Slashdot Mirror
US Sues Over Genetic Testing for Insurance Claims
Marty writes "It appears the U.S. government is setting an excellent precident when it comes to genetic testing and insurance claims. According to the Chicago Tribune, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for "requiring genetic testing of employees who file claims for certain work-related hand injuries" on the basis of civil rights violations. The article states that the tests looked for chromosome 17 deletion, which some studies claim makes a person more susceptible to CTS (more info about the genetic link is available at hnpp.org). Contrast this to recent policies in the UK."
The employer is betting the insurance company here. The employee has no choice in this case.
This could progress to the point where an employer may not hire someone because they "failed" a genetic test. At that point, I wonder if the employee gets the choice to tell the employer that they don't have to pay for disability insurance in order to get the job.
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
So I guess banks should give loans to people that have almost no chance of paying it back, since that is compatible with societies goal "of protecting its weakest members".
Yeah, I would like to see my APY go down because the bank fancies itself as some sort of charity.
It's the same thing.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
As for the libertarian/right-wing/objectivist combination, they're very much related movements.
:).
Eh, sort of. Libratrianism grew out of Republicanism, but was fueled by Objectivism (or "saddled with," if you are on that side of things
"Right wing" is a relative term that, in the U.S., conventionally means socially conservative/traditional/authoritarian plus economically liberal, if not anarchist. "Left wing" used to mean the opposite, i.e., socially liberal or even anarchist, but economically authoritarian. It appears that the left is becoming socially authoritarian in recent times as well ("political correctness," etc).
Neither one has good answers. "Right-wingers" seem to think that whatever makes money but doesn't offend God is a good thing. Left-wingers seem to think that individuals are keen, but they had better keep working for "the common good" and not piss off anybody. Both seem to take disagreement as some type of personal affront.
"Moderates" are compromisers and pragmatists with no firm beliefs other than the roads should be paved, the kids should be healthy, and there should be good stuff on TV. I.e., keep the ball rolling.
"Liberal" used to mean approximately what "libertarian" does today -- socially and economically lasseiz-faire -- but today means "left wing". "Conservative" seems to be a purely relative term; today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. They are the ones saying "Hey! Not so fast! Turn that down!"
Objectivists come in two varieties. Type one is the True Believer type who believes and defends everything Rand said or wrote -- except the parts about questioning all authority and thinking for yourself. For them, time stands still. Type two accepts the objectivist philosophy but takes the additional step of recognizing, as Rand said, that when a philosophy does not agree with reality, it's not reality that's wrong.
In Rand's assessment, Objectivists are "radicals for capitalism", which requires some explaining. To her, capitalism was a different thing than what is labelled "capitalism" today. Capitalism in the objectivist formulation is social and economic freedom and justice. For instace, while the press may report that China is developing a "capitalist economy," to the objectivist thinker they are certainly not. They are simply loosening the shackles a little in order to make the proles work harder. And what the Republicans or Democrats trot out as "free trade" is not capitalism; it is governments lowering tarriffs and subsidies, yes; but it makes no provision for justice and freedom. For instance, "free trade" with China, which is a repressive dictatorship. And "free enterprise" is not capitalism. It seems to mean that individuals get to start licensed businesses doing approved things, and then lobby the government for special protections and subsidies. Capitalism rests on the premise that each person will work for themselves; neither enslaving or exploting others or being enslaved or exploited.
From Atlas Shrugged:
"The only proper propose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.,...,The only proper functions of government are: the police, to proteect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective [i.e., written, accessible and non-"colorable"] law."
Libertarians can be thought of as ex-republicans who like neither Pat Roberts nor Ayn Rand. Sort of objectivist moderates, without the philosophy. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means they can get aloong with other people and not try to be religious zealots about their pet issues. Many objectivists explain to people that they are Libertarians, because it's basically true, at least where political philosophy is concerned.
Just because the Libertarian Party isn't a branch of the Objectivist Thingie ("movement?") doesn't mean that they advocate different policies. To both of them, the means are much more important than the ends. The ends are no good if the means by which they were achieved are no good.
Whew. In summary, if you read Rand and like what she says, but aren't some kind of religious nutjob about it, you're probably a Libertarian, not on the "right wing."
