Slashdot Mirror
Bill To Outlaw Genetic Discrimination In US
fatduck sends us a brief note from New Scientist about the overwhelming passage in the US House of Representatives of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. As written, the bill would prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates, and employers from discriminating in hiring, based on the results of genetic tests. A Boston Globe editorial notes that the bill has been held up in the Senate by the action of a single senator, who has an (outdated) objection based on his anti-abortion stance. President Bush has said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
Now if they would only do something about flying car fuel efficiency standards.
I have the legendary cytosine-guanine combo going for me.
I fail to see why this is even an issue?
If Insurance Company X wants to discriminate that's fine and dandy. Big deal. Eventually some other insurance company will probably pick up the pace and find some way to offer these people insurance without outrageous prices, but what really is wrong here? It's like saying an insurance company can't charge people different rates based on sex.
It's just silly and another anti-discrimination agenda that makes people across both party lines and ideologies "feel good" about themselves when really, they're just making the economy less efficient.
the Political Inquirer
It's illegal to fire someone for trying to start a union at his place of work, but I got fired, anyway. They claimed I had quit.
Suddenly the burden of proof falls to the injured party and all the "big bad company" has to do is have some form of plausible denyability.
Big words, high ideals, changes nothing.
-Eldurbarn
(1) Who is the single senator? (whose name is apparently much more difficult to type than 'single senator')
(2) What makes his objection "outdated"? (For that matter, what *is* the objection?)
(3) What is he actually doing that's "holding up" the bill?
At least the main thrust of the article is expounded, but, geez, does this guy run around in a mask and a cape and do all his legislating at night, or why exactly did the submitter feel the need to leave his person and actions cloaked in mystery?
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
After I already paid the guy to become a borrowed ladder and spent four weeks in leg braces to get taller. Thanks for nothing!
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
... since there isn't enough in my current medical history to be used against me by insurance companies. Now I feel perfectly safe and secure since everyone knows every company adheres to each and every law no matter how specific.
While I agree with the spirit of the bill, they need to do something better. Genetic information should be restricted medical information only. More than the fact that employers and insurers should not be allowed to discriminate based on the information, they shouldn't be allowed to have or see that information at all. Preventing them from making decisions based on the information is an area frought with grey areas that it runs the risk of being highly ineffective because in spite of the fact that there are many criteria by which insurers are prohibited to descriminate, they manage to skirt the matter by descriminating based on "similar" and statistically related information... you know, like zip codes instead of ethnicity?
The only way to truly prevent the problem from occuring is to make it illegal for them to house the information entirely. There's no grey area there. They either have it or not. Their databases either contains provisions for it or not. If they have it, you shouldn't even have to ask why. They should be fined, reprimanded and shut down until the information is proven to be purged from their databases and database record formats.
If someone suggests "but it's about identity!" I'd have to remind them that the SSN is already being illegally abused for that purpose... it's more than enough.
I'm in favor of this law, don't get me wrong, but I thought we'd been practicing "genetic discrimination" since life began.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
1. We already allow insurance companies to perform complex calculations using family histories, lifestyle choices, income, living conditions etc. A whole industry is dedicated to the task of deciding as accurately as possible just who is likely to live long. I can already deduce with superb accuracy how long someone is likely to live. Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and hypertension can all be predicted rather well already. Genetics essentially is the icing on the cake, adding rare genetic conditions to the list of scannable factors. This is an incremental change, at best. Indeed, even with perfect genetic info, chance, will continue to play a major role. Hell, anyone can be hit by a car.
2. Perfect information about someone's future health might compromise the insurance system, but this is an institutional problem, not a moral one. (A weak analogy, I think, is webmaster vs. adblock. ) That two people, having vastly differing health prospects (one has undiagnosed Huntingtons, say) should pay similar premiums, is hardly an ethical judgment. It simply is how the industry operates now. Perhaps other ways exist? Life has existed before insurance, believe it or not. If indeed the function insurance fulfills is crucial under all situations, new ways of organizing it will emerge. We shouldn't seek to ossify technology just to protect status quo or a business model.
Once the genome is completely mapped, and every congenital defect is detectable, the life insurance industry will change completely. Even if they're not allowed to check, or base their rates on the results, you can bet insurance companies will take a quick look at what they can expect over the life of the policyholder. If I have a heart condition or a neurological defect that's going to kill me sometime between 55-70, that can really give the actuaries something to chew on. While not 100% certain of when I'll die, they know when I'm most likely to die, and the rest is all accident insurance.
A lot of auto insurance customers are up in arms about the "insurance score" that most US auto insurers use to determine part of your premiums. For those who don't know, the insurer runs a credit report to see how responsible you are with your finances. I guess the idea is that someone who doesn't pay their bills on time is most likely to commit fraud or be absent-minded and get into more accidents. Basing part of your life insurance premiums on a known portion of your long-term health history seems fairer to me than this.
