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."
Because insurance companies manage their rates based on trackable probabilities and their claims history. If an insurance company a show that those with genetic pre-dispositions for certain conditions have higher claim rates, this will become a metric for increasing prices without actually having a diagnosis for the conditions in question.
Trust me, this is not a good thing for the consumer if such data becomes a standard part of ones medical history and I SELL travel medical insurance.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Wasn't there a movie about this?
Because genetic planning, or whatever, exists it doesn't really matter whether genetic discrimination is allowed or not. It is simply the fact that genetically better people are more suited for things than genetically worse people. It's no more a matter of discrimination or not, but simply a matter of objectively looking at the attributes of each person.
The health insurance I pay is probably based more on phenotypic differences rather than genotypic. I don't smoke, but I do ride a motorcycle. Maybe I have the genes for some disease or another, but it's far from certain that I will develop it. OTOH, the fact that I don't smoke (or work in a popcorn factory, etc) means I am virtually assured of not getting lung cancer, and if I continue to ride often I am virtually assured of sliding down the highway at least once. The way we choose to live our lives will probably weigh more heavily in the way we continue to pay for health insurance than a nascent science whose findings will change year to year.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I've often wondered how a universal, single pay system could legally be created within these United States. It seems to me that the Federal government may not have the authority to create a workable system for universal coverage. It can regulate most forms of employment and most commercial activity, but a lot of the people who need coverage are retired, unemployed, or children.
Each state certainly has the authority to do this, but I suspect some states will lack the resources or desire. This would probably make it possible for folks to "game the system" by moving between states depending on their health needs.
So, how could this work? Or would we HAVE to stick with private insurance, and just assume the rates will go up to compensate for people who game the existing system?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Ban insurance completely.
It's a protection racket, under guise of a protection racket. No better than mobsters did in the early 20th century.
P.S. I work in the insurance business.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
Without the risk of discrimination, increased genetic testing could be a boon to both consumers and insurers. The earlier we know about a condition, the less expensive and more effective it is to treat, with likely a higher quality of life. Genetic testing would allow us to better assess who to monitor to attain this early detection. Moreover, with increased knowledge of risk factor, a patient could choose lifestyle changes that are preventative. (Even cheaper for insurers and further improved quality of life for patients!)
Take skin cancer: if you know you lack a key tumor suppressor gene that makes you more sensitive to UV damage, you'll be much more likely to use sunscreen and avoid peak sunlight hours (lifestyle/preventative); you'll also know to keep closer tabs on your freckles and moles for melanoma (monitoring).
With a level, non-discriminatory playing field, both patients and insurers benefit from the knowledge, rather than just insurers who want to drop any patient they can. -- Paul
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
i don't have the link but i seem to remeber the top fund in australia pays out more then 90% of it's memebers fee's in health care.
i'm young and fit and i hardly have any need for health cover, but i could do and i WILL need it when i'm older. So i pay into my fund now which means my premiums stay lower, and the industry benefits from it as a whole.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
In America the goal was supposed to be to protect the rights of citizens so they could live their lives as THEY see fit, not to improve their lives according to some government-defined criteria. Anyway, health care could never be a right in the same manner that for example the right to free speech is, because my right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to listen. My presumed right to health care would require other people to pay for it, however, which makes it a peculiar sort of right that takes from someone else in equals amounts as it gives to me.
Yeah, a study showed that obese people and smokers generally cost less in lifetime health care because the diseases killed them younger.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Sorry, but this is not the status quo. You need two look at both sides of the equation. Yes, insurance companies have never been able to discriminate based on genetic testing. However, their clients, us, will have a priori knowledge. If I know I am genetically disposed for a specific condition, I can game the system to make sure I bear as little of the cost as possible. Insurance companies either will not know about the genetic predisposition or will not be legally allowed to act on it, but I will be able to.