Libertarians, as was noted, reject the single-axis "right-left wing" political coordinate system, because they see the left and right wing as equally authoritarian given the chance; just in different areas. I.e., the single axis from "left" to "right" makes no provision for people who believe in either freedom or totalitarianism. The Libertarians have a two-axis political coordinate system that takes them into account. Left and right are still left and right, but Libertarians are up and totalitarians/authoritarians are down.
As Nathanial Branden said, "freedom is still the most radical idea of all."
And as George W. Bush said, "there ought to be limits to freedom" -- a sentiment echoed far and wide in the American political establishment.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Genetic testing will NOT be a tool to determine who should have a lower rate. It will only be used to determine who should have a HIGHER rate. Just look at HMO's. HMO... affordable healthcare at the expense of the people. As a result of HMO, insurance company's have been ROLLING in the $. Trust me, I know this from personal experience.
We now return to your regular programming...
It's because of people like you that employers like that are still able to find people to work for them. Stand up for yourself!
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
What if you have a genetic predisposition to getting hit by buses?
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
Nothing's really gained by foisting the cost on employers per se, but the whole system of health insurance through the workplace is badly flawed to begin with. However, allowing insurers to screen people for genetic issues, and offering no alternatives, means that some people will be unemployable and uninsurable. If not for simple humanitarian concerns, the prospect of a large number of people who will never be granted an opportunity to participate in the economy -- and therefore to either be on welfare or have no choice but to, shall we say, live any way they can -- should make it clear why this kind of policy is just asking for trouble in the long run.
Life isn't an economic textbook folks.
I was merely saying that in the case of those that have become 'uninsurable' the government should either force insurance companies to provide coverage or pay for it themselves.
To my mind the government exists to handle those activities whose operations are only marginally profitable or can only be operated at a loss. Insuring a person who is highly likely to die of cancer at the age of 30 is one of those duties. Few people could afford to pay the premiums that would make such a policy profitable for a private carrier
-josh
It's OK, the dead don't complain very much. It all works out in the end.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
What? I often disagree with people on here, but you are one of the few that has succeeding in writing prose that is almost impossible to decipher.
Nonetheless, I will address what I think your points were. I have no intention of donating my life's savings to pay for the medical care of strangers just so that insurance companies can line their pockets. Even if I was willing to, there are not enough people in the U.S. willing to do that to make a difference. That's why we need laws to protect people from genetic discrimination. That is why I have written to my Congressional representatives asking them to pass laws against insurance companies requiring genetic testing.
You remind me of George W. Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" bullshit. That's just code for letting companies run roughshod over people and cutting government services so that the rich can pay less taxes.
What has lead you to believe that our founding fathers were against laws that protected people and promoted the general welfare of U.S. citizens? We have many laws that limit the actions of corporations in order to protect individuals.
Yes I do - it is a competive market. But it also is essentially a zero sum game, overall average premiums are set by overall health care costs and the profit margins the insurance companies are willing to make. So all things being the same, if my premiums go down, someone else's have to go up.
Finally, you equate smoking with genetic predispositions to illnesses. In the former case, it's a choice. In the latter, it's just bad luck. And the purpose of insurance is to financially protect people who are unlucky.
Fine, don't like that example? Should a person with Down's Syndrome who is the age of 29 be able to take out a million dollar life insurance policy and pay the same premiums I do? (I am also 29) Or a person with Cystic Fibrosis? Or a personal with Multiple Sclerosis? Certainly not, these people have drastically curtailed lifespans and to allow them the same insurance benefit for the same price amounts to giving them money. These genetic diseases just happen to have symptoms that manifest themselves without the need of a genetic test - but we have no problem treating these people differently with respect to insurance premiums. Why should we have a problem with any other genetic disease, once a test has revealed it's presence?
-josh
No no no, you silly. Insurance is about trying to find a bunch of healthy people, convince them they're sick, get them to buy insurance, get them to go to the doctor. The cool part is that the insurance companies have ALREADY gone to the doctor and said "Hey, the only people who will come see you are people who are in our protection racket, and so you need to sign up with us so you can get paid" and then, once the doctor has rendered services, not pay the doctor. THAT is what insurance is about! Making as much money as possible while creating havoc and heartache and financial ruin for as many people as possible. Otherwise, how would the insurance companies justify the fact that they only pay out 10-20% of their premiums in benefits?