I hope we do wind up with most of the genetic puzzle solved sometime in my life. We could wipe out most inherited conditions in 2 or 3 generations. A lot of people think it's too much like engineering a society, but I think it would be a great service to the species. There should be some limits, but who wouldn't want to get rid of conditions that produce people who are a burden on society? (retards, etc.)
don't you run the risk of people getting a prognosis for some horrific and debilitating disease and suddenly wanting the gold-plated health and disability plan, which the law would say has to be issued? Like going out and buying fire insurance for your burning house?
If we aren't allowed to "discriminate" on the basis of criteria we see fit, we are being denied the use of our most precious human asset: our neurons.
However, since the government insists on interfering in family matters by prohibiting euthanasia within the family setting -- the government thereby must pay the full costs of humane care for people thereby kept alive.
PS: I do not by the way consider it unethical to encourage my relatives to avail themselves of every benefit available to them under the law. I consider it unethical merely to fail to speak out against such laws given the benefits accruing to me indirectly via them. The same standards of behavior should hold for anyone who benefits from any form of "anti-discrimination" law.
Seastead this.
Shouldn't an airline be allowed to deny a pilot a job based on a profile that determines he's likely to suffer seizures?
That is what's called a bona fide occupational requirement and yes, they can.
Should an insurance company have to carry and not charge extra for somebody whose genes are programmed to misfire when the applicant turns 35?
Well, the idea behind insurance is to spread risk over a large pool so when you need to pay out you have the cash; that's why gruop policies are generally cheaper than individuals. Insurance companies already do a lot of risk assessment to determine what to charge; this bill prevents them from selectively excluding people due to a possibility of an adverse outcome.
Now, they should be able to use testing results for a statistically valid sample to determine overall group risks and price accordingly; but that's what they do today.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I had a horrible chill about Gattaca as soon as I read the title. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
127.0.0.1
That right there killed any chance of it getting through Congress, so discussing the bill's effectiveness might be pointless. Also, there are claims that scientists have found a gene for alcoholism. What else might our genes do to us that insurance companies might want to know about? If, for example, there is a gene that makes you prone to highway hypnosis. That sends you likelihood of you being in a accident up and, if this bill is not passed, probably your insurance rates. Of course, you are still more likely to be in an accident and have your rates go up then.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I was not familiar with the practice of legislative holds, so I googled it and found this description by the same senator that is holding up this bill, Tom Coburn. I thought others might find it interesting as well.
Wouldn't this mean you couldn't refuse to hire my dog if he filled out an application? I think rover might finally pull his own weight.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
You do know that men and women receive different insurance rates and benefits, right?
Actually, although it is by no means an ethical duty of my family members to avoid passing on "defective" genes, the lines containing these genes are in-laws to my nuclear family and, yes, the Huntington gene is not being passed on -- although given the fact that the gene has been identified and may be amenable to editing even in the germ line in the near future renders it far less urgent that it not be passed on. The genetic susceptibility to aspergers is another matter entirely. Environmental triggers of autism spectrum have yet to be identified so it isn't reasonable to expect people with autism spectrum disorders to terminate their bloodlines simply because some corporations or governments have imposed environmental disaster upon them.
If you want people with genetic defects to stop having children then you should take your case up with Ashkenazi Jews who seem to have a preponderance of genetic disorders which are -- interestingly enough -- highly correlated with higher cognitive performance. You can tell them "correlation doesn't imply causation" or something to get them to disappear from the face of the earth... Go for it...
Seastead this.
There are genetic tests under development (and a few already available, like Huntington's) that will allow much earlier detection of some diseases. In many cases, this will allow earlier treatment, extending lives and probably reducing overall medical expenses. However, no one is going to be willing to take the tests if they're going to become uninsurable because of it.
This isn't so much about discrimination or allowing actuaries to do a good job as it is about letting new tests become useful at all. After all, the insurance company has no more useful information if you don't take the test than if they're not allowed to use the results.
So, I was tested, and I have a Y chromosome. You'd better give me cheaper car insurance at the XX rate, or I sue.
If you have some kind of condition that makes you probable to cardiac arrest under high stress conditions or low-g environments (astronauts?) and there is genetic screen process available for this shouldn't these institutions be allowed to test candidates for these? After all, they do eliminate people based on physical fitness, eyesight etc. which are all heavily influenced by genetics.
Reading the words, it says they cannot discriminate against a healthy person.
While that makes sense, the more heinous discriminate is doing so against a person once they are sick.
So once they ARE sick and HAVE a bad gene, then they can really ratchet up the premiums.
Since no one mentioned this, I expect that will be possible under this bill. (If this WAS included in the bill, THIS would be the true strength of the legislation)
The fact that so many representatives voted for it and the power of the insurance companies, make it likely that this, again, will be the case.
The problem with this is that we end up with everyone having 'perfect' genes, then we have no ginetic diversity, then BAM, a flu* comes along that kills us all in a couple days, because no one is resistant. It took a gene that causes a slightly week heart** to be resistant.
