Slashdot Mirror
Bill Prohibiting Genetic Discrimination Moves Forward
An anonymous reader writes "The bill to ban genetic discrimination in employment or insurance coverage is moving forward. Is this the death knell of private insurance? I think private health insurance is pretty much incompatible with genetic testing (GT) for disease predisposition, if said testing turns out to be of any use whatsoever. The great strength of GT is that it will (as technology improves) take a lot of the uncertainty out of disease prediction. But that uncertainty is what insurance is based on. If discrimination is allowed, the person with the bad genes is out of luck because no one would insure them. However, if that isn't allowed, the companies are in trouble. If I know I'm likely to get a certain condition, I'll stock up on 'insurance' for it. The only solution I can see is single-payer universal coverage along the lines of the Canadian model, where everyone pays, and no one (insurer or patient) can game the system based on advance knowledge of the outcomes. Any other ideas? This bill has been in the works for a while."
they call it.
But no one takes the law seriously.
Ice Cream has no bones.
There are very few businesses that as a rule are genuinely evil, but insurance companies are one in that category. The whole idea of the entity that has to pay for your health only benefiting when they do not is morally flawed.
Health care needs to be a right, and the risk or cost spread over everyone, with no one excluded. This also means that any benefit in savings must be good for the whole. Private profit making business can not be part of this for it to really be fair to all.
We could have had really top notch health care for everyone for less than we have spent on this silly war in Iraq, and with the give away's big political donors in the name of 911, we could all have our own Doctor.
Health care just needs to come from general revenue, like the Military, and cover every one. We spend more on weapons than the rest of the world combines, and most of that is greedy contracters gouging us. Just the waste in the Pentagon budget could cover everyone.
I really think it is time to take our government back and have it serve us.
So There
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Yes, of course. But what does that have to do with the submitter's claim that banning genetic discrimination means the end of private insurance?
We've had private insurance for a long time without genetic discrimination, because genetic discrimination wasn't possible. This legislation bans genetic discrimination, thus keeping the status quo on this issue. How does that mean the end of private insurance?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It's just like counting cards in blackjack. If you the dealer is not allowed to change strategy on knowledge, players that place their bets according to the cards left in the deck can make a killing. Likewise, if the insurance company is not allowed to charge you according to how likely to you are to get a disease, people who buy insurance with full knowledge of their genetic predispositions will tax the insurance system by making sure they are fully insured for the diseases they will likely get.
The proposed solution of universal coverage would remove this problem.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It's not the end, but it is the first step on that road.
How long until we see companies that offer policies that don't cover specific highly testable conditions? Sure, they can't test for the condition, but you can -- and choose the policy accordingly. Then the "generic" policies cost more because all the people *with* the genetic markers buy those, and the people without buy the other policies. If the consumer has access to the information, they will try to use it to reduce their insurance costs. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, useful information like this *will* get used.
I predict the next law will be one mandating that any health insurance policy cover certain sorts of conditions, specifically to prevent the above. The collection of patches to the insurance system will grow and grow, until it finally becomes untenable and something major changes.
Sharing risk is supposed to be the goal of insurance, going back to when it was a group of shipowners getting together in Lloyd's Coffeehouse to agree to cover each other if any of their ships sank (they all made a little less profit, but none had to worry about being utterly ruined by a single event. If insurers begin to stratify the clients on the basis of genetic testing, a market will arise to insure the never-tested against bad test results (pay us $xxx up front, and we cover your increased premiums). What the proposed legislation does is force participation in that market, by essentially bundling it with all policies. That may be a good thing, because it's otherwise too easy for the insured to game the system (get a test secretly, buy "testing insurance" only if the test shows that it would pay off). The problem with the whols system is that the market appears to have failed. You can't simply pay a little bit more to find an insurer who won't tell you, go ahead and die!
Your comment illustrates exactly what is wrong with the medical insurance system we have today: the idea that the purpose of insurance is to save everyone money.
With a properly functioning insurance system, you would expect to probably pay a bit more for your premiums than you would for the medical care that you actually receive. In return, you would be protected from having to foot the bill for an unlikely catastrophe.
Instead, modern medical insurance has degenerated into a sort of payment plan for routine medical expenses.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Never assume that you won't need it because you are young and fit now.
Cancers like Leukemia or Lymphoma can strike anyone at any time. Look at the Hockey players and most recently the American Football player from the Minnesota Vikings who've come down with Leukemia.
I say this because I was young (8) and fit and I got Leukemia. Later I relapsed, and even later I've had a Cavernous Malformations of the Brain and a non-cancerous tumor of the nerve sheath.
Sometimes there is just a health bullet with your name on it.
i'm young and fit and i hardly have any need for health cover ...
It only takes 1 uninsured driver not paying attention long enough to change that for you. Young and healthy is not mutually exclusive with accidental injuries.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
You seem to be under the impression that the US has the best health care in the world. We do not. Not even close. Nearly all of the top countries in that field have socialized health care systems (the exception being Singapore, a micro-nation). Quality of care does not "always" decrease from socialization... in fact, it appears that the exact opposite occurs in most cases.
But hey, since when have stupid things like "facts" or "ethics" ever meant jack shit to conservatives?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
So how come, in oh-so-socialist Britain, every time they try to privatise or outsource parts of the (publicly-funded) National Health Service, there's a clear and marked pattern of drops in quality of care, overall service, manageability and an increase in cost?
The point is: medical care is a fundamental necessity in any society--modern or otherwise. Denying it because of affordability (which is ultimately your "solution") isn't just ludicrous, it's positively Dickensian. Healthcare has to be, by nature, universal, or perfectly preventable deaths occur on a wider scale than most would like to admit. Sure, you're "Free", but is the guy who lives on the street "Free"? What about the the woman down the road who's barely holding down her job in the bar and earning a pittance?
