Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Backs Genetic Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at NYTimes.com (free registration required), the US Senate has unanimously voted for the first Genetic Privacy Bill. Basically, this would make it illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA. While it still needs to be passed by the House, it seems that we're not heading towards a Gattaca-esque society, after all. Hooray for us genetically inferior invalids!"
keep outta my jeans..
err.. genes..
you get the point..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
No, wait, the other thing - tedious.
Gattaca was such an interesting movie from all aspects. First off, why did they need to monitor everybody's genetic code, when they knew every-farking-body was genetically perfect?
.
On a side, note. .
FP!!! FP!!!
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Now they can't find out i'm an alien.
____
Got Wang?
Where else can you get beaten by a 300lb wang?
Great just great. Let all the space-aliens control our busness. Pah.
a first post gene?
this is great news but when will the USA goverment stop companies patenting life itself
see genetically engineered rice for an example
not that anyone in the rest of the world will respect USA patents (see China) but still
Yes, but can you patent your genes?
Who are you calling inferior? You insensitive clod!
wouldnt that type of discrimination be automatically covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
FP!
In other words, this is a giant LOSS for Open Source initiatives. Just when we were getting businesses and employers to look at open source software and operating systems, etolling the benefits of looking at the source code, it's now illegal for them to look at the source code for their employees.
I mean, if -I- owned my own business, i'd want to be DAMN SURE that my new hires didn't have any infringing IP in their genes.
do() || do_not();
In the movie Gattica, they explictely said it was illegal to descriminate, but that people did it anyway. They did it because once genetic testing because ubiqutious, it will be very easy to discretely get a sample and have it tested.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Now you tell me... I'm the guy they used to map the genome, you insensitive clod!
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
I couldn't help but notice that today was also the day that the HIPAA health privacy standards are supposed to be in place at all medical providers.
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
You linked to NYT without the usual disclaimer, you insensitive clod! Now I'm all traumatized!
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
The big advantage here is that folks who *may* have some sort of genetic disease are going be able to get tested for it without fear. Previously, because it was a legal gray area, they wouldn't be able to know for sure.
Gentoo Sucks
Everyone I know is a derivative of at least two previously existing ones. So much for non-infringing source code.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Google's Link
How much longer will we deal with this junk? I'm hoping you give fake info. "Why yes, my e-mail is f@off.com. Thank you."
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Does that mean it's now illegal to charge women more for car insurance just because they're women? Courts have ruled in the past that insurance rates based off of statistical trends are good. What happens now if those trends are genetically based?
Seems like a fairly plausable scenario to me.
'Well, we didn't hire him because his additude didn't seem right for our team... And we wish him the best of luck with his imminent bout with cancer.'
-n
http://www.remix.net/
This bill would require that you prove that the insurance company denied you coverage because of your DNA rather than some other reason of their choosing. It doesn't deny them the ability to see or maintain records of your DNA which is what we really need.
With this bill it would be no problem for an insurance company to deny you coverage based on your DNA but, tell you it is due to them having reached their quota for your age/gender/geographic region/past claims.
The law needs to say that they cannot see your genome and they definitely cannot record it. There is no reason for anyone but your doctor and his lab to have it.
So now my employer will outsource their DNA testing and discriminating practices to some island in international waters?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I was worried. My Phenotype gives me a huge advantage, I'd hate for my Genotype to have something to hurt me. Hooray for discrimination only by things we can easily observe!
"Hooray for us genetically inferior invalids!"
What a terrible comment, once it comes down to the nitty gritty, it is very difficult to judge "superior" and "inferior" genes. In our short-sightedness we could rule out the gene that cures AIDS, or heart disease; because we as humans aren't habitually long term thinkers.
Playing with genes is dangerous, it is our very genetic diversity that has made mankind a powerful species. Hopefully this bill will help it stay diverse
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Privacy: 1
Ashcroft: 58
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I just watched Gattaca on BRT2, a Belgian tv station. Good movie!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
The Reuters article a few days ago mentioned that the bill "has languished in the House for years," largely due to the opposition of the insurance industry, who claims that the bill is unnecessary because existing laws already provide enough protection.
(Of course it flew through the Senate. Why would they care? Do you think the Senators, their families, and their friends^Wfinancial donors, will ever have a problem affording medical teatment?)
It'd be nice if the House pulled their 430-odd heads out of their collective asses and passed this bill, but don't hold your breath.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Basically, this would make it illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA.
So, it was illegal in Gattaca too. Hawke narrated something along the lines of "A perfectly innocent drug test could quickly turn into a peek at your genetic code."
Beware the loopholes.
I, for one, thank our genetically inferior overlords for this.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
When the technology will be available, they'll find the way to use it against people. It doesn't matter what the law says. They'll just claim other legal reasons to justify rejections, etc.
We could have saved sixpence. We have saved fivepence.
If someone doesn't want to reveal their genetic information to a health insurance company, then they will either have to pay a higher premium by default to cover all of the unexpected risks, or find another company. No-one has the right to get insurance from any particular company at a low rate.
Individuals who think like this obviously have a complete lack of understanding of how insurance works, as well as a complete lack of understanding of economics and praxeology. All that these laws are going to do is force people who are perfectly healthy and likely to be so all their lives to pay higher premiums, to cover for freeloaders much more susceptible to various risks.