* insert infectious disease here
** insert imperfection here
"Of course, it's illegal to discriminate, "genoism" it's called, but no one takes the law seriously. If you refuse to disclose 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." - Gattaca
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Suppose I do not have any of these genetic risks. Suppose that I am celibate and therefore do not worry about aids. Suppose I do not wish to subsidize those who are subject to these risks. Can I buy insurance offshore, in say, London, excluding AIDS and allowing genetic tests, to get a lower rate? If I can, and enough people find out about it, it will effectively nullify this law and other "anti-discrimination" laws.
Too many people look at insurnace as a charity, and that everyone should be entitled somehow to cheap insurance. That's not what it is. There are two reasons to take out insurance. (1) if you believe the odds of cashing in on policy x the value of the policy exceeds the cost of the loss x the chance of the loss, or (2) if the harm caused by the event uninsured is unacceptable regardless of the low odds of it occurring. We take out auto insurance for the second reason, not because we believe we are going to run into someone, but because they could sue us for $2M and that would financially ruin us. The insurance companies carefully calculate the odds for the first situation, and you can bet every penny that they have determined that statistically they will come out ahead. This is how they determine the cost of policies, and this is why they need as much information on the details of the insured before they can come up with a policy cost. Buying insurance for this reason is like gambling... the house always wins. The margin may be low, but they DO always win in the end.
If you go into a policy with a "prior condition" that changes the odds dramatically, and they have to adjust the cost of your policy accordingly to keep in the black on the average. This is not unexpected and not unfair. If they are fairly sure they are going to have to pay out on you, your rates are higher because on the average, your payout will be higher than their average customer. The rest of their customers do not want to have to pay for your increased risk
Of course with unknown preexisting conditions like say, a congenitcal heart defect, they won't win that bet, but they can't know. So they raise *everyone's* rates a hair to make up for the unknown.
What these ppl here want to do is to take what should be a higher policy rate for them, and dump it onto all the rest of us, a little bit for everyone. That's NOT how it's supposed to work, and I really don't feel like helping you to pay for your insurance policy.
IMHO, insurance companies should be allowed to conduct any test they want on you. Companies with more tests or more invasitve tests will get less customers so free market will keep the abuses in check. If you don't want to submit to tests, you will probably have to get a different, more expensive policy, and that is to be expected. Though if you pass their tests you get a lower rate than you would have otherwise. Fail the tests and owell, high rates. Quit crying, it's not their fault, that's how life works. Go blame god or something, don't hike MY rates.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Okay, I agree with the employers thing... it's in line with our current anti-descrimination laws, and on that basis I'll accept it.
.. if your mother is 5 times less likely to crash her car than I, why shouldn't she be paying 1/5th of what I do in insurance.
But Insurance?? Really??
I pay more on my car insurance because I am a Male who is under 25. (well I did until I turned 25)... so that would be in violation of both age and sex descrimination laws wouldn't it??
Insurance works on statistics... as a <25 year old Male, I am statically more likely to act like an idiot and crash my car.. so, chances are I pay more insurance than your mother would.
This is 'fair'
So... if we move onto health insurance, and you have a genetic predispisotion towards obesity, high blood pressure and diabeties you are 4 times more likely to cost the health system more money than a healthy, young male. Tell me why I should be paying the same health insurance premium as you?
Insurance companies have done well over the past century. Look at the largest buildings in any city in America, if it isn't a bank, it's an insurance company. Here is how it works:
1) Convince people they need insurance to cover the cost X of Service S.
2) Insured people can now afford to pay more so provider charges X+Y for service S.
3) Rising cost of (X+Y) means people can no longer afford service S so they must buy more insurance.
4) ??? Profit
5) goto step 1
Insurance companies don't need the ??? step and they don't need all of the advantages they've been able to buy from congressional and state representatives including:
1) Require that everyone buys insurance (I'd love to see a law requiring everyone to buy my company's products.)
2) Require that everyone buys extra insurance to cover those who break law 1.
3) Don't sell insurance to those who are likely to collect. (e.g. Don't sell earthquake insurance in earthquake zones or flood insurance in flood zones) Instead, let the federal government create a "federal flood insurance" or go ahead and sell disaster insurance in if a disaster occurs, file chapter 11 bankruptcy and leave town fast!
4) Don't provide medical insurance for those with medical conditions. (e.g. if there is ANY gap in insurance coverage due to a job loss or inability to pay COBRA, you will be considered a new customer by all insurance companies and your condition (diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure) will be considered a prexisting condition. If you can get coverage at all, you'll be paying upwards of $2000/month.
Example, someone I know has a child with diabetes. A false workplace claim by a compulsive lier cost him his almost decade long career and corporate health insurance coverage. Every health insurance companies he has spoken told him that they could cover his family except for the child with diabetes.