It's a protection racket, operated by fraud, deceit, coercion of the medical community, and co-option of the government. Used to be the Mafia was the only game this smooth.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
This is the flip side of the coin.
So what are the consequences? Well, if there is no genetic testing by insurance companies then there will be no insurance industry, because insurance is all about probability, and when as far as the customer is concerned there is no uncertainty, but as far as the company is concerned there is, and insurance agreement is unattainable, and even redundant completely anyway.
The problem is that only the most intelligent and wealthy of people (the two are directly related. cf The Bell Curve) will be able to afford genetic screening and so will inevitably become genetically perfect, like a master race, while the poor remain like old fashioned Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Do we want to see Homo Superior Plutocri overrun us all? I don't, so we must be careful what we do here.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
"Right wing" is a relative term that, in the U.S., conventionally means socially conservative/traditional/authoritarian plus economically liberal, if not anarchist. "Left wing" used to mean the opposite, i.e., socially liberal or even anarchist, but economically authoritarian. It appears that the left is becoming socially authoritarian in recent times as well ("political correctness," etc).
The terms stretches beyond the US; when used internationally it's a slightly more vague term. It's also somewhat fluid term; what the left and right represent changes somewhat over time. Still you've hit a basically fair definition; as somewhat to the left I disagree with the political correct atmosphere that infects it, though I think people overestimate just how pervasive it is. That said, while libertarians might differ with the right on certain issues, I think there are another similarities to put it in the same broad group that includes republicans and conservatives. Of course it's not my call, but the rest of society seems to basically agree; witness the Cato Institute, which is termed a libertarian think tank now, but which I've heard referred to as a conservative think tank many times in the past.
"Moderates" are compromisers and pragmatists with no firm beliefs other than the roads should be paved, the kids should be healthy, and there should be good stuff on TV. I.e., keep the ball rolling.
I'll have to object to your views of moderates. I fall into the left-moderate category; moderation can also be a simple recognition of the fact that maybe I don't have all the answers, and I may be wrong in some things. That's what separates the zealots from those who are truly open in their thinking. True democracy can be categorized by a balance of views I think.
And what the Republicans or Democrats trot out as "free trade" is not capitalism; it is governments lowering tarriffs and subsidies, yes; but it makes no provision for justice and freedom.
But neither does libertarianism as I've seen it most often expressed. I've noticed libertarians tend to be very isolationist in terms of promoting the ideas of "justice" abroad.
And "free enterprise" is not capitalism. It seems to mean that individuals get to start licensed businesses doing approved things, and then lobby the government for special protections and subsidies. Capitalism rests on the premise that each person will work for themselves; neither enslaving or exploting others or being enslaved or exploited.
It's interesting how such a staunch anti-Communist as Rand takes a somewhat Marxist view of the underlying form of society; resources and labor as forming the structure of society. Admittedly I haven't had much exposure to Rand; what philosophical training I have has been in university philosophy departments, which tend to discount her as a serious philosopher; strangely enough, I found that one of the few philosophical analyses of Rand's work was written by a former professor of mine, though I don't remember any Randian thought infiltrating the course. What I have seen and heard, however, is pretty distasteful. She seems to combine Nietzche and Adam Smith, taking out the philosophical rigor and cramming it all into what appear to be truly awful novels which seem to appeal mainly to teenagers and college students with persecution complexes.
"The only proper propose of a government is to protect man's rights,
That statement by itself isn't really that disagreeable, though I'd also propose that governments should also serve as ways to coordinate large-scale projects that are too large for private individuals to run (i.e. space program, highway system, etc).
The problem I have with objectivists is their idea of "rights" consists solely of negative ones (in the philosophical sense of an obligation not to do something rather than do something). This isn't a bad idea in say a frontier society, where every person has more or less as much space as he or she wants between themselves and other people. But this planet has gotten too crowded for governments to be reactive rather than proactive in these kinds of things. For example, I believe in strong, what you might even call authoritarian, environmental regulations. Yes, it impedes business interests and economic freedom, but I think maintaining the integrity of our environment is more important.