The idea of sound insurance is pretty simple. Let's say I'm taking out a term life-insurance policy for the next 10 years. If I'm twice as likely to die in that next 10 years than another person, it makes sense that I pay twice the premium. On the free market, healthy people aren't going to go to insurance companies that charge them higher to allow unhealthy people to freeload.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Well, speak for yourself, I don't feel concerned by that remark, and neither does my therapist. So there ...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
...when you start engineering people's genes themselves. For instance: let's say you're hiring, but not supposed to discriminate against someone because they have or have not been genetically engineered. That leaves you judging on performance alone, right? But happens when someone who is genetically engineered to be perfect for the job you're hiring for comes along? Won't they automatically be better for the job anyway?
What is non-discrimination in this case?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
When you look at the bill, it appears that genetic privacy wont be protected, but after seeing it about 15 times this morning, it looks like genetics are kept private. Initially, I was like "what a dumbass", but now, no matter what he did, he's done.
This poor guy is never gonna live this one down.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Uhh... doesn't Adam and Eve count as prior art in this patent case?
some individuals were better accoutered than others, the genetic makeup supposedly belonging to the protagonist put him on the fast track in the company.
Isn't that Chinese astronaut wearing a double-breasted suit in orbit? Gattaca is already here!
Prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of genetics means nothing, because they can always lie. and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage means ABSOLUTELY nothing, because they can just do exactly like they already do with cancer patients and make the coverage so freaking expensive they'd need a grant from Bill Gates to pay it.
Does it mean major sports leagues won't be able to ban genetically modified humans from competing with naturally-bred ones?
I will put a penis deep in your ass, and you will enjoy it. You see, you are a flaming homosexual faggoty gay-o, and you love the cock up your pasty-white ass.
If you're wondering, it's not my penis I'll be putting up your ass. It's Zac's.
-- The WIPO Avenger
I think you have that a bit backwards. At least for younger people guys have MUCH higher insurance rates than women. They have some sort of statistical evidence that guys are more likely to cost them more money and use that justify gauging us for money.
don't worry, we still have plenty of chances!
Remember, information is a commodity. So once private information about you is known, all it takes is some money and a person willing to sell it. Ever heard of private investigators? How about information brokers? Remember, never trust a stranger.
Life is not for the lazy.
nt
Isn't part of the back story of Gattica that it was illegal to use DNA, but everyone did it anyway.
Great my kids can pay me licese fees!!!!
"What would you do if you were accused of a murder, you had not committed... yet?"
It'd be like heaven on earth for insurance companies...
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
This bill is a good start. It doesn't go far enough. It is good to say "You cannot deny insurance to somebody based on an analysis of your DNA". However, what will arise from this while still avoiding the law is insurance companies saying "Analysis of your DNA shows you are a huge risk. While everybody else pays $1 for insurance, you will pay $100." You can make it so that it's not worth it (eg. you pay $1, and if you die, we'll give you $1) for people to buy insurance, which is effective denial.
This is a bill with no teeth for the insurance industry.
I dont get the posting...here's where the issue gets murky for me...
Does this sentence mean that they (employers & insurers) can look but not act?...Or does it mean that they have no legal right to the information and it is legally equiv. to stolen goods(kinda like illegal mp3's)?
I still don't trust the bastards
The following bill, which protects citizens from disrimitation based on the size our their parents gene pool, was sponsered by your Senators from.... Maine (Primary sponser of bill) Tennessee Texas Utah Ohio South Dakota Massachusetts Nebraska Wyoming Maryland Louisiana Missouri Washington Vermont
There should be laws against stealing cells or body tissues to do genetic experiment. This is far more serious and objectionable.
oh no no no don't mod me -1 Troll!
So why would employers need this information in the first place? I can't see any reason McDonalds would use this, or hell... even the regular "office" setting. But there may be a possibility of someone working in a dangerous setting such as being exposed to chemicals or toxins, nulcear radation etc.
Pardon my ignorance on the issues regarding radiation etc.
uhm... it WAS illegal to discriminate based on genetics in Gattaca... the laws were just ignored and not enforced.
In _Gattaca_, Ethan Hawke's character specifically mentioned that it was explicitly illegal to discriminate against those with a lesser genetic code. However, if a potential employer asked for a urine sample for a routine drug test, that wouldn't stop them from testing your DNA. The US still might be heading towards a Gattaca society; indeed, the first legal component is now in place.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
If you actualy have watched the movie you would note that it is also against the law in that story to discriminate based on ones genetics. Problem is there is always another little flaw that they can use to try and reject you.
In reality this law, just like all of the other discrimination laws, realy arent as effective as they are suposed to be. We still are about ten years off from when insurance companies can even think about getting genetic records from people that would actualy mean a thing to them.
That's a good first step, but it's not privacy. If they don't have access to my genetic information, I don't have to worry about discrimination based on it. You don't need to state genetics as a reason, there are always other excuses to apply. Fortunately with this much support, they should be willing to pass a bill that offers real privacy. Of course it may be there already I didn't RTFA
It's important to point this out, because if you can't spell GATTACA you missed an entirely important aspect of the movie.
The chemicals used for information are: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). Hence the name GATTACA is a sequence of DNA. -Sometimes things are subtle, PAY ATTENTION!
