health insurance companies he has spoken told him that they could cover his family except for the child with diabetes.