I just realized this post isn't that coherent; chalk it up to an extremely irregular sleep schedule.
--
Let them test for genetic flaws, but not until one very important prerequisite is met... A genetic modification to correct the flaw must be readily available.
I think that the main reason this is so unfair is that we have no way of fixing the genetic 'mistakes' inherited at conception. If I have the ability to correct a flaw in my genes and choose not to, then I don't see it as being much of an injustice to be denied insurance because of it.
rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb...
Remember though, that any disadvantage will often have an upside. The "disadvantaged" are actually better in other areas. They shouldn't try to push themselves to where they don't belong. For example, deafness may be an immediate problem, but other senses are dramatically enhanced. In a job where hearing capabilities are not required, a deaf person can work better than a non-deaf person.
We must realize that just as people have mental preferences to certain work, their genes also have preferences.
Above all, genetic information is just information. Any restriction on the flow of information is evil, isn't it? So this is a subject where all the "information is for everyone" types better be silent.
How do you know that they won't turn YOU down? Do you really know all there is to know about your genetic code that you can be so sure of yourself that you wouldn't be excluded altogether or pay astronomical premiums?
Now that's a great point; wish I'd thought of it. Though I'm sure most slashdotters are confident that their genes are without major flaws...
--
Insurance companies may well need to discriminate on the basis of genetic testing. Whether this discrimination takes the form of higher premiums or outright refusal of coverage doesn't really matter, but the right of the company to make such discrimination should be considered.
Why?
Because the people they are insuring may have access to the same genetic testing information. This information may be direct, through the same sort of genetic testing, or indirect, through family history of ailments or such.
Consider life insurance: If anyone with a terminal illness could go and buy a million dollars in term life insurance, the life insurance companies would go bankrupt. Hence, most life insurance policies require some sort of health review to make sure you don't have some sort of known terminal illness.
It's a matter of having a level playing field. Insurance companies should be able to have as much medical information about you as you do. They need to be able to determine the risk of insuring you as well as you are able to determine the risk yourself.
Something to consider before complaining about evil privacy-invading mega-corporations.
While the Coalition against Insurance Fraud claims that 10% of all auto and home insurance claims are fraudulent ($79 billion per year they say), my quick review of the IRS data on the issue just doesn't seem to support that claim.
Considering the fact that in the State of Utah, there were an astounding 61 cases of insurance fraud in 1999 alone! WOW! 61 cases of fraud in one year coming from a state with 2,129,836 people. That's less than .01% of the population commiting insurance fraud.
Fraudulent zodiacs. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am not against charging someone a higher rate if they have already been diagnosed with a disease. What I am against is compelling someone to take a genetic test, essentially adding information to their medical history, and then charging them a higher premium or denying them coverage if the test shows a predisposition to get a disease. If I apply for insurance, the decision as to whether to insure me and the premium I am assigned should be based solely on my existing medical history -- not some insurance company mandated test that attempts to predict whether I am more likely to contract a disease sometime in the future.
I am against charging people extra for risk factors that are beyond their control -- especially when the information is not already a part of their medical history. If they have a disease that has been diagnosed, that's a totally different matter.
The healthy ones will have little or no interest in many types of insurance.
The unhealthy ones will have a great interest in many types of insurance.
Anyone who voluntarily chooses to do without medical insurance because they are "healthy" is a complete, f****** moron. Do you have any idea what it costs even for simple, commonplace things like appendectomies, setting broken bones, and other common ER procedures that "healthy" people undergo? And it's not like healthy people never develop horrible diseases. They do.
The debate here is not whether you can withhold medical records when applying for insurance (you cannot -- it is called "insurance fraud"). The question is whether the insurance companies and employers should be allowed to force you to take genetic tests for the purposes of denying coverage or increasing premiums.
Insurance is about creating a shared pool of risk. When the pool is large, some people are going to be charged disproportinately more compared to their actually risk. This is why insurance companies like to evaluate, as much as possible, the risk factors in the people that they insure. Are you a smoker? Well then, that puts you in a different pool with a higher premium. Not a smoker? Well then you pay less.