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
This law is about denial of reality. The apparent motive behind it: fear of reality. The true motive behind it: somebody wants something for nothing, in defiance of reality.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Basic economic theory tells us that if people themselves find out what they may or may not be likely to suffer from in the future, they will only purchase insurance to cover a percieved risk.
e.g. If I get an analysis of my DNA and determine that I am at risk for cancer or some other malady, I'll purchase insurance for it. If I determine that I am not at risk, I won't purchase Insurance for it. If this is carried out to it's logical consequences, only people who are susceptible will purchase insurance, and Insurance(gambling) schemes don't work at all if people already know the outcome.
Imagine people betting on a horserace, and each person betting has a choice to bet on a specific horse, or not(You're either susceptible to cancer, or you're not). If they know ahead of time which horse is going to win, then hey will only place a bet if it's their own horse that will win, and the amount of money collected by the bookies will be redistributed to all the winners... Nobody will come out ahead, since nobody will have lost. Insurance companies cannot make a profit in this environment, and so the insurance method of dealing with healthcare will be a bankrupt business model. Face it, folks. We need a new system, because the days in our current one are numbered, and there are a lot more implications for that than I have time to go into right now...
--There are 10 kinds of people; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Regarding companies deciding to "take a peek at your DNA" from a bloodtest, that would or would not be permitted based on the contract between you and the doctor for the taking and testing of your blood. If the contract said that they were taking your blood to test it for HIV and hepatitis, then that's all they can test it for; anything else is a breech of contract on their part, and punishable as such. Contract law forms a perfectly reasonable basis for privacy (of course, let's not forget that the biggest invader of our privacy is the government, which presumes to be the sainted protector of that very right which it violates most aggregiously).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'm sure this is all about who is insurable and who is not. Auto insurance companies use bias in determining fees and eligibility all the time, they just use a different data set. All things being equal between A and B, if applicant A has a predisposition for lung cancer they represent a greater liability to the company- who winds up paying their medical costs when they smoke their way into an emphysema-induced early grave. Still, scary stuff though.
Surely, we don't need instructions on shampoo bottles, do we?.
There isn't a single gene for intelligence, just like there is no single gene for your arm or your leg.
Gen-engineering for intelligence is a long, long, long way off. The best we can do now, or will be able to do anytime in the near future, is to find and (possibly) get rid of single gene defects.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Fundamentally, insurance is about spreading risk. Insurance companies take on risk in exchange for premium; the chance of any individual making a claim is small, and thus the premiums charged to that individual are also small. People with, say, bad driving records, are more likely to file claims and are thus charged more money.
It's not widely known, but most insurance companies pay out more in claims than they receive in premium. People talk about "the gouging insurance companies" and how evil and selfish they are (and some almost certainly are), but the vast majority of insurance companies don't make money on what they charge you. I don't know the industry average, but it's not all that unusual for an insurance company to pay out $1.05 in claims for every $1 in premium it collects.
So how do they make money? Because there is generally a lag between when the premium is collected and when the claims are paid out. During that period of time, the insurance company is free to use the money to try to make a profit. This money is called "float". The amount that claims exceed premium is called 'cost of float", and an insurance company has to make more than their cost of float to be profitable.
As you can imagine, in an environment where stocks aren't performing very well and interest rates are close to zero, it is VERY hard for insurance companies to make money. I don't know how they're actually reacting to the problem, but I know that, for instance, homeowner's insurance is going through the roof... this is blamed on mold claims, but at least part of it is due to the fact that float isn't very profitable right now. And my car insurance went up a pretty good chunk last time, even though I don't have any tickets.
What this all boils down to is that insurance is a very, very competitive business, one with razor-thin margins, and it's very dependent on accurate risk analysis.
The problem with a genetic testing ban is simply this: the insurance companies are forbidden from using them, but their clients are not. This gives the clients an unfair advantage over the insurance companies; they know more about their own need for insurance than the company does. This will inevitably mean that people who really NEED the insurance will always buy it, and people who DON'T need the insurance may or may not. This will throw the risk equations all out of whack, and it will mean that A) insurance companies will be in danger of going out of business, and B) if they don't, insurance premiusm are going to go sky-high. And as premiums go up, more and more people who know that they have a pretty good chance of staying healthy will drop coverage, *increasing* loss exposure to insurance companies and sending rates still further skyward.
If genetic testing becomes a very reliable barometer of future health, and if insurance comapnies aren't allowed to use that data as a factor in their decisions, then insurance as we know it will essentially cease to exist, unless it becomes mandatory and encompasses the entire population.
It would become, in effect, socialized medicine.
If you want to retain your freedom to choose your own insurance plan and carrier (or to opt out of paying for insurance at all), it is very important that insurance companies be allowed access to the same data their customers have.
Yes, some people will find coverage hard to get in that system, but the alternatives are pretty much one of:
A) insurance companies can use genetic screening when writing insurance, making insurance more expensive for some people and, presumably, less expensive for most;
B) insurance becomes a LOT more expensive for anyone who wants to get it, or
C) we go to socialized medicine.
Given those alternatives, I vote for A.
Established that equality includes such things as sexual orientation, so I would be surprised if the same protection did not extend to genetic disposition.