Perhaps your thinking is that people who can't afford healthcare should just become victims of natural selection, in a manner of speaking, so that only the frugal survive. Or, perhaps you think the Government can skirt the issue by providing some voucher scheme or something which provides free healthcare to those who can't afford it themselves: which, thanks to the wonders of taxation, is more unfair than just a straight healthcare tax (or "National Insurance" as it's called over here).
Britain might be "talking about" denying people access to medical care under certain conditions, but that's about all it's doing. Don't believe everything you see on Fox.
And, for the record, the NHS isn't by any means perfect--in no small part thanks to the efforts of our Glorious Government to outsource critical areas to the private sector--and for that reason alone people are perfectly free to pay a premium to avoid waiting lists, get a private room or prettier nurses in a commercial clinic; the healthcare they get should be of an approximately equal standard in either case, but people who can afford luxuries are welcome to splash out on them if they wish.
(Also, while the NHS isn't perfect, I'll take it over the US "sorry, you don't have any insurance, come back on Thursday for the free clinic and pray you don't need surgery" crap any day of the week).
It doesn't matter to you that medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, and for millions of Americans, getting sick or injured at the wrong time can destroy their savings and ruin them for the rest of their lives.
It doesn't matter to you that millions of people are unable to move to better jobs, even when those jobs are available, because they're dependent on their current employers for health insurance.
No, apparently all that matters to you is how well the system works for the wealthiest individuals, and to hell with everyone else. In America people do not wait months for basic services. Actually, they often do. Private health insurance (especially HMO) doesn't guarantee that you'll be treated any more quickly than people in Canada or the UK.
If your private insurer won't pay for a facility that can provide those "basic services" immediately, I suppose you can shop around and find a facility that will, but you can also do that under the national health care systems that Obama and Clinton are proposing.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
> medical care is a fundamental necessity
Boo hoo. Food is a fundamental necessity. So I guess the only solution is to nationalize the means of production, distribution etc of foodstuffs?
Shelter in much of the country is a fundamental necessity and pretty damned useful everywhere else. So do we nationalize housing and ration it too?
Outside of cities with mass transit, a car is now a fundamental necessity. See where your reasoning goes?
> Sure, you're "Free", but is the guy who lives on the street "Free"?
Yup. Freedom that doesn't include the possibility of failure isn't Freedom. Freedom includes the right to do things you (and me) think are dumb/wrong/etc. or it isn't Freedom.
If some guy uses their freedom to screw their life up I see no reason for you (using the power of government) to seize the product of my labor to help the asshole out. Now, being a civilized person, I might help the guy out if he is in my neighborhood (and he is ready to BE helped) but that is MY decision.
NO karma is granted for 'helping' with other people's money. Since the victim (taxpayer) didn't give it willingly they don't get any either. And since the target usually doesn't actualy get helped when some nitwit social worker tries to manage their life it is a loss all around. If you guys would get that fundamental truth into yer heads the world would be a better place.
The problem with wanting stuff for free is TANSTAFL. Somebody pays. And any system of distributing goods and services beyond voluntary exchange quickly leads to lowering production and thus to rationing.
Our current mixed free/socialist medical system offers ample examples of this in action, comparing and contrasting it with full socialist systems and with the historical record of a fully free system should be enough to convince any person capable of rational thought as to the more desirable direction we should be attempting to seek reform toward.
Democrat delenda est
> Others might say "you can be the crazy old coot out in the woods who's
> afraid of society, but we recognise that humanity is a family - we take
> care of each other and recognise that we're interdependent".
In other words YOU are deciding the crazy old coot is WRONG and by virtue of your superior morality/reasoning/whatever you claim the right to make another your slave and force him to obey your will.
By MY moral code that crazy old coot has every right to give you a 2x4 response applied directly to the forehead when you try it.
The right to be wrong is THE fundamental human right. It's fair game to reason with someone you think is making a bad decision but the second you use force to impose your will on them you have lost the argument. (Cases of extreme mental illness being an obvious exception. The moral argument being that the person isn't a free moral agent and will probably be grateful once they are sane.)
Democrat delenda est
Travel around parts of Europe for a time, for example. The subtle and not-so subtle attitude changes that come when people aren't deeply afraid of economic debilitation from injury or disease are remarkable. And these changes smack of freedom.
As to the earlier poster's argument about the risk of gov't trying to control your life: a) have you been paying attention to the US political climate? You call this new? and b) that's what the old saw about "eternal vigilance" is for, eh? In this case, it's a matter of the controlling power of corporations (insurance companies) vs. the controlling power of government. At least we have elected voices in one of those groups.
>> medical care is a fundamental necessity
> Food is a fundamental necessity.
Actually, humans survived for millenia without medical care. They rarely survive more than a few weeks without food.
Arguably, medical care isn't a fundamental necessity. Of huge value if you'd like to live comfortably for longer and have greater odds of surviving to maturity... but not actually a necessity for the species.
The problem is we mistake medical care for being a fundamental necessity. Then, when idiots choose to make payments on a bigger car or TV, instead of their health insurance, we wring our hands and give a damn when the consequences of "I'd rather have more money now and accept the increased likelihood of suffering or dying later." come back and bite them. Instead, "Wow? You made a really dumb choice, didn't you. Hope the TV was worth it." becomes "Oh, that's tragic. Look how the system failed to provide you with your basic necessity. We must do something!"
Medical care isn't a fundamental necessity - just damn nice to have and pretty sensible. If people would own their own dumb choices, it wouldn't be such an issue. Instead, we're in a society where we make stupid short term choices then whine about how unfair it is when the consequences hurt us, expecting others to help mitigate our stupidity.