They do this in order to save money and give lower risk people lower premiums. Life insurance for a 20yr old should cost less than for a 60 year old. In many cases we consent to divulge our age, our sexual habits, our smoking and eating habits, and family history of disease so that insurance companies can determine what risk pool we belong in. We end up sharing the risk with people who are similar to ourselves and to most of us this ideas seems basically fair.
Now I am not defending the insurance companies or the employer in this particular case. I think genetic testing at this state in the games is far from an exact science. We have found some genes that likely lead to higher incidence of some diseases, but the evidence is sparse, and in most cases we have no clear cause and effect relationship. In all cases we have barely a clue how these genes work.
But this inexact science will improve and there is no stuffing the genie back into the bottle on this one. If the tests get better and statistical studies back them up, I see no reason why the insurance companies should not be privy to the same genetic information that you are.
I am not saying that they should be able to force you to take a particular test - but if you have taken a genetic test, they should have access to that information as well. Any other solution is essentially supporting insurance fraud, like lying about your smoking, or claiming you have no history of heart disease when both your grandfather's died of heart attacks at 45.
The decision to take a test should be your own. But the results of the test should be shared with your insurer, in just the same way you would share the information with your personal physician so that she can give you better care.
Granted, this may make some people essentially 'uninsurable' - well, this is where the federal government should step in. Either forcing private insurers to take lower profits and cover the extremely high risk folks, or covering them themselves under a federally funded plan.
Everyone assumes this will automatically mean higher premiums. For some yes, for others premiums will be cheaper. Suppose you have genetic resistance to AIDS (yes, there is such a thing), and no genetic predisposition to heart disease or cancer. Wouldn't you like a break on your premiums? Or maybe you are the type that would like to pay the same as a smoker does. Not me.
-josh
Are you pure enough to have insurance?
Test the babies before they are born. If they are determined to have defective genes (that is they will end up costing some insurance company money) kill them before they are born.
This would save lots of money for corporations.
War is necrophilia.
What happens to the poor slob who has a disease and can not be insured?
1) He get help from the govt and you pay for it with your tax dollars.
2) He figures what the hell he's going to die anyways and goes on a rampage and robs banks or stores and you end up paying for it.
3) He end up in jail and gets free health care and you end up paying for it.
No such thing as free lunch. Unless you put a bullet in his head as soon as he is diagnosed you are going to pay for it one way or another.
If I was in that position I would definately go on the rampage what do you have to lose? If you get away with it you got a lot of money, if you get caught you get healthcare.
War is necrophilia.
To clarify the issue Charles Murray, coauthor of "The Bell Curve : Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" put forth the following challenge:
As I read the debate about whether categorizing humans according to the Big Three races (or some other small number of races) is valid or useful, I wonder if someone can think of something comparable to the Turing Test that can be used to falsify at least some of the positions as genetic knowledge grows.
The direct analogy would be to calculate the percentage of agreement between visual categorizations by race and categorizations based solely on DNA samples from the same sample of people. But it doesn't need to be so simple. One of the nice things about the Turing Test is that it does not require a binary yes-no answer. It consists of a series of timed tests and successes-failures in identifying the entity at the other end of the interrogation, so that the result is a probability. Something analogous would be appropriate to a Turing Test for the validity of race as a construct.
The main thing is that to get some sort of a priori agreement by parties to all sides of the debate that the test will be a fair one when it becomes doable. If no such thing exists--if we're really talking about nonfalsifiable positions--then why are we arguing?
Charles Murray
My response, which apparently satisfied Dr. Murray as an adequate test, involved the insurance industry as follows:
Actuaries are currently prohibited, by law, from using "race" in the much of their risk assessment. Probably the best Turing test for "race" would be to deregulate the insurance industry so actuarial teams can use whatever variables in whatever models to take money away from other actuarial teams.
Nothing like the threat of financial loss vs promise of financial reward to root out sloppy thinking in a jiffy.
I mean, either "race" has utility, relative to the constellation of other variables that "race" deniers would have us rely upon, or it doesn't.
Seastead this.
Workers comp covers work related injury. Not injuries soley from work. If you are predisposed to something, and working causes it to happen, WC is supposed to cover it.