The more I think about it, even being a libertarian, the more I think federalized medical care is best. Either private insurers fuck us, or the government fucks us. Either I pay lots of money out of my paycheck (including a lower salary just for participating in the plan), or the government taxes me. At the end of the day we would still have a bloated, expensive system, but if the government runs it, we have better accountability.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
If genetic predisposition is predictive enough to kill health insurance, it would be fantastic. I;ve been trying to tell people for years that the problem with the health care system IS the insurance companies. You can follow the history quite clearly, as health insurance has become more am more prevalent, prices have risen. Unfortunately Big Insurance has a strong hold over government and media, and has everyone dancing to the same piper --i.e. mandate insurance and prices will drop. But it's a LIE! And they know it. The reason is b/c health insurance isn't insurance. Insurance is only effective for rare/emergency events. But health insurance covers every actively of health care and therefore is just payment scheme.
The only GOOD SOLUTION is to outlaw private health insurance, have the government provide life-and-limb coverage to all, and have charities shore up preventive care for the poor. This would remove the middle man and provide the best care per dollar spent.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Aw hell; I waited 2 freaking years with debilitating back pain before my HMO doctor would recommend a freaking MRI.
By then it was too late, the wear on my cartilege was irreversible, and the bones had begun to fuse. (constant pain? you bet!).
The criteria for an MRI was that I had to lose bowel or bladder function from nerve damage.
But they certainly got my monthly premium all that time.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
We should start with banning crap like naturopaths. yes insurance companies actually pay these quacks.
Why ban naturopathy? Because you want only allopathic doctors? Everything else is quackery?
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, if the insurance companies are allowed to dicsriminate based on genes they will exclude the weakest, who will then lose out, and they aren't, those with bad genes will abuse the system, and the insurance companies will lose profit. There are two things to say about this:
1. Universal, public healthcare will remove the problem - no one will lose out because of their genes, and no one will lose profit, because the system isn't geared towards profit anyway.
2. Insurance companies are businesses and are supposed to be clever enough to do business the given reality. If they aren't, they have no right to exist as businesses.
In most European countries this is much less of a dilemma - the public healthcare takes care of everybody, and private healthcare is simply a luxury option that gives you faster access to non-emergency treatments etc.
The solution is to sell health insurance like homeowners insurance. If you live in a flood zone, you'd better have flood insurance. Similarly, if you have a predisposition to heart disease, you should have to by heart disease insurance or you get no coverage for it.
My rights don't end where your feelings begin.
Part of me agrees with this, but I am a father of three young children. When my kids get sick, generally an ear infection or strep throat, they all have to go to the doctor and usually my wife and I do too. Let's assume it's just my kids. By the time I pay copays for medical care and Rx's I'm out at least $75 ($25 / per). That doesn't sound like a lot, but it is to me and this can happen once a month in the winter. Add my wife and I to the mix, or one higher copay Rx and I can easily be up to $150 or more for one sickness that runs through my family.
The other thing you don't think about is how difficult it is to compare prices at different hospitals or locations (plus who wants to constantly switch doctors, it's not like grabbing toilet paper at Aldi's instead of Wal-Mart). I have no idea what things should cost and I have no idea what is required. I keep myself relatively well informed and it's still almost impossible to read the damn receipts. The ones I get from the insurance company are much better. They show what was done, how much the doc wanted to charge, and how much they allowed them to charge (the difference between those two numbers ranges from 10% to 90%, I'm not kidding).
So who is going to keep the docs honest? Consumers don't have the knowledge or the will (put a price on your life?, ok now put one on your mother-in-laws). To abandon the current system would cause at least a decade of skyrocketing prices. Then, when everything crashes and we get used to drinking a foul mixture of herbs in a dirt floor hut for medical care, things will climb back up and normalize. I would rather not see this turmoil.
FYI, I pay about $378 / month for medical and dental to cover my family. I fund a flex acount with $1300 / year which is pretty much gone now and it's not even May. So extrapolating that I would assume I have around $3000 in out of pocket expenses in a given year, this includes eye care. Family of 5 around $50k gross.
Cheap storage VM.