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."

Comments

Re:what?

[Adambomb]

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.

Re:Hear hear!

[Nuskrad]

Yeah, a study showed that obese people and smokers generally cost less in lifetime health care because the diseases killed them younger.

Re:Good

[LunaticTippy]

The United States currently has the best healthcare system in the world.

No it doesn't. Not even close. We have the most expensive system in the world, but by any measure of results you won't find us anywhere near the top 20. Not infant mortality, life expectancy, disease survival rates, nothing.

Re:what?

[The Snowman]

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.

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.

Re:Medical 'insurance' is an extended warranty

[jafac]

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.