Why not fire women when they become pregnant. Pregnancy increases risk of carpal tunnel. What about anyone over 30?
Fight Spammers!
That's 61 cases of fraud for which people were caught, tried, and convicted. The actual number of frauds committed is much, much higher.
My mother works as an independent consultant to a number of insurance companies. She's also served as an expert witness in a few claimant vs insurance company cases. She sees a lot of fraud cases that slip by simply because it would be too difficult or expensive for the insurance company to prosecute. Also, the courts are strongly biased in favour of the "little guy", even if the little guy is screwing all of us through fraud.
Now, I'm no communist/socialist/marxist, but I'm amazed that no one has mentioned what the root of the problem is. This whole genetic testing issue should be waking a lot of people up. Making peoples health a business (i.e. health insurance) is sick, and the U.S., although I'm glad is not allowing genetic testing, should employ a national healthcare program. I find it morally grotesque that someone will go to the hospital in need, and be turned away because they don't have the money or insurance. Sure, governments have never been as efficient as privitized organizations, and squandering can happen (see Canada), but at least everyone is treated equally.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The reality is that 15% of the people are going to be sick 85% of the time while 85% of the people are going to be sick 15% of the time.
Those are the friggin' statistics.
However which people belong to the 85% and which people belong to the 15% change over time.
If the friggin' companies can't hack those numbers, they should get the fuck out of the fucking business. They don't belong there.
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and spread the wealth. Running it for profit is a mugs game.
You end up with the argument from the companies that if you need it you can't get it.
This type of testing will prove self-defeating because if you can get insurance, you aren't likely to need it so its a waste of money so don't buy any insurance.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Even with 118 cases opened for investigation, that's still well under .01%. Granted this is just the official investigations by the State of Utah's Department of Insurance Fraud, I don't know if this includes the insurance companies internal investigations, but I couldn't locate any data on that. I will agree that there is some fraud that goes unchecked, but I'm just going by the "official" data I found. Everyone can speculate on how much fraud is really happening, but it's only speculation.
--It's Pimptastic!--
There is a relatively simple solution to this problem. Require people to buy insurance policies specifically insuring them against genetically related health tests before they have such tests. I won't go through the economics here, but a) this solution ends up being relatively cheap since the cost of genetic disease is already included within the larger cost of insuring for health and b) completely solves the information problem where health insurance breaks down if either the insurance company or the patient has access to information related to genetic disease that the other does not -- unlike today where there is a hesitancy to get genetic tests because it might be disclosed to insurance companies, coupling the cost of the test with insurance would remove that problem.
It is not a *perfect* solution but there really aren't perfect solutions since health insurance is based on the notion that the risk of a given disease occurring in a specific individual compared to any other individual is relatively unkown, while genetic testing produces enough information to theoretically say person X has a 1 in 10000 chance of having testicular cancer while person Y only has a 1 in 100000 chance.
Many members in my family are carriers of a deadly genetic disease and I've spent a lot of time looking at these issues and insurance that covers the additional risk seems to me the best option.
Insurance companies may well need to discriminate on the basis of genetic testing. Whether this discrimination takes the form of higher premiums or outright refusal of coverage doesn't really matter, but the right of the company to make such discrimination should be considered. Why? Because the people they are insuring may have access to the same genetic testing information. This information may be direct, through the same sort of genetic testing, or indirect, through family history of ailments or such. Consider life insurance: If anyone with a terminal illness could go and buy a million dollars in term life insurance, the life insurance companies would go bankrupt. Hence, most life insurance policies require some sort of health review to make sure you don't have some sort of known terminal illness. It's a matter of having a level playing field. Insurance companies should be able to have as much medical information about you as you do. They need to be able to determine the risk of insuring you as well as you are able to determine the risk yourself. Something to consider before complaining about evil privacy-invading mega-corporations.
This is a day late and a dollar short, but better than nothing.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
These tests are looking for a predisposition for a certain disease or ailment and using that to determine insurance policies. That means you could go through life without ever contracting a disease or health problem, but you still have to suffer discrimination against you as if you were definitely going to have a problem.