Now, many disagree with the Vriend Decision, but the Supreme Court simply interpreted s.15 (section 15, equality rights) in the broadest sense. It is hard to say that we are all equal when one can discriminate because of sexual orientation, that is, how can you deny housing or employment to homosexuals based solely on that criteria when the same behaviour with respect to age, sex or race is unconstitional. Similarly, we have freedom of speech, yet the Charter does not define what content is protected and what is not.
Already in Canada courts have interpreted our rights regarding genetic testing based on the Vriend decision. I believe CN Rail was ruled against when they attempted to discriminate against an employee based on a genetic test. I cannot recall the specific case.
A portion of the Human Genome Project's budget is dedicated "toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding availability of genetic information..." Many interesting issues have already been identified..
As you may recall, discrimination on the basis of genetic inferiority was illegal in Gattaca, too. But the corporations did it anyway because it was difficult to prove and the government didn't enforce it very well. They sort of let the corporations do as they please...
Maybe we aren't so different from Gattaca after all.
Of course, it's illegal to discriminate. 'Genoism' it's called. But no one takes the law seriously.
If you refused to discolse, they can always take a sample from a door handle, or a handshake, even the saliva on your application form. If in doubt, a legal drug test can just as easily become an illegal peek at your future in the company.
After all, all these diseases were caused by something. Why should I pay for your disease anyway? For you to try to make something special out of genetic diseases and/or risk factors simply means you don't believe you have one. If you had one, you'd think differently.
I'm happy when my insurance pays for the care genetically blind, deaf, etc. people. Much happier than when it buys someone a new mansion for the beach house a hurricane washed away, anyway.
It's amazing how unfair genetics really are. Some people have better genes in certain things than others and really some people are inferior to others in just about every way. (genetically, not socially). It's good to see that the government understands this, that jobs, insurance, etc are social issues and a society just cannot exist if people are denied things based on something they have no control over. Nice to see we are not going to turn into the haves VS the have-nots in terms of genes. (there is enough of that in high schools...get it, genes : jeans...some people have better...ook, lame joke)
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I'm not so sure about this, it seems like a good idea in hte sense of an employer not being able to sraw blood, but then again, is it really necessary? we'll have to see how it turns out, if hte house passes it.
He pissed in a cup.
The company already knew who he was and had decided to hire based only upon his genetic code.
His "interview" was just providing a biological sample to confirm his identity.
Welcome our genetically inferior overlords!
And Gertrude at 6:00.
Helga's a lovely Olympic weight lifter from Russia. Weighing in at a svelte 250 pounds, her hobbies include shaving her mustache and pig farming.
Yep, that's the law. They have to sleep with you and you have to sleep with them.
It seems obvious that the story submitter wasn't all that familiar with the movie he was referencing.
I can finally include my cat on my kaiser?
During one of the narrations by Ethan Hawke, he states that laws had been passed to protect people from genetic discrimination, but it is simply too easy for an employer to find a DNA sample. The bill must have meaning and enforcement to properly shape our future.
While I agree that insurers probably shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on genes, I don't see why in certain situations employer's shouldn't be able to screen applicants. Let me explain. There are many jobs, especially those that involve exposure to reactive substances, that people of a certain genetic background shouldn't be allowed to do. For instance, there are people who are genetically predisposed to become extremely ill when exposed to levels of berrylium that would cause no harm to a person who has a different allele of that gene. It only takes one gene and you can't screen for the gene by looking at a person or talking to them or looking at their resume. There are also people who are immune to HIV. They'd make excellent doctors and nurses in an AIDS ward. So while this legislation sounds great, it's nothing more than political grandstanding...
Actually in the movie Gattaca there are similar laws, it's just that the corporations don't pay attention to them(and get away with it). If you don't think that will happen in reality as well.. I think you're wrong.
I have been tested positive for the Huntington's Disease gene mutation. I am 24. I won't get sick until I'm 40 at the earliest. Until then, I'm completely healthy. But before this legislation, if an insurance company wanted to deny me coverage (thankfully they haven't yet) simply because I'll get sick 15 years from now, there's nothing to stop them. Same with employers. I could get fired since I won't be retiring from that company.
Now, I will no longer have to hide my HD from my doctor, or my friends, or my boss. This is life changing for those of us that it impacts.
Mod Parent Up!!!!
This is a powerfully important point, especially since the tide of outsourcing will likely continue. Today it's programmers, tomorrow it's lab technicians.
They had these laws in that movie, too. They were unenforced, and samples were drawn for "drug tests" and such.
The ethics of this situation are the usual ones I subscribe to: If you are going to benefit from public policy that is unfair to others you have an obligation to oppose such public policy and do so with an amount of resources comparable to the benefits you receive.
Seastead this.
As handily pointed out in Gattaca, where this law was in place, there are other ways around it. Just like in California where I cannot fire you because you are a single mother black lesbian jew with a physical handicap, but I CAN fire you because you are one of the above who happens to wear really ugly shoes that I can only rid myself of by firing you.
Admittedly, there may be one or two rare cases where someone writes on the pink slip: "you, single mother black lesbian jew with a predisposition for diabetes, are fired." Since most people exclude the portion between the commas, resorting to the more de riguer "you're just fired" these laws are pointless. Proving that you were fired for a specific reason when from all appearances you were fired for no reason at all is for all reasonable purposes impossible.
