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.
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.
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 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?
> 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