Are we fucking crazy here? What about the rights of the employees? What about the freedom to choose a career no matter what your talents or skills, or the genetic possibility that you might get hurt?
Thank you to the U.S. Government for taking a positive stand for personal freedom!
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Insurance has always only had one goal, to make money. They are just gamblers, betting against you about some future event in your life. The odds are always in favor of the house, and if you don't like that, then don't bet.
Don't try to get stupid laws passed that would cause insurance companies to assume more risk than they want to, it costs everyone else through higher rates, and turns insurance into a sort of welfare.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Wow. Alot of people think this is the right thing to do...go Genetic Screening! Yea for big business!
/. change while I was at Chevy's this afternoon. Well...if discrimination against race is wrong...how can discrimination against genetics be right?
You don't know why this is bad? Because...it's a slippery slope, that's why.
Discrimination against race is wrong...right? Or did the whole demographic of
This is about a company testing people for a gene...do any of the people here cheering this on have any idea what might happen if this practice spreads?
Genetic testing to see if you might be an alcoholic and then denyed a drivers licence if you are. Genetic testing to see if you might have addictions to drugs and then increased police monitoring. Genetic testing to see if you might get cancer and denial of a job or health benifits.
Is it right to deny people of african ancestory jobs in cold weather conditions because of inceased risk of frostbite? No. of course not. Then why is it alright to start to deny people things because of other genetic traits? Today it's a minor insurance issue...tomarrow it will be a far, far greater issue.
Okay, I'll bite on this obvious Flamebait. You seem to be pro-insurance companies, I don't know why, but I can only assume that a family member is in the business.
But then again, you compare insurance with gambling, so you really are unclear on the concept.
Insurance is based on the concept of shared risk. The companies have the right to refuse service to you if you take on risk voluntarily: e.g., smoke, drink, live a gay lifestyle (yes! It's true! er, I think...), but they don't have the right to discriminate against you genetically.
I suppose that it would be okay for insurance companies to screen prospects based on their genetics, but then again, that would lead to different rates for different races, and segregation would triumph. One might even argue that it is racist, inasmuch as predisposition to, say, sickle cell anemia is a condition only of Blacks.
An insurance company that can dial in the level of risk they want to assume? I bet that's an agent's wet dream, but it should not happen. The level of income should be proportionate to the level of risk. If a company wants to insure white people against sickle cell anemia, they should charge exactly what the premium is worth: $0.00. But that isn't how it works; they make their profit based on the Law of Large Numbers.
If the insurance companies don't want to offer basic coverage to Everyone, then I think they should not be in business. I think it is the Government's Job (with your tagline, I Know you are going to wrongfully disagree with this one) to Regulate the Insurance industry and eliminate those who would skew the concept of shared risk.
I swear to you, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Genetics and the implications of genetic advances are going to be the biggest story of the next year if not the next decade. And not all the stories are going to be good.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
I am appalled by the people who see nothing wrong with genetic testing for insurance. These are often the same people who are infuriated when e-commerce companies violate their privacy by tracking their web surfing habits. If genetic testing is not a violation of your privacy, what is? Do insurers have a right to get the records of your grocery purchases to look for unhealthy foods? Should they be able to test your sexual partners for diseases prior to issuing insurance coverage to you? Do they have a right to the medical history of every member of your immediate family?
Insurance and Society
Insurance is valuable to society. It prevents a certain percentage of society from being financially ruined, unable to pay their mortgage, car loan, or even grocery bills. It is not in society's best interest for those people that most need insurance to be denied it. The argument that anything that increases the profits of insurance companies is good is a ludicrous, amoral one. The interests of society outweigh the bottom line of the insurance industry.
Your Premiums
There is another argument made claiming that it is unfair for "healthy" people to pay higher premiums to provide coverage for those that would be screened out by a genetic test. In addition to being incredibly self-centered and greedy, it shows a basic ignorance and denial. Some percentage of these self-proclaimed healthy people that have some genetic predisposition to some disease. They just don't know it yet. Now, ask yourself when your insurance company every lowered your medical premiums because they had better screening for risks.
The Myth that Genetic Testing is a Necessity
Insurance existed and thrived for decades before there was genetic testing. To claim now that the entire industry will be bankrupt if they cannot subject each and every applicant to a barrage of genetic tests as part of the application is preposterous.