"Smashing, yay capitalism." -- Austin Powers
If you paid attention in Gattaca, there was actually mention of anti-discrimination legislation. It existed, and was intended to curb exactly the type of discrimination that the movie's premis was based on. But it didn't. Why? Because it is often very difficult to prove discrimination. How do you prove that your ex-potential employer scoured the room for your dead skin cells after you left, and run them through a screening process? How do you prove that your employer had a back-room meeting with a geneticist, discussing your potential shortcomings, costs, and life expectancy prior to your hire? How do you fight the phrase "We just found other candidates superior to Mr. Smith", even if you know them to be false?
The short of it is, you can't. Not without tracking and recording every conversation, handwritten note, and thought process, which, thankfully, is not yet possible. (Though, with enough trained monkeys, this may change soon.)
In the meantime, we're going to have to put up with discrimination based on race, sex, sexual preference, skin color, hair color, political choice, and coming soon to a job near you, genetic risk factor. Just as it took place in Gattaca, and just as difficult to fight. My only hope is that it will not be so widespread and commonplace. But unfortunately, most companies are more concerned with the bottom line, than with legality, so here we are.
But from a slightly different prespective... would some genetic screening be so bad? In terms of setting a precident, certainly. After all, once you say it's okay to do in some circumstances, it inevitably becomes accepted in others. But I could see some scenarios where genetic screening would be beneficial to all parties involved. What if a gene was discovered that led to a greater resistance to chemical-induced distortions in your cells (such as cancer), even if it also lead to high blood pressure? You might make an excellent candidate for genetic research, chemistry, or molecular biology, even if you had a higher risk for heart attack. There are pros and cons. You'd be safer to employ, from a liability aspect... but riskier to employ, based on your life expectancy. Legislations is a good step towards allowing the former and eliminating the latter, but legislation alone will not solve the problem.
Seriously, insurance is anything but efficient. Indeed, it is inefficient by definition. Let me explain...
Insurance companies are in business to make money. They make money by accepting payments from customers, all the while doing their best to never do anything for said customers. Insurance companies don't bank on having to provide a service for you, it is just the opposite. That is why they create so many loopholes in your coverage to avoid having to provide service.
So, by default insurance companies choose to accept clients that they will never have to provide a service to, and those who need the service the most can't get it. That is not efficiency.
Socialized healthcare has the potential to be the absolute most efficient, because only the exact amount needed would be paid - no one needs to make a profit - and nobody would be denied healthcare. However, government tends to ruin efficiency in anything it touches, so we're fucked either way.
Cheers.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Thank you, sir, for your most intelligent and piercing comments.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
remember in the recent murder of Holly Jones in Toronto, one of the main suspects, who lived in her neighbourhood, was one of the few who refused to give a DNA sample to the cops.
the cops just shadowed him until he discarded a can of coca-cola, and got his DNA from the can.
BZZZZZZZZZZZT
Owned!
The Senator has a painful announcement to make. His daughter is mentally ill. This gives him special insight into a social injustice: insurance companies are less willing to cover mental illness than other forms. They place annual and lifetime limits on the number of permitted psychiatric sessions, for example. Moved by his pleas, the entire Senate agrees to stamp out bias against mental illness with a new law. If firms offer mental coverage, the law says, it must be identical to other forms of coverage. Otherwise, the victims of mental illness will continue to be "stigmatized."
It's no shock that the Senate has taken another step towards socializing the medical sector. That's been the pattern for nearly a century. What's appalling is that this socialization is confused with authentic insurance, a viable market institution.
Here's how real insurance comes about.
Life is risky. The roof might fall in. You might get hit by a car. Your own body might rebel, sending cancer cells on their deadly metastatic journey.
In theory, an individual can manage risk by himself by exercising extreme caution. He may stay home permanently while paying someone to run errands, or set foot outside only after exhaustive research on weather and traffic.
The trouble with most individualistic measures, though, is that they are self-defeating--sitting in one's living room all day (under a reinforced roof) is hardly conducive to good health--or prohibitively expensive. Worse, the individual is lost if his private preventive measures fail.
A better hedge is a risk pool, a group of individuals agreeing to help each other in case disaster strikes one of their number. Risk pools are common in everyday life, where high school students take notes for friends who miss class, and office workers share computers should one crash.
One obvious benefit of pooling risk is cost: letting someone use your computer should his break down, in exchange for use of his in case yours does, is cheaper than buying a backup system. A greater benefit of risk pools is their access to resources to offset the aftermath of disaster. If, despite every self-reliant effort at safety, your house catches fire, you are minus a house. Join a voluntary fire brigade, and your house may be saved.
But risk-pooling has its downside. There is of course each member's contribution, the premium he must pay. It is a nuisance to take exhaustive notes in chemistry class whenever a friend is absent. There are the transaction costs of calculating the resources each member must put in to balance expected gains. In fact, even though on average everyone gets out exactly what he puts in, the careful or lucky risk-pooler will put less into the bargain than he gets out.
Enter the entrepreneur, offering to assume everyone's risk for a price. He sells you coverage should some evil befall at a cost exceeding your expected gain; after all, the insurer is not in it for his health. (He's in it for yours.) In exchange, you save on negotiating time, and, more important, you gain surer protection against a wider range of catastrophes.
Spontaneous risk pools tend to be small, and limited in purpose. The guys in the office will cover for you if you miss a meeting, but they cannot put your kids through college if you die.
