[benVFR]

Haven't stirred the shit in here in ages..

Saw this in the news and immediately thought of this forum..

House Approves Genetic Anti-Discrimination Bill

So here is the background on this bill...

Passed the Senate unanimously...

414-1 in the House.

Bush almost guaranteed to sign it.

What does it do? It stops insurance & employers from discriminating against you for future possible diseases based on genetic screening.

If Ron Paul was supposedly so in tune with the average American how on earth could he be the only guy in the government to side with the insurance companies on this one?

Guess he dreams of Gattaca.. or he's got some friends in the insurance industry. Only thing I can find for reasons to oppose this were he thought it would place an undue burden of lawsuits on the insurance companies when they started cutting people's health insurance left and right for diseases they didn't actually have yet.

I know he is long gone in the Presidential race but this is so weird you'd think Texans would be up in arms trying to make sure he loses his next House race.

[benVFR]

This is apparently not even consistent with what Ron Paul campaigned on or has spoken of in the past.

A truly bizarre vote.

[RandyO]

Originally Posted by benVFR

This is apparently not even consistent with what Ron Paul campaigned on or has spoken of in the past.

A truly bizarre vote.

I see it as totally consistent with his stance on free enterprise and government regulation

I don't want my premiouns going up cause insurance companies are forced to insure people they don't want to insure

our consittution does not guarantee social equality, only political equality

[wylee]

Ron Paul is against government regulation but is also an advocate for privacy.

This issue goes against his stance on privacy, but it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy by the government so I'm thinking that's why he voted on the "anti-regulation" side.

There are a lot of things that I disagree with Ron Paul on, this being one of them, but his general view on what the scope of government should be is very similiar to mine.

[mzdagrl]

Ben, nice to see you!!!

This stuff just confuses me.... there is so much involved in both sides of every argument... It's hard to be something other than black/white on the issue

[RandyO]

Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions

it's not just regulating insurance companies


I don't even pretend to be altruistic, this new law is not good

[Honclfibr]

Originally Posted by RandyO

Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions

it's not just regulating insurance companies


I don't even pretend to be altruistic, this new law is not good

Genetic testing will allow companies to avoid hiring the weak and incompetent, or at least those whose genetic background gives them a predisposition to being weak and incompetent (which, if you think about it, is just as bad or worse). Without jobs, these people will starve, hopefully before they procreate. This is natural selection at it's best, essential for culling the herd and allowing us to progress toward our natural goal of beoming a master race full of genetically superior supermen.

[DucDave]

Seems to me that an Insurance Company using genetic information to set premiums of decline coverage is a little like counting cards in Vegas. Its not allowed there and shouldnt be allowed here. It's no longer 'pooling the risk' but something else.

[benVFR]

The 2 cases where this has already been a problem..

Companies & employers testing women for a breast cancer gene and dropping their coverage.. it's no guarantee they are going to get breast cancer. My girlfriend was in this scenario, her mother died of breast cancer.. her doctor wanted her to have the genetic screening so they could step up preventive care if she had the gene.. but having the test before this law would mean no life insurance for her if she came back positive. Even though having that genetic marker is *not* a 100% chance you're getting cancer. She finally had it done and was lucky as she came back negative.

Quite a ways in the past (1960s and 1970s?) some of the companies could already test for the gene for sickle cell anemia and used it to discriminate against African Americans. It turns out far far more people of African descent have this gene.. cause it provides increased resistance against malaria.

The worst case scenarios are pretty hideous if this kind of discrimination is allowed.. imagine they take your kids blood at birth.. and you find out 24 hours later he or she is never going to get any health insurance their whole life cause of some genetic marker they found.

I gotta google some more today.. I actually suspect Ron Paul voted against this on some technicality rather then the core of it, as he has actually come out in favor of stopping genetic discrimination before if I understand correctly.

[tom5796]

It is completely consistent with Ron Paul's viewpoint. Look, insurance companies today already do this by raising premiums for smokers, and they do nicotine tests to find out. Let's say a gene can give some prediction for medical complications down the road, just as smoking can provide a prediction. What's the difference? A smoker chooses to smoke, and a human has no choice when it comes to their genes. So this is a question of the government deciding how nice (read: socialist) the insurance companies should be. Ron Paul is all about keeping the government out of these decisions, and letting the market decide.

[benVFR]

I'm all in favor for letting insurance companies penalize people (even HEAVILY) for the poor decisions people make that endanger their health.

Smoking, heavy drinking, being obese. These are lifestyle decisions.

Genetics is something people have no control over. Why stop at discrimination, might as well be start up the Eugenics program.

I LOLed last week when I read about the company that fired people who filled out "non-smoker" on their insurance forms and then went and smoked in the company's smoking room. Definitely let the companies do that.

[tom5796]

Hmm, last I knew, older people or people with diagnosed diseases have to pay more for insurance than younger people. One really doesn't have much control over their age or if they were unlucky enough to get diagnosed before meeting with the insurance guy. Shall we vote on that too? Unintelligent people don't usually get very good jobs either. Shall we pass a law to give them better jobs? I mean, they can't help it, they were born that way.

In the long run subsidies in almost any system don't work, and wind up causing other issues for the sake of short sighted, politically driven decision-making. Ron Paul is the only one that consistently votes against that trend.

[richw]

Wait till the first attorney asks for a retrial because.

His client was genetically prone to child abuse etc.

Hillary care will save us in the end.

What is funny (odd) is that lack of intellegence is a leading indicator of a short life. Poor choices get you quick

[ScottyGixxer]

Originally Posted by RandyO

I see it as totally consistent with his stance on free enterprise and government regulation

I don't want my premiouns going up cause insurance companies are forced to insure people they don't want to insure

our consittution does not guarantee social equality, only political equality

The House voted 414-1 for the legislation a week after it passed the Senate on a 95-0 vote.

I guess that says it all...