The Role of Government
Because the goals of the insurance industry are often not in line with the best interests of society, the government needs to put limits on the insurance companies. In this case, the government has a duty to step in and prevent large portions of society from being denied medical coverage, or even employment, because of a genetic predisposition to an illness.
Applying for medical insurance, whether individually or through an employer, should not trigger a form of genetic Russian Roulette where you go in for a battery of tests and are faced with financial ruin if one comes up positive. While insurance companies need unfettered access to your existing medical records in order to write health insurance policies, the government should deny them the ability to create new health records through additional testing -- genetic and otherwise.
If we permit genetic testing, should infants be tested and, if found to have a gene for some devastating illness, be put into an uninsurable genetic underclass -- destined to be financially ruined? Would we carry it further and deny them schooling, Medicare, and social programs (why spend tax dollars on someone who will probably die at a young age?). Should employers be allowed to refuse to hire them in order to keep from training someone who will probably die soon. Should family members be forced into bankruptcy in order to pay for the medical care of their genetically-flawed loved one?
As I have said before, we are supposed to be members of a civilization, not pack animals that leave the weak to fend for themselves and die.
You actually believe that the insurance companies would voluntarily lower your premiums? Screening for illnesses has been improving for decades and medical insurance costs have just gone up while the coverage has gone down.
I do not know of any serious health problems that I have, but I resist going to the doctor until it is absolutely necessary. I don't get physicals or yearly checkups. Why? Because I am afraid that they will uncover some heretofore unknown medical condition and I will be uninsurable for the rest of my life. I will be at the mercy of my existing insurance company as they raise my rates and look for any excuse to drop me. Like many Americans, I don't benefit from the available screening out of fear for my insurability. And that is wrong.
Finally, you equate smoking with genetic predispositions to illnesses. In the former case, it's a choice. In the latter, it's just bad luck. And the purpose of insurance is to financially protect people who are unlucky.
Click for more information about Chromosome 17.
Attack of the 50 foot Chromosome 17's. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
Landlords have no incentive to make their units energy-efficient if the tennents pay the utility bills.
Corporations (and individuals) have no direct financial incentive to avoid polluting the environment.
People have no incentive to reduce health care expenditures when they are covered by insurance.
It's that last point that is the problem here. Insurance breaks down the laws of supply and demand, because cost is no longer an issue. Hence, government regulation is necessary to correct the situation, either by regulating the market, or by altering the rules of the market to restore supply and demand.
Genetic testing has determined insurance for a long time.
Consider this: I'm an XY. I have to pay vastly larger amounts on my car insurance than I would have to if my DNA had an XX shape.
We've been doing this for a long time...
(As posted previously in UK Insurance Co. Admits Using Genetic Screening') (added comments follow):
It is expected that most insurance companies would have some sort of medical exam for things like life insurance, to avoid issues just like this.
But more general items like health insurance are another thing. Or would you like to have YOUR own insurance cancelled because, you are getting older, and might get sick, and thank you for paying out the 30 or 40 years of premiums without much payout.
There has been a major problem with insurances companies cancelling insurance when you go to use it in a major way.
In this context, avoiding people who might not even know they have some genetic condition can be suspect. The point is not insuring people based on pre-existing conditions is a bad thing. The potential insurance liability should be shared "equally" (or at random) by all insurers.
"Unapproved" tests in this case is not the same as "unapproved" medicine. Medicine is sometimes regulated so that people do not hurt themselves. Tests are sometimes regulated so that the companies do not rip you off.
(now to continue)
Obviously, there is a point where a life can be save only if we use the ten million dollar procedure, and hey, this guy is "only a street bum".
So now you have opened the fine can of worms entitled "The value of Human Life".
Yummy Yummy Yummy.
How much value do you put on a human life, and how would you assess it? How valuable is your girl friend, or your mother, or your other Generic valuable relative?
You know that some people subjectively assess others as worthless. (lawyers and politicians, for example) How much should you take that literally?
You have had a clever thought, and have not been clever enough to figure out how it applies to the world at large, or to the people around you.
Not clever enough by at least half.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"