However, suppose an entrepreneur finds 100,000 people, each willing to pay $100 for the assurance that his kids will be put through college should he keel over in the next ten years. The pool now contains $10 million, enough for plenty of tuition bills. Enterprising insurers can merge payments to cover unique risks: Lloyd's once insured Marlene Dietrich's legs.
The critical factor controlling an insurer's costs, hence the price he asks for a policy, is the probability of disaster. He can sell life insurance of $50,000 to 100,000 people at $100 a head only if it is actuarially certain that fe
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
thanks for the penetrating insight. Maybe /. isn't as dumb as I thought. And to think, you're user #3658...having been on /. that long, it's amazing that you can still think at all. Quick, get out, before they realize you're IQ is still above the double-digits!
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
This still has to pass the House of Representatives...
Write your congressperson!
It's just marketers doing their marketing. Why bother when most will put in fake info anyway?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
The free market is the most logical solution to all problems from a utilitarian standpoint, not that that's a convincing argument. The real argument is that any tampering with the free market constitute's a violation of property rights; in the case of socialized medicine, it means the systematic theft (thus enslavement) of the healthy to help pay for the medical costs of the unhealthy. No-one has the right to receive the services of another person without compensating them what they'd otherwise accept on a free market: that's called slavery. Taxing people to allow a poor person to compensate the doctor is simply shifting the enslavement from the doctor to the taxpayer.
But let's analyze it logically. On the free market, let's say Insurance Company N (for naive) offers insurance at a completely flat rate, no matter the condition of it's participants. Now, what rational healthy person would be willing to pay the necessarily high premium that he'd have to pay to account for such subsidization of those benefitting? No-one. What's going to happen is that those in mediocre and poor health will go to this insurance company, but no-one of good health will go there, and those of good health will leave, seeking an insurance company which charges lower premiums. As those in good health leave, the percentage of individuals the insurance company has to pay claims to increases.
Thus, it has to increase the premium even further on those remaining (of mediocre and poor health). The result is that those of mediocre health are driven out. They don't want to pay higher premiums to subsidize those of poor health anymore than do those of good health want to pay high premiums to subsidize those of mediocre health. Now, what happens is the insurance company has to push up premiums even more. The pattern is cyclical. It will evolve such that the company will either go bankrupt or have premiums so high that those remaining would be better off going it alone.
Simply put, to ban insurance companies from assessing risk and rating premiums accordingly is to violate the right of freedom of association, a derivative of the right to private property.
Your comments about humanity and kindness are misplaced and naive. You cannot nationalize or socialize kindness and benevolence, not anymore than you can nationalize or socialize virtue. You do not create kindness by stealing money from person A, whom you deem "not to need that money", and giving it to person B, whom you deem "needs it". All that you are doing is enslaving person A to yourself, and making person B a dependant on you, thus dependant on your enslavement of person A. This statist intervention is what creates true class warfare. It is in B's interest to see to it that I, the State, continue enslaving A; meanwhile, any hospitality A may have had towards unfortunate B is eliminated. If you wish to be philantropic, do so with your own money and your own time; you are in no way acting "kind" by stealing property from individual A to give to individual B. You don't become a philanthropist by spending someone else' money on causes you deem worthy; you're just as much a thief -- and if you do so systematically, an enslaver -- as if you'd stolen property from them for your own private satisfaction.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I want to know which House Resolution # corresponds to the Genetic Privacy bill circulating in Congress :)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I was beginning to think that absolutely nobody here has any economics training. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your post!
You are absolutely correct. Health Insurance (or any insurance for that matter) is a cost sharing pool run, for profit, by the insurance agency. It is not a medical procedure or program. It's a bill paying mechanism. It has ALWAYS been based on trying to guess the relative risks of insuring an individual based on statistical data (i.e. actuarial tables) and then setting their rates accordingly. The only thing that genetic testing would do is to take the guessing out of it and render it more precise. Sure somebody might have to pay higher rates or even be refused PRIVATE insurance. So what? It simply means they either have to pay they're own health care costs or use public or charity hospitals. Hey nobody is born with a warranty and there is no constitutional right to have others pay your own way in life (even if it seems like most people think there is nowadays). If folks are so damned interested in fostering "help the less well off" schemes why not a right to food or clothing or shelter? Government provided Meal programs for everyone! A free lair to all!
You know why nobody advocates this. It's because the efforts in this direction on these rather concrete programs are too hard to miss. Almost everyone can see what kind of result that would lead to, and has lead to, but for some reason, the "everybody pays the same" medical program is esoteric enough and complex enough that some how we think it will result in a different outcome.
We know what we would get if we were to have a "same cost for everyone" housing program, or a "same cost for everyone" food program, but those who think you can repeal the laws of supply and demand and economics from medical care somehow think it will be different. Get a clue. It won't be
Actually in the Gattaca world it was illegal to discrimate based on DNA makeup but the law was ignored.
it seems that we're not heading towards a Gattaca-esque society, after all
Discrimination based on genetics was illegal in Gattaca. It just was an unenforcable law.Maybe for you, but i was hoping to make a killing on the black market selling off my "valid skin, urine, blood & mouth swabs for millions.
Being serious for a moment though. I love that movie, to quote it... which is a quote from Einstein (from what i can remember):
You tried your best, & you failed miserably,
The lesson is:
Never Try
Isn't part of the back story of Gattica that it was illegal to use DNA, but everyone did it anyway.
Yes, that was specifically mentioned.
I had never seen Gattaca before, nor even knew what the story was about... until today, after reading this Slashdot story, I felt compelled to stop by Best Buy (shame on me) on my way home from work and bought a copy on DVD for $15 (supporting the MPAA, double shame on me) and just now finished watching it a few minutes ago.
All I can say is WOW!
What a great story.
I think this is an absolute masterpiece of a sci-fi story... the quality of which I daresay deserves comparison to best of the classic, golden-era sci-fi dramas of Alfred Bester and Poul Anderson. This is the kind of sci-fi drama story that will be lingering in, and permeating my thoughts for many days to some. Kinda makes you sit back and look at the world in a different light, eh?
That was supposed to say "...for many days to come". Doh!
Okay, so one day you can't deny someone employment based on their Genes, if this bill becomes law.
So, some questions:
Let's think about how this might play around with the regulation regardling the Olympics and gene-doping. If the folks managing the Olympics are fearful of someone else's genes, should you be?
If you dope someone else's genes, are you considered a fraud? How would you prove your work or ability is your own if someone else's genes are giving you some of what's needed to do the job? (Okay, I know it's a stretch to presume work or ability has anything to do with Genes)
But while you can't fire someone for their genes, can you fire someone for using someone elses? I'd like to borrow Ted William's genes for example, I hear they're for sale and I'd love to be able to hit a baseball better than I do now...
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
Your argument might carry some weight if it were, yanno, true. Market economies are grossly inefficient and antisocial allocative mechanisms--I see no reason to prefer markets over alternatives that encourage efficiency and equity.
Popular belief aside, market economies (capitalist or otherwise) and traditional socialist command economies are not the only choices we have as a society. Further, markets are not some received wisdom -- like, I don't know, quantum physics -- that demonstrate axiomic principles about the way goods and services must be distributed.
Those two falsehoods serve to protect reactionary statements such as yours as realpolitik while blocking out a discussion of meaningful alternatives.
Private property is a dehumanizing concept, as you point out.
Fortunately, we needn't accept a view of private ownership of productive goods in order to operate an economy that supports equity (remuneration based on effort), efficiency, and democracy (economic self-management).
Private ownership (that is, private enterprise) is a concept that's orthogonal to market distribution, however.
Well, nobody likes slavery, so it must be true.
Yes, well, taxes and taxpayers are an unnecessary concept as well.
The movie was on the Belgian television yesterday, and one thing strikes me, reading this article.
Even though, in one small part of the big big world, genetically checking employees is not allowed, it was clearly mentioned in the movie that that practice was not legal there too.
Employers, however, would simply take some DNA of the doorknob, or analyze the urine-sample for "drug-testing".
Clearly, this law is not a complete practical ban on genetic testing, if it ever be widely available. There will probably need to be organisations that guarantuee that this ban is implemented correctly. A sort of "ombudsman" so to speak.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Gattaca's whole point is that somehow genetics can make you more or less qualified for a position and that's Wrong(tm).
But wait. Genetics determine our skills and our tolerance for a job situation. Good luck joining NASA and getting a ride in a shuttle if you have a heart condition. Is that unfair discrimation? No. It's recognizing a "flaw" in your genetics that could kill you and ruin a mission. If you could genetically fix that "flaw" you should be qualified if nothing else was preventing it.
I remember back not more than a hundred years ago we wouldn't hire people because they were black or whatever. Now we have laws against that. But wait. We still have positions that are filled based on skin color, sex, religion ad nauseum. Mostly entertainment roles but also covert missions in the government. Sorry, whitey but you're not going to be infiltrating an Iraqi group any time soon. Bill Cosby made a point of having an all African American crew and cast while bringing on a variety of nationalities as guests.
The only reason Gattaca isn't just a story about racial discrimination is because It Could Happen To You(tm). Techically it's a pretty silly movie considering we've established anti-discrimination laws for decades now. It's not a new issue other than a "new" way to discriminate. People are only afraid because someone might be able to pay money to get more qualified for a position genetically and want a way to cry foul for no justifiable reason.
You know what, if I get lasik and all other things being equal, I have much better eyesight than you, I'm rightfully more qualified to fly a fighter jet than you.
What's the difference between being born with eagle eyes and getting surgery?
None. If you can buy yourself a bigger brain, awesome, take the job doing super smart stuff that other people wouldn't be able to do. I don't care if nature discriminates against you and gives you a genious IQ or if your bank account allows it, you've got an asset.
Our anti-discrimation laws should be sumed up as:
"You may not refuse to hire someone based on qualities that will not affect their performance in the position they are seeking."
And that's it. And if someone buys a big giant head and gets a position over you because they are smarter and more qualified, you can whine to a judge on a case by case basis instead of pretending that some blanket statement law is going to solve anything.
There are plenty of beautiful, smart, socialable people who do every imaginable job on the planet. Changing genetics does NOT change the heart. Just because you're beautiful and can act doesn't mean you're going to be a movie star. You may want to be a teacher or any other number of positions.
So really, genetic modifications doesn't change anything at all. Gattaca was an interesting movie but it was far from innovative or insightful when you really sit down and contemplate the world we live in.
Work Safe Porn
If you remember correctly, in Gattaca such a law exists, which forbids employers to use DNA tests to select their candidates. But, of course, they aren't applied: in today's world, do you object when a recruiter goes beyond its duty and asks you about your private life, when you absolutely need the job and know several others need the sale job ?
However, they are allowed to discriminate against pre-existing conditions... even if you didn't know about them.
So, as the genome is mapped, and causitive genes are found, they can drop you for a disease you may not get for 50 years. (If you live that long).
Privacy... yeah, right. Privacy and protection for those with a "non-deterministic" genome, maybe. Those who have causitive genes for later-life diseases are SOL.
that's the first I knew of people without DNA. :-D
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
that would be extortion, as would other power-plays (threats to initiate violence unless someone signs a contract). A contract signed under the pressure of extortion is invalid.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
for who is to enforce and interpret the constitution, but the entity in power, namely the State? The last 300 years have proved that no matter how carefully you've thought out a system of "checks and balances", the state will invariably grow and grow and grow, meaning more war (mass murder), more taxes (mass-enslavement), and the complete and utter violation of property rights (which are the foundation for all other "rights" we speak of).
The only way to protect against that is anarcho-capitalism. Under anarcho-capitalism, ultimate power rests with the consumer, and he exercises that power daily. Sure, the rich may have more "consumer power" than others, but as they exercise that power (buy things), they likewise diminish it. The only way for them to replenish their purchasing power is to continue making products that other consumers like, and in that area, they can be dethroned at any instant if they are sloth.
In an anarcho-capitalistic system, there would be courts and police, but they would be appointed by and dethroned by the consumers. see http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
The system you seem to support seems like anarcho-capitalism, except without private courts; hence, anyone can do anything they want, including murder, rape, and steal. This is hardly ideal, though certainly better than the current system (where the State has a monopoly on murder, rape, and theft, and engages in mass-murder periodically). Of course, in your system, norms could enforce rights; e.g., if someone is found to be a murderer, groups of individuals could blacklist him and refuse to sell him anything. This would be minimally effective, however, compared to having a privitized court system, with punishment determined by the victims: see http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Btw, "society" never intervenes in anything. It is always individuals, not groups, that act. If they act together -- e.g., sing together -- it is still the individuals that are singing, albeit in chorus.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
what I meant was that in anarcho-capitalism, there would be...
Woah! Hold on a second--
bwahahahaha!
*cough* Sorry about that--it was rude. I should have just balked.
In "anarcho-capitalism," there wouldn't be much of anything, comrade. I'd like to see such a poisioned and viscious idea make it a day or two.
I'll tell you what, I'll bring the beer and we can watch the fireworks together.
There's no such thing. It's a contradiction in terms.
Just call it what it is--laissez-faire capitalism or objectivism (depending on your flavour) and be done with it.
your comments about canadians are irrelevant, as are your ad hominem attacks on me. "Society" is simply short-hand for the cummulative effect of the interactions of all individuals with eachother. Society does not do anything. It is only individuals who act; even if they act in concord, it is individuals who are choosing to act in concord with other individuals. Your concept of us owing "society" something is non-sense, which amounts to the enslavement of those who work to those who don't.
h ttp://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty8.asp
Paying taxes is no-more an obligation than is accepting theft and robbery. Taxes, btw, largely go to support murder on a mass-scale. As for "helping the poor and sick", that is a moral virtue which is eliminated by taxes. Taxes to forcibly redistribute wealth from those who work to those who don't only create resentment, and enforce an unhealthy attitude of entitlement. Irrelevant of your assertions, the only thing we are obliged to do is not to initiate violence against anyone else. No-one is entitled to my labor without compensating me what I would accept of my own free will, nor are they entitled to the proceeds of my labor without compensating me.
Welfare and other programs to "help the poor" only worsen their situation, by encouraging individuals not to work, and creating a permanent class of individuals who don't work and are parasiting off of the work of those who do. I suggest you read the following references to understand this:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty7.asp
Yes, I have "money" and thus a job. And no-one -- no matter their situation -- is entitled to my labor without compensating me for it, nor the proceeds of my labor without compensating me for it. I am not some uncaring asshole; however, neither am I an idiot. Simply giving people hand-outs does not help them. It only creates dependence. Indeed, I would go so far to say that private charity to "help the poor" which gives them handouts for nothing is actually harmful, as it enforces a sense of enitlement. The Mormons have an excellent private welfare system, where those helped are expected to get a job, or at least provide services to the Church, and the length of time they are helped is limited.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The free market is not some oppressive institution created by the "evil capitalists" with their tophats. That's a Marxist fallacy. It is the natural result of the voluntary interaction of individuals interacting peacefully with eachother. As for private property, that's also a natural result of individuals interacting peacefully with eachother; private property comes into existence when previously unownedl and is homesteaded. It allows for individuals to avoid territorially fighting over the same set of resources like wolves.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec3.asp
h ttp://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp
From your comments, I can only presume that you are a syndicate anarchist. I suggest you read the following chapters from Mises' "Human Action":
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec2.asp
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
in an anarcho-capitalist world, there would be no intellectual property. Thus, your scenario where a company prevents a vaccine from reaching everyone is unlikely, as other companies could make generic knock-offs.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen