Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Signs Genetic Nondiscrimination Act
artemis67 writes "This past week, President Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which would prevent health insurers and employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their genetic information. GINA is the first and only federal legislation that will provide protections against discrimination based on an individual's genetic information in health insurance coverage and employment settings.'"
Maybe there's hope for us mutants then.
X
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Sure you can legislate that you cant discriminate but if your employer or insurance company has access at all, they can just 'backdoor' you out the door.
( and no i didn't read it, it would be to large to wade thru on a holiday weekend )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Damn, Gina!
Those ATTTACAGATTAC ers deserve to be discriminated against.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
From the article: "Just a few weeks ago, GINA received overwhelming support in both the Senate, with a unanimous vote of approval, and the House of Representatives, where the legislation was passed by a landslide vote of 414-1."
Who was the one who voted against this?
So, my dog can now apply for a job? I mean, surely, she cannot be refused the job on account of being a dog, as that would be discrimination against her because of a particular genetic attribute (I.e. being a dog). Well, I know this probably isn't how it works, but it's a nice thought.
-- All your booze are belong to us.
...I still haven't told you about my son have I. He's a big fan of yours... ...unfortunately my son's not all that they promised. But then again, who knows what he could do.
For future reference, right handed men don't hold it with their left. Just one of those things.
You're gonna miss your flight Vincent,... (queue music, begin sobbing)
I tend to look on such legislation as likely to have the reverse effect to the one stated, because it is frequently written to provide cover, loopholes and exceptions for the powerful, well-connected industries it is supposed to govern.
And even with the best of intentions, it often has the effect of limiting an individual's rights to whatever is covered at the time, regardless of scientific and technological advances that can render such rights and protections woefully obsolete.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Gina? Please tell me it isn't administered by the VA...
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
He's usually the lone vote in these things.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/261/
Some didn't vote as well, how does that count?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
As much as I hate the current situation in which the insurance industry has had far too much power over healthcare, this legislation was absolutely necessary for our society to continue to function in anything like a normal way as genetic information becomes more commonplace.
As for loopholes, we the public must start an intolerable outcry the moment we hear of any such pending. This needs to be an across-the-board absolute, not a political game.
An article in Nature (proprietry web) a month ago analyzed the genetic content of James Watson, the co-discoverer of the genetic code, and the 2nd of four known people to have their genomes fully sequenced. Dr. Watson had three thousand observed mutations of which 32 were in the database of genetic diseases. This included Retinitis Pigmentosa, kidney failure and other potentially devasting diseases. However, it is not known why they were not expressed in his case. This is all the more reason to keep insurance companies from canceling insurances to those who might have any sort of genetic defect.
P.S. No, they did not discover the gene for making stupid racist remarks, which forced Dr. Watson into retirement last year.
It's an unusual sentiment for me, but I must applaud President Bush for being foresighted enough to pass this legislation.
I recently attended a futorological lecture at Oxford University on the possibility of genetically engineered 'persons' (not necessary human persons). The lecture was given by Nobel prize-winner John Sulston (an important figure in the human-genome project), John Harris (a bioethics expert), and was hosted by Richard Dawkins. The panel was very much in favour of continued research into genetic modification of humans, but placed a strong emphasis on the need for legislation to prevent powerful cliques from monopolising or abusing the technology.
One important point they made is that (just about) any technology can be used to give an overwhelming opportunity to those who are free to enjoy it, but that the norms of modern Western societies ensure that most people have the potential to take advantage of the majority of science's blessings. However, we can't simply trust large corporations or other powerful institutions to equitably distribute the advantages of these technologies. Regulation is needed, and Bush is providing a good first step.
So, in summary, we must continue to research and to pursue all avenues of research, but the applications of the research need to be very carefully thought through.
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
Otherwise they'd have found more simian DNA than Human, and he'd be fired!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
GINA... heh heh heh.
We all knew that Bush and GINA go together pretty plainly!
Get it? GINA as in vagina!
We need protection though from other forms of medical discrimination. Banning the Archaic BMI would be a good start. Limiting pre-existing conditions. Its amazing the things that will still get you disqualified. A yeast infection and even too many pimples as a kid... More needs to be done. I will take this small victory though.
So this legislation is supposed to deliver a non-discriminating society, where the privacy of our genetic information is sacred?
Color me cynical.
oh my god... it's full of stars!
Life's not fair and when you try to make it that way someone gets screwed. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm sure his primary reason is because there is no Consitutional authority for this sort of thing, in general.
But the reason none of them should have supported this is that the result can and will drive up the cost of health care for everyone.
If someone knows they are genetically disposed to malady "x", there is now a law which guarantees that they can get insurance coverage at the same price as someone who is at less risk. What does Congress expect them to do, not take advantage of that fact? If insurance companies can't set pricing based on full knowledge and actuarial statistics, but people can, it will increase costs.
Finally, why shouldn't people at greater risk pay more? Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. People discriminate all the time - employers discriminate by choosing more skilled workers over less skilled ones, consumers tend to discriminate against higher priced retailers, the President discriminates against the proles by shutting down traffic as his motocade makes it's way though a city. (Well, maybe that last one is bad discrimination).
In fact, this law discriminates against those who are at less risk for genetically identifiable diseases, by forcing them to pay higher insurance rates than they otherwise would.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Even after we made racial discrimination illegal it still went on, it is even debatable that it still goes on today with certain employers. If there is even the slightest chance that Health Insurance, future employers or everyday people can get a hold of it they will discriminate because people can't always suppress initial feelings of the things that we learn.
but by the girth of my wallet.
seriously, the only people who must be discriminated against are the poor. be sure to vote republican!!!
The article specifically states that the bill covers health insurance and employers. Most large employers just dump new employees onto their group policy and pre-existing conditions may or may not matter. So this sounds like it's geared towards the self insured and small employers who have to be choosy due to premiums.
But what about life insurance? If I'm a perfectly normal (seemingly healthy) person who has never been diagnosed with anything, and then I apply for life insurance and they find something in my blood, does this protect me against them not insuring me? Health Insurance is a big ticket item for an election year, but since I already have health insurance and am unlikely to ever not have a group policy I'm much more interested in banning life insurance companies from performing genetic discrimination.
Your first premise is WRONG. The legislative AND jidical branches of the federal government have been merged into the executive branch.
I thought you might be interested in your flawed reasonging.
Cordially,
K. Trout
Has anyone actually praising Bush for passing this stopped to think about the fact that it had enough support from Congress that it would've been pushed through even if he had vetoed it? So all he would have accomplished is delaying the inevitable and burning through what little public goodwill he has left.
"can afford to drive" and "can afford to travel" have nothing to do with each other. Americans have spent fifty years developing the idea that traveling alone is normal. It is not. Get on a damn train or bus, or carpool. 13MPG is pretty awesome if you have 12+ people in the vehicle.
But consider the implications of this base of legislation as leverage against homosexual discrimination. Once research "proves" homosexuality is genetic, will it be illegal to discriminate against them? I know this article is all about insurance companies, but on what basis does our government stand by telling someone else (in our own country) not to discriminate while they get away with it. And yes our government does that all the time, but we can dream...
the point of insurance is to share equal risk (to the extent that risks can be known). When some class of participant is allowed to tilt the odds in their favor, others lose.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
is that individuals now have reasonably priced genetic tests available to them, which they can take advantage of to tilt the odds. Insurers will now have to assume that anyone who purchases insurance for a disease for which genetic tests can show an increased risk, is in fact at increased risk of that disease. This unjustly discriminates against those at low risk for that disease, by forcing them to subsidize those at increased risk. Worst case, the coverage simply becomes unavailable, so no one benefits.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Who's blaming the Saudis?
The #1 country that the US gets its oil from is Canada.The #2 is Mexico, and a distant #3 is Saudi Arabia at 11.5% of the total imported oil. Nigeria and Venezuela are close behind at 10.5% each.
And what does this have anything to do with descrimination based on genetic information?
Did you run around screaming the it was everyones fault but yours when suddenly nobody was making 8-track tapes anymore? Its not the rest of societies responsibility to stay stagnant to justify the purchases you have made.
The world moves on, you didnt. Catch up if you want, but be aware that nobody is going to listen to you screaming that we should all be doing it your old status-quo way instead.
All that said, I still use a car.(shock!) and spend about $200/month in gas on it. I guess you are going to have to decide whats worth more, driving or sitting on your ass paying a cable/satellite provider $75-$100/month. life is full of tough choices. And most of us dont care that you think paying for gas or paying for TV is the toughest choice you have to make.
Get a clue man!
The Very Ambiguous Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act...
Now that discrimination is illegal on the books, one cannot use privacy concerns as a legitimate reason for withholding this information. It will now be demanded under all kinds of security concerns. In the end it will be used for the purposes of discrimination in the wink-wink-nudge-nudge manner. But hey, the Civil Rights Act ended racism, right? It didn't prolong it by another 50 years by drawing a legal distinction between races. This belief that the government can force egalitarianism is how the West is choosing fall. Oh, well. Life will go on. We are not equal other than in the eyes of the creator (if you believe in such a thing). We certainly are not equal in the eyes of the fellow human beings with whom we associate. To create a law that pretends that an untruth is true is to make all laws absurd. It undermines and thus destroys the legal system. But hey, the right-hemisphere-people rejoice. I fail to see why slashdot should join them.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This only if you were actually born. There's still extreme prejudice from on high if you're a fetus or stem cell.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
In fact, this law discriminates against those who are at less risk for genetically identifiable diseases, by forcing them to pay higher insurance rates than they otherwise would. The issue is that people do not understand what discrimination is. Discrimination is choosing one over another. No matter what someone will be discriminated against.
In this case the government is deciding that we need to spread the load equally and hurt/discriminate against the average person because there are some who are in a worse position.
The rational for this is "how would you feel if it was you" or "It is not their fault." The problem with this logic is that you are deciding how an entity (the insurance, employer, ect) can interact with another entity (the poor person with defect ATTTACAGATTAC who the person from post 3 hates
Believe it or not, insurance companies are not there to help. They are there to provide a service in the free market. People have to stop thinking about them as something that should help people but doesn't. The insurance company should not be forced to pay for people who have more of a chance of getting sick. That raises the prices for everyone else.
If you still believe that these people should be helped (I do). Donate money to charities that are going to arise that help people with genetic problems (I know this is in the future). The point of this post is not to make you no longer care about them, or not even stop you from trying to help. The idea is to tell you that you are looking in the wrong place for the answers.
Finally the Bush administration does something useful.
Dubya Dicator Bush *can* actually do what's right for the people. I thought it was totally impossible!
If an insurance company provides free screening for a group that's at risk for a given disease (think Africans and sickle cell anemia), do they have to provide it for everyone? What about conditions that are more common in women than men? Does this law mean that insurance companies have to pay for yearly pap smears for men as long as they pay it for women, even though men don't have a cervix? After all, having a cervix or not is a determined by genes.
You sir are why the rest of the world hates your country.
"Patriot Act"
Never is BushCo legislation actually what it says on the cover.
We hate asshats like him too, if that is any consolation.
I just finished teaching a bioethics course at Harvard College and we studied this topic in detail; it was one of the questions on the final exam. I am convinced that this is a well-intentioned but bad law.
The problem with this law is that it creates adverse selection in health insurance. Health insurers won't be able to get genetic info on the people they're covering, but the people themselves will. That creates asymmetric information, and is ripe for abuse. Think about it: if I get my DNA sequenced and find out that I'm a walking health hazard, then I'll buy the most comprehensive policy out there. If I find out I'm genetically clear, I scale down my coverage, or drop it completely. Meanwhile, the insurer can't adjust my premium to accurately reflect my risk. The result: only genetically unhealthy (and risk-averse) people will buy into health insurance pools, or the genetically health will only buy insurance for physical accidents. And when the insurance pools are small, and the insurers can't accurately price risk, they pools collapse: nobody gets health insurance.
Of course, the obvious alternative--let both buyers and sellers of health insurance use DNA analysis to accurately price risk--is unpalatable because people will suffer from higher premiums through no fault of their own (i.e. because they have bad genes), and people will benefit through no effort of their own (i.e. because they have good genes). This concern (coupled with privacy concerns) is why GINA passed overwhelmingly, and I don't mean to diminish it.
Insurance works best when the risks aren't ascertainable in an individual case but are ascertainable in the aggregate. DNA sequencing really threatens the concept of health insurance, because it greatly decreases the uncertainty surrounding an individual's health future. The best way to keep insurance alive is to insure before it is possible to determine a person's health risk. Now, you could do that by banning DNA testing for individuals unless they are willing to permanently waive their ability to buy or modify their health insurance policies, but DNA testing is so cheap that the ban will be hard to enforce, and a permanent waiver seems rather harsh. You could require people to buy insurance for their kids before conception, but that has the same problem that the kid will be stuck with the same health insurance for ever (and that there might not be a kid in sad circumstances)
The ultimate, fool-proof solution: social gene insurance. Essentially, when any private insurer wants to charge you more than the base rate because of your genes, you just pay the base rate and society picks up the difference. The gene insurance would be funded through taxes, much like social security is now, though none of that "lockbox" BS. Socialized health insurance would work, too, being a superset of social gene insurance. The idea behind social insurance schemes is that they in effect force citizens to buy in before anyone has any knowledge of their genetic risk, making it a sound insurance product. And the solution works from the view of liberal theories of justice, e.g. Rawls, because it is essentially a redistribution of social resources from those who happen to be born with (and hence do not deserve) such resources to those who happen to be dealt a bad hand, through no fault of their own.
Since I've seen the movie "Gattaca", I have been ever more worried about the possibilities of genetic discrimination, and felt that many things predicted in "Gattaca" were unfolding before my very eyes. We already have genetically chosen babies, and the though that soon we'd have companies discriminating against genetically "inferior" people, scared the shit out of me. What is extremely important to note is that, just because we might have a genetically inferiour makeup, does NOT mean we can't be succesful in achieving our goals in our lives: genes don't tell anything about how determined one is, how he or she can beat the odds and be the next Nobel laureate, successful and creative artist, or just a very valuable person whom everybody who knows him/her respects and loves, and strives to emulate.
I might be modded down for saying this, but I am very grateful to all the politicians that were instrumental in bringing this motion to acceptance - yes, including Dubya.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The point of insurance is to spread the risk evenly...over time, not over people. We just use pools of people as buffers for the variation in payout over time.
The insurance industry has become more and more of a problem as more and more people have started misunderstanding its purpose. Insurance is for events that are hard to predict when they will happen or at what cost. An example of this misunderstanding is when people want insurance to pay for periodic checkups.
Don't get me wrong above: I'm not saying that the insurance industry has been perfect. I'm just saying that the real problem is the shift in expectations from insurance away from what it was designed for.
Just pass a law that says health insurance companies can't discriminate for any reason. There has to be a community rate for health insurance (like there was 50 years ago.)
Then we can say just mandate that everyone has to carry individual coverage so we solve the uninsured problem. Plus we would insure that the young and healthy were in the pool - thus keeping the overall rates down.
Of course it would be a lot easier to deduct it from people's paychecks rather than have a whole system whereby we monitor citizen's compliance with the law. So it would just be an amount deducted from your pay.
And we would need to make it something people who were poor could afford, so there would be subsidies so that the poor paid less... and the wealthy paid proportionately more. So it would be a progressive deduction from your taxes.
Plus we could save a LOT if in addition to providing preventative care instead of what we do (ER care as a last ditch effort when diseases are harder and more costly to treat) we got rid if the thousands of insurance providers and just had one large provider. I know as a physician I spend a lot of money on hiring people just to fill out insurance forms for me. If there was one form that was consistent, I would be able to provide care a lot more economically. And if everyone was in the same system, we would have better assurance that the care would be reasonable since the people with the most power would also have to have that same insurance... no way to make what the poor get be shoddy. So we would just cover everyone under one large pool.
And then.... well we'd have the most humane and cost effective system possible: a single payer national health service funded by an income tax spread fairly on the population. Or as the nutters refer to: socialized medicine.
Gasp!
It is the _job_ of insurance companies to predict risk and adjust rates accordingly. If there is some social policy that says "to each according to his needs" then the government should find some way to achieve this other than imposing irrational laws on private industry.
Personally, as someone who has to carry the private burden of others who have genetic maladays, its great to have something like this to take advantage of, but it as a citizen, I cannot support the policy of "nondiscrimination" imposed on private parties in any way shape or form. I will avail myself of the advantages of this policy as long as the government is ridiculous enough to impose such requirements on private parties but I will not support any candidate who supports policies like this and I will speak out against them whenever I have the opportunity, as I do here now.
Seastead this.
TOBACCO ADDICTION IS NOT A DISEASE. Results of tobacco addiction, like emphysema, lung cancer, THOSE are diseases. Addiction is a precursor, and nothing more.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yeah
You might consider the following question:
How much is $4/gal a price increase, and how much is it a devaluation of the dollar?
I think it's pretty clear that it's largely a devaluation of the dollar.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, in the long run, costs will decrease. Prior to this law, many people avoided preventative genetic testing (in some cases, on the advice of their doctors) because if something was found, they could face increased rates, dropped coverage or even loss of employment. Now they can get tested early without these worries and their conditions can be treated earlier which is generally less expensive for the insurance companies and also means the person can return to the workforce sooner which benefits everyone.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The article you reference is about a proposed ban on hiring smokers for government jobs in Sarasota county. It is indeed a colossally dumb idea as proposed because it is not practical to enforce and the benefits of fewer sick days taken or lower claims is considerably smaller than the lost opportunities to hire the most qualified people. However I am firmly in support of the ability to "discriminate against smokers".
In fact, it is (rightly) common practice amongst medical and home insurance providers already to charge extra premiums to policy holders who smoke, and to deny coverage/claims to those who falsely declare themselves non-smokers in cases where smoking is at the root cause of the claim. That is the way it should be, and there should be no law preventing individuals or institutions from continuing the practice.
It is not inconsistent to support something like GINA and also support the freedom to discriminate in favour of non-smokers because the latter is a lifestyle choice, and the former, GINA, in my opinion is at its heart an update of laws against racial discrimination.
People aren't born with cigarettes in their mouths, and not only are we not forced to smoke, we have been told for decades that smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle choice that's best not even started. I cannot comprehend why anyone in this day and age would want to start up a smoking habit knowing what a totally stupid idea it is. Smokers deserve to pay more for (or be denied) insurance and pay a large "stupid tax" on tobacco. I think it is their right to be stupid and do stupid things, but I also believe that those who exercise their right to do stupid, destructive things should bear the full responsibility to cover the costs incurred.
Conversely, in this day and age, we know a lot about genetics to predict, to some degree of accuracy, if we are pre-disposed to health issues, yet we are quite far from being able to reliably create genetically perfect beings yet. In short, it is impossible for us to make any significant choices in our genetic makeup. In that respect discrimination based on genetic markers is on par with discrimination based on gender or race, so GINA is right in line with the spirit of the US constitution.
shut the fuck up. This discussion has to do with US legislation, and is none of your fucking business.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The point of insurance is that you pay to get rid of your own risk. (Well, not to get rid of it entirely, but to get rid of the major consequence of something bad happening: having to pay a lot of money). If your risk is higher, you need to pay more. If your risk is lower, you get to pay less.
Consider extending your analogy. People with a lot of car accidents pay more for insurance. People with a clean record pay less. What would you think of a proposal that would make everyone pay the same amount for auto insurance? I'd think it would be pretty ridiculous, and I think you should too. And while one might moralize that people can't help their health so much as their driving habits, that's not the issue of an insurance company, Health or otherwise.
The problem is people who want some level of socialism and try to get it through insurance regulation and end up losing the free-market benefits while not even gaining much as a result. If you want other people to pay for your health care (and that of everyone else) stop beating around the bush and wagging your fingers at the insurance companies and admit you want socialized medicine. Then we can at least address it on its own terms.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
When prejudice results in greater profits and a better functioning business, is it still wrong?
If we discover the genes that make people intelligent, and if we discover the genes that make people physically good athletes, strong, etc, is it wrong to hire these people?
The NBA and NFL genetically discriminates, and probably should because sports are based almost entirely on genetic ability at this point in time rather than just skill. Yes skill is important to be in the NBA, but there is a reason why all the players are over 6ft0 and I don't see people complaining that it's prejudice or genetic discrimination, but thanks to this law, now we can.
What about construction, what if we could know exactly who the strongest people all due to the genes that allow their muscles to grow and repair quicker? There will be no need for construction workers to take steroids because we'd be able to genetically screen all who would be too weak genetically to do the job.
What if someone has a gene for certain intellectual talents, perfect pitch for music, or a genetic gift of a photographic memory for painting, should schools and employers not be able to consider this?
It seems that by considering genetic advantages you'd simply have people in jobs they are designed for rather than trying to redesign people to fit into certain jobs they aren't designed for. But I could be wrong.
Either way, tell me why this is bad. Tell me why it's better to give people an IQ test and go through all the trouble of making people use steroids or take memory enhancing drugs. I assume if you don't support genetic discrimination, that you support trans-humanism, because if you support neither, then you aren't making any economic sense.
If anything, such would make such legislation completely unnecessary (although I do side with Ron Paul on this issue in either case).
If Dr. Watson has 32 genetic "defects," is there any reason to assume that the bulk of the rest of mankind does not have just as many on average?
There will be nobody remaining for the insurance companies to ensure.
Any counterargument that would involve saying something along of lines of "the insurance companies will just charge more from everyone" would be wrong. The overall risk, which dictates the average cost of insurance, does not change as a result of knowledge of one's genome, so the average cost of insurance would still stay the same.
Various Analogues Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
I feel like we only have two options. We can support the human enhancement industry(trans-humanism), or we can support genetic discrimination.
During a time when we are going after athletes for using steroids, it makes absolutely no sense to me why we'd pass a genetic discrimination bill. Is it our goal to ruin our sports industries? Or are we going to legalize steroids?
I'm of the position where I can only support this bill if this law leads to a trans-humanist future. Let's face it, most people have genes which prevent them from being talented, this is a fact. Most of us aren't going to be physically talented enough to get into the NBA or the NFL, yet now the NBA and NFL cannot genetically discriminate against us, so does this mean we can use steroids so that we can compete with the genetically gifted players?
In another example, we may discover the genes for human intelligence, but we may also develop chemical compounds, and organic compounds which improve memory, focus and allow an individual to have greater intelligence and a photographic memory. Should we allow doctors to screen an individual and based on that give the dumb individual these pills so they can compete with the person who genetically has the photographic memory? Or should we just sell these pills over the counter to whoever can afford them?
What about specific traits? What if we discover the genes which control certain traits, yet we also figure out drugs which can change peoples personalities to fit the requirements of a job. Should the employer be able to make a persons doctor prescribe these drugs so as to increase their profits or should employers be forced to hire obviously sub-par individuals for jobs they clearly are not qualified for?
If a job requires a person to work around drugs, and the person has the addiction genes, this person is genetically an addict, yet this person may have gone to school and trained to work around drugs. Should we put them around drugs if we know they are a potential drug abuser? Chances are we wouldn't if there was DNA screening.
What about pedophiles? Right now we don't have a clue who the pedophiles could be, but what if we eventually find out that a certain configuration or genes, can determine whether someone is capable of becoming a pedophile or not, should we allow these individuals to work around children?
I think genetic discrimination would be taken to the extreme if we used it to exclude and harass pedophiles and potential addicts, but at the same time if I want to submit my DNA because I know I have superior genes, and the person I'm in competition with does not want to submit theirs because they know they have questionable genes, I should at least be able to have my DNA considered by employers.
If not, if it's decided that I should not have my DNA considered, thats fine, but I should at least be able to consume any drugs I have to, to make myself more marketable and more talented than my DNA allows. Thus I support trans-humanism.
I don't think we can live in a competitive world without having either genetic discrimination or trans-humanism, because currently we aren't genetically fit for the world we live in, and if we ban stuff like steroids, we will simply reduce our overall performance and for what? If there is no genetic discrimination, let's treat everyone like a blank slate and legalize steroids and memory enhancing drugs for all.
Regarding the article about not hiring smokers, I'd take a look at this: http://www.newser.com/story/27628.html
Concerning the legislation that was passed, honestly I'm unsure if I agree with it. If I own an insurance company I'm entitled to all the information I can get before accepting certain insurance.
See the matter from another angle. Imagine I know I have a high probability of having decease XPTO, which can only be traced with an exam to my gens. So, in case I get that decease, I make an insurance so my family can get the money when/if I die.
It is important to protect the common people, but that doesn't mean we should give them tools to attack the companies.
Maybe it is because I'm European and around here health insurances aren't so much of a big deal, but I would need a few more details about this legislation before thinking it is a good thing.
What if we want to give them our records?
I fail to understand the value of this bill while at the same time we are critical of athletes for using steroids. That's genetic discrimination too.
Okay, first of all he hasn't even secured his party's NOMINATION, let alone the presidency, and second of all once he IS president he won't be President "Bush", which is, duh, the name of the CURRENT president. You know, it's not an honorary position at a university named after some famous previous professor who once had it... "Michael Smith, Bush Professor of Simian Studies at Harvard,..."
Finally, obviously this is something TO happen, later, not something that IS happening, before it possibly could happen. I don't know who writes this stuff because out of the six words in the current headline, FIVE are wrong. The headline should read:
"Obama Pledges to Fight Genetic Discrimination". Hell, forget genetic. Six up, six down.
Bush signs GINA? I hope the next piece of legislation is called MUFF
Sure we can have genetic tests, but whats the point?
I see this as just a backdoor to race based medicine. As long as we have a government that is still asking for racial information on the census, why should I believe the government has developed enough of a brain to suddenly go scientific and ask about genetics?
And I'm not naive enough to think that the doctors want this information to innocently cure all the worlds diseases. The only useful reason I see to offer genetic information would be to lower health insurance costs and to improve your marketability in the work place.
Can you really trust any of the research being done under this corrupt government? And can you really trust any kinda race based medicine?
Honestly, the research might be important, but considering that the research is being done by one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, it doesn't sit well with me.
We are also one of the most religious governments on the planet. Half of the politicians don't even believe in genetics and still think in terms of race. The census still asks for racial information instead of genetic or DNA information. The bill might not be all that bad but it's way before it's time.
We have a government that genetically discriminates against drug addicts, just look at the drug laws, yet this non-discrimination law would prevent employers and health insurance companies from discriminating against those same drug addicts? I don't see a point.
And then we have the government trying to crack down on steroids and other human enhancement products, helping to enforce the very genetic discrimination that this bill is attempting to stop.
I don't can't see this bill being anything good when it's managed by the current group of people.
This bill seems like it would effect the NBA, NFL and Baseball more than it would effect most other employers.
They want to attack organized sports by telling athletes they can't use human enhancement drugs such as steroids, then they go and pass this ridiculous bill which encourages athletes to use steroids because now if the employer threaten them in any way, it's a potential trial with genetic discrimination thrown into the mix.
I don't see a point. I think currently, we have the most corrupt group of lawmakers in US history. The laws don't even have to make sense anymore, most of the laws are political, and most of the laws are emotional, none of the laws are reasonable and this includes the patriot act and the iraq war resolutions.
And I'm not trying to be cynical about it, but I believe a bill supporting trans-humanism would be more useful than a bill trying to ban genetic discrimination.
Carrots work better than sticks. It's better to create new opportunities for people than to remove options from people. If we can't all be equal, we should legalize steroids and intelligence enhancing drugs so we all can level the playing fields.
Otherwise these sorts of bills actually will make things worse. What if, as a way to lower costs, certain companies decide to develop race based medicine? How exactly would this be better for the consumer?
I think we need some bills in support of trans-humanism and we need to once and for all legalize all human or genetic enhancement drugs, because thats the reasonable way to lower costs. If you can afford to buy the drugs, you can have a chance at making it as a professional body builder, or as a player in the NFL, or even get into a good school and be a scientist/doctor studying medicine.
To not let us enhance ourselves is also genetic discrimination.
Injecting, inhaling, coating yourself in, and/or swallowing something that makes you addicted to a substance does not constitute a disease. I believe, though I don't really care enough to look (for fear I'm probably wrong anyway), that the AMA called the addiction itself a disease, simply because being deprived of the addictive substance affects your body adversely.
Aside from that (and this is a stretch, but people with shiny hatwear will appreciate it), the FDA will not allow the sale of patches, pills or other methods to curb smoking habits as medical devices unless they can be used to cure a disease. It's the same thing that Kevin Trudeau guy got in trouble for. Only medicines can cure diseases, and only the FDA can approve medicines. So, unless it's a disease, these things cannot be marketed as cures, and the only way they can be marketed as cures is if the FDA approves them as medicines. How much money do you think is wrapped up in stop-smoking products?
An addiction to masturbation is quite the same way. As I'm sure many people here can attest to, without "getting the poison out," a person can be caused pain, become irritable, lose sleep, perform poorly at work or sports, can acquire jitters or shakes, and various other things that would be the same for a person who hasn't puffed on their death stick. Does that mean that I should get a fifteen minute spank break every two hours at work?
Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, MMOs, and many many other things that are considered addictions are not. They are merely a weakness of character. If they are actually addictions, then I should get my UFC tickets to be covered by my insurance, because I'm certainly ADDICTED to that.
The problem with this law is that it creates adverse selection in health insurance. Health insurers won't be able to get genetic info on the people they're covering, but the people themselves will. That creates asymmetric information, and is ripe for abuse. Think about it: if I get my DNA sequenced and find out that I'm a walking health hazard, then I'll buy the most comprehensive policy out there. If I find out I'm genetically clear, I scale down my coverage, or drop it completely. Meanwhile, the insurer can't adjust my premium to accurately reflect my risk. The result: only genetically unhealthy (and risk-averse) people will buy into health insurance pools, or the genetically health will only buy insurance for physical accidents. And when the insurance pools are small, and the insurers can't accurately price risk, they pools collapse: nobody gets health insurance.
Of course, the obvious alternative--let both buyers and sellers of health insurance use DNA analysis to accurately price risk--is unpalatable because people will suffer from higher premiums through no fault of their own (i.e. because they have bad genes), and people will benefit through no effort of their own (i.e. because they have good genes). This concern (coupled with privacy concerns) is why GINA passed overwhelmingly, and I don't mean to diminish it.
Insurance works best when the risks aren't ascertainable in an individual case but are ascertainable in the aggregate. DNA sequencing really threatens the concept of health insurance, because it greatly decreases the uncertainty surrounding an individual's health future. The best way to keep insurance alive is to insure before it is possible to determine a person's health risk. Now, you could do that by banning DNA testing for individuals unless they are willing to permanently waive their ability to buy or modify their health insurance policies, but DNA testing is so cheap that the ban will be hard to enforce, and a permanent waiver seems rather harsh. You could require people to buy insurance for their kids before conception, but that has the same problem that the kid will be stuck with the same health insurance for ever (and that there might not be a kid in sad circumstances)
The ultimate, fool-proof solution: social gene insurance. Essentially, when any private insurer wants to charge you more than the base rate because of your genes, you just pay the base rate and society picks up the difference. The gene insurance would be funded through taxes, much like social security is now, though none of that "lockbox" BS. Socialized health insurance would work, too, being a superset of social gene insurance. The idea behind social insurance schemes is that they in effect force citizens to buy in before anyone has any knowledge of their genetic risk, making it a sound insurance product. And the solution works from the view of liberal theories of justice, e.g. Rawls, because it is essentially a redistribution of social resources from those who happen to be born with (and hence do not deserve) such resources to those who happen to be dealt a bad hand, through no fault of their own. I don't want t pay for someone elses bad genes.
It's bad enough I have to pay for the bad genes within my own family, you think I want to pay taxes to support all the bad genes floating around in this country?
That idea is simply insane. Let the people who have bad genes pay for it themselves, and let's offer them the trans-humanist solution so they can overcome their bad genes. (Free steroids and memory enhancing drugs)
This is why we should be supporting trans-humanism, it's the only long term solution.
You've studied at Harvard so you should know this.
it is
Will wash cars for karma
Theoretically, if you were to inseminate an egg, gestate it, and 'birth' a child completely outside of the mother (in some sort of 'iron womb' type gizmo) they would not be a person by legal definition.
I believe the definition of 'person' has similar criteria and a similar loophole in many countries. Sure it's science fiction now, but for how long?
While I can understand why an individual would be against having corporations genetically discriminate, why would that same person also be against designer babies?
The only way to truly evolve as a species will be through genetic and human enhancement technologies.
Lets face the fact that as we are, we are unfit for survival on this planet. We have to change and speed up our rate of evolution just so we don't destroy our own habitat and our species along with it. We face a question on whether we want to go extinct and take thousands of species and possibly the planet along with us, or whether we'd like to go the route of designer babies and boost the rate of human evolution x10.
There will always be an underclass under any capitalist system. The underclass has nothing to do with whether or not we support designer babies, or trans-humanism. Trans-humanism is basically the only means we have to guarantee that every baby is intelligent, so that no more babies are born with downs-syndrome, or autistic, so that we have no more crack babies, no more genetic diseases that pass down from generation to generation.
It starts with birth control, if you don't want an inferior baby, try to choose a mate/partner who has superior genetic material in the first place and use birth control. If birth control doesn't work, there is abortion, and while I personally don't support abortion, if you are a drug addict and you get pregnant by some homeless person or random bloke on the street, then I can at least understand the reasoning behind it.
Designer babies are a step up above birth control and abortion as it has the potential to make both obsolete. Considering that we do have a problem with low genetic quality, and considering we are horrible at selecting naturally, unnatural selection, and designer babies I believe will save the human race in the long term.
To put it simply, we must evolve or die. We aren't evolving at a fast enough rate naturally. Our only solution will be to start genetically screen babies in the lab to remove all the obvious diseases. Eventually we will reach a stage where we understand intelligence enough to allow parents to select intelligence as a trait in a lab. We have already reached a point where two overly smart people can pair up without ever meeting each other.
We have sperm banks. Sperm banks are good because it allows us to preserve the best genetic material and the desired genetic mutations.
We will have egg banks as well which will allow women to freeze and store their eggs for the same purposes.
This is and probably will lead to a future where we can scientifically match the best sperm with the best egg to produce the most genetically fit babies possible. It wont require that the two individuals even have sex with each other, they'd merely have to sign the paper work. Through these means, the smartest people in the world will pair up, because currently the smartest people in the world are not the most physically attractive people in the world.
This also leads to an ability to increase intelligence by screening for genes which we know hinder the growth or development of the brain. And finally this leads to a period where you'll be able to go to a drug store and buy some smart pills, which will increase your IQ by 50 points, and then 100 points, etc. If it hasn't been developed already, there will be pills for photographic memory, there will be pills for increasing creativity, in specific there will be brain enhancers.
I'm convinced that if humans do not overcome their own genes, we humans will be destroyed and will die out due to our diseases and our low gene quality. It's really just natural law.
If they have the money to buy the drugs to treat their genetic misfortune, then it would be efficient.
But I agree with you that as things are not it's not efficient. I don't think this bill makes anything more efficient either because these same people who voted for this bill want steroids illegal in sports.
They don't REALLY want to outlaw genetic discrimination for all people, they just want to outlaw it for themselves, and get rich.
This also means we need to start planning our cities and communities around mass transit instead of driving, which means mixed use zoning to create pedestrian-friendly core destinations instead of decentralized urban/suburban grid sprawl. Mass transit doesn't work in a decentralized population.
In other words, we literally need to plan our communities to look more European. Any help convincing Americans to do that is much appreciated.
Oh noes! $4/gallon gas and it's teh liberals! As if electing a bunch of Texas oilmen really got us anywhere.
Tell me why we shouldn't save our species by boosting the rate of evolution?
Check those that apply:
( )Are they in a wheel chair
( )Do they need assistance in walking
( )Specific diet or allergies
( )Overweight or Underweight
( )Visible deformaties
( )Near sighted or far Sighted
( )Visible tremors or ticks
( )Extremely tall or short
( )Skin colouration
( )Visible melanomas
Of course it won't show up a genetic predisposition to cancer etc, but it will really narrow down a huge list of things. This is already what your insurers are looking for. Hell you don't even need to be a doctor to identify the presence of these symptoms.
The problem with your for profit health care is these companies have a fudiciary responsibility to thier shareholders to turn a profit. They are denying you insurance for the same reason the bank is denying you a mortgage.
In a capitalist system, where a company is trying to make money, shouldn't they be able to decide who they hire? I mean if it costs more to put in wheel chair access than a potential employee will bring in, should they have to? If the company is offering health care as a benefit, should they risk the potentially crippling costs to support a disease ridden staff?
Instead of making the people who generate the risk pay the highest taxes, we want to make the model citizens pay the majority of the tax burden for the risk generators.
Perhaps our taxes would be much lower if we made people pay for the damages they generate instead of making all of society pay for the damages generated by the thousands who get rich off destroying society.
Quit complaining, gas in Europe is over 3 Euro per liter... thats around $10 per gallon.
So what happens if a gene is found that predisposes one to homosexuality? Will that mean discrimination against gays/lesbians is illegal?
Secondly, will people's heads explode (I'm thinking of a particular Dave Chappelle skit here)?
This law is the promotion of ignorance. And anti-evolution.
They would be useful to me if the nearest bus stop to my house wasn't 5 miles away and buses ran more often than every 2 hours.
It is normal, for many Americans, as you just said. Efficient? Environmentally conscious? Maybe not, but it is pretty normal.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
How can you be sure it's him? He posted anonymously.
Dark Reflection
Why guarantee that there will be no discrimination unless we can expect to be measured? A couple days ago, it was announced that the Senate (?) wants to attach a rider to the foreclosure relief bill that would require all involved in the loan process to be fingerprinted -- to have some of their biological data stored.
A great deal of rational people cannot see the logic behind that, so we then theorized that the main reason behind the rider is to get Joe Sixpack used to the idea of people having their biological identifiers stored in a collection of massive databases.
Now this comes along to, I believe, further lessen the concern of massive measurements and data storage. And as if we'd believe the government's promise to enforce the guarantee when we can so easily disregard Habeus Corpus and the Geneva Convention -- two of the tenants of Western Civilization that are supposed to be the last resort of promise to treat people equally.
Requiem for the American Dream
The dollar has actually remained fairly stable versus the Euro and Pound over the past few months. It was a lot weaker back in October/November of last year.
The dolar's been growing weaker for quite some time, and the American public only caught on to the fact once gas prices started skyrocketing. Yes, the weak dollar is playing a factor, but it's certainly not causing the massive spike in the price of crude that we're currently seeing.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Pretty clear?! Oil has gone up from 100$ to 130$ in the last month or two. Thats thirty percent. The dollar has not lost thirty percent of its value in the last few months.
because he's a genetic dumbass?
P.S. I think his mom's OK. Must be something on that Y chromosome.
Many states are larger than entire countries in Europe. What, are these 13mpg busses supposed to stop at everyones house in the suburbs?
Note that YOUR post was broader than the original issue here of genetic discrimination.
A person who makes healthy choices should be allowed to pool with like individuals, and not be forced to pay for health care for people who over-ate their way to diabetes. Furthermore, declaring a service provided by others as a "basic human right" is problematic for obvious reasons.
Ok, Let's suppose there are two insurance plans A and B, with A having slightly better coverage against illness X. They aren't very different overall, B is a bit better for some other maladies (broken bones, say). A and B are just different, overall not absolutely better or worse. The premiums are basically the same. Yes, A pays more for insurees who get afflicted by "X", B pays more for insurees who break their legs. It balances out.
... there's a genetic test for predisposition to X. Guess what, people more likely to develop X gravitate to plan A (who, by law, can't do anything about it). A's costs rise above B's. What can A do to survive? Raise rates, of course.
... at least in the short run. But you have to think through the second-order consequences. IMO, such laws are fundamentally incompatible with most free (not just free-market, but freedom-based) health systems.
But
But now things get worse: if you don't believe you are particularly prone to X you (statistically speaking) go to B (now cheaper, but otherwise very similar). A's costs rise yet again.
This is the "death spiral" - a very real effect hitting health insurance plans that are not allowed to reject customers, but where the customer base itself is allowed free choice. ("Very real" == this truly happens, I've been part of it myself; it's not just a theoretical argument).
This is VERY VERY hard to fix in a "free market framework. Do you forbid consumers to move between health plans? Require uniform benefits from all insurers? Or what? (Hint: neither of the former two suggestions work; exercise for the reader to see why not.)
I am a reader with genetic issues and other adverse health issues who benefit HUGELY from such laws
I've never heard a well thought-out argument where it makes sense to outlaw (say) genetic discrimination, that doesn't in the end amount to "let's nationalize the whole damn thing".
(N.b.: on balance, I favor nationalization)
-AC1732
Ethan Hawke is going to be happy about this one.
http://www.sampletheweb.com
Aww, you bought a house 10+ miles from the nearest grocery store, school, library, transit station, etc... This is the part where we don't feel sorry for you.
It's about time that Congress and the administration are both on the same page. This is long overdue ! There will be many innocent people who will not have to suffer from the discrimination by employers and Health insurance companies. Although it's obvious Bush signed it only due to the fact the his veto would have been overturned by Congress--there is an overwhelming majority on this bill to override the veto-- so he was just playing ball , so to speak.
Sure. You take the bus. Have fun with that. I'll bet you think personal ownership of washing machines is unnecessary and we should all use the laundromat too.
Fucking hippies.
AU$4/Gal, I wish, in Australia we're paying upwards of $6.75/Gal for Unleaded (premium is about 50 cents more) and AU$8.24/Gal for diesel. That's including the strength of the Aussie dollar, which is nearing the $1 American mark. Some fuckers are making _a lot_ of money!!
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
The main consequence of this law will be more uninsured people and needless deaths. See "Genetic Discrimination Saves Lives
Heck, city design doesn't have to look that European, just look to the metro-regions that were well established before 1900. The layout/density of them makes public transportation workable, and some of them were smart enough to keep commuter rail despite the federal highway system that came in post WWII. It's the post WWII cul-de-sac sprawl type B.S. infrastructure with miles between types of zoning thats not really economically sensible in regards to increasing energy costs. (And the misguided cold war idea that spreading the population out might make MAD more survivable didn't help any either.) It's not that it's always good to mix up zoning, but rather they should be within reasonable walking distance or connected by established mass transit.
I'd much rather we snap out of our horrible patterns of selection to move to more scientific patterns of selection. There will always be patterns, there is no doubt about this, but can we generally agree that intelligence is good? There are going to be certain genes which will never be fads and which will not be a matter of subjective opinions, there are certain genes which will improve our offspring's chances of survival, and intelligence is a good example of that.
The point is, we already control our gene patterns based on mating patterns and birth control, I don't see how adding another tool int our arsenal would be a bad thing.
Let's allow people to screen for diseases. Let's cure down syndrome and let's cure ignorance while we are at it. If we don't have to give birth to ignorant babies, why should we continue to do it?
Even if we are ignorant ourselves, why would we want to keep giving birth to babies that are more ignorant than we are and call this evolution?
Looks to me like just another way to increase premiums of the majority of the insured. While I have no doubt the original intention was great, policies like this create far too many negative side effects to be more effective than say universal health care paid for by the state.
There's another way this could turn out. Since there's no insurance company that's going to just sit there and bite on losses year after year that they know they should be able to prevent, and what will they do, they'll do the only thing they still can do, jack up premiums. With increased premiums less people will buy insurance, especially the people without genetic disorders, a cruel cycle that goes on and on until ONLY the people with bad genes have insurance, at which point the companies go belly up and NOBODY has insurance. That might be going a bit extreme, but it's just to highlight possibilities of making this choice.
However, I do like the part of the bill that prevents discrimination by employers based off genes. Ability should determine that.
Tip #1: Don't say "we literally need to plan our communities to look more European."
On the surface it sounds like a good idea. But what this is really about is something they can point to, to justify getting everyone's dna. "Look it's fine. We can't discriminate based on genes so let's just make it mandatory to get dna from everyone since there is no downside". Why not just say, "Why would we need that legislation at all, since I'm not giving you my dna"? Beware of lizards bearing gifts, because they are always full of shit.
This might be too late to be noticed by anyone, but I have a friend who's father is a medical doctor. We got in a debate one day over the term 'Disease'. Apparently, there is the sense of the word that I was using to indicate a viral organisim that is passed from host to host (a literal disease), and there is the version of the word that he picked up from his father, an agent of discomfort (a figurative dis-ease.)
While I don't think it makes sense to classify any sort of physical ailment as a 'dis-ease', that is apparently the deffinition that some/many/all medical personel use.
IANAD, but are there any other Doctors out there that can shed more light on this?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
To start with, allowing athletes to use performance enhancing drugs basically would have the effect of starting an "arms" race amongst athletes - with long term detrimental effects on the athletes themselves.
Allowing "globalization" has started an arms race among employees. Don't you understand the true nature of the situation? It already is and always has been an arms race. There is no overall mission, or goal beyond merely surviving and profiting. The individual is in a competition with all other individuals for resources. Every family is in it for themselves. Every corporation is in it for themselves. Every government is in it for them self. They don't care about you, me, or anyone who stands in the way of their power and influence because the game is about getting what you can get in the time that you have.
If you don't get what you can from life then you aren't winning. If you don't win, no one cares about you or respects your existence. Homeless individuals aren't winning, and most dont care about the homeless. People living in the third world aren't winning and most don't care about the third world.
You have to be a taker to survive in America. This is the first lesson all immigrants learn. This is the one lesson you can see if you look throughout US history, the takers are the people who come from families that have something to show for their existence, and then there are the have nots, the people who wouldn't or couldn't take the resources they needed to live in a secure environment.
A secure environment means being able to raise your children in a safe neighborhood, away from the slums, away from the risks, in an environment where your children have an opportunity to live a good life, and be happy. The American dream is not free. In order to access the American dream, often individuals must sacrifice their health, either psychologically or otherwise, to do the things that are required of them to get where they must go.
The point, it's better to die trying to win than to die trying not to lose. Because that is the American way of life.
The point of sport is to see athletes at their peak pitted against one another. The whole purpose of sport is that it is totally performance based. It does not mean that someone who is genetically inferior cannot attempt to compete, and in fact I believe that there have been some successful sub-6 foot basketballers.
Yeah, one or two, and those basketball players were still genetically unusual. Being able to dunk and being under 6ft0 is unusual.
Have you never read "Think and Grow Rich"? In almost every case in society it is not genetics that ends up winning, but training, willpower and dedication.
Persistence plays a role, as does social power, but without they genes you won't have the intelligence to be truly qualified. Many individuals are born into social power, and are persistent, so they do go to Harvard, Yale, etc, but can you say that these people are the smartest humanity has to offer? Can you say they are the smartest that America has to offer?
Some of our smarter people might be rotting in prison on drug charges. Some of them might never have finished college. Some people are complete geniuses, but for whatever reason, they are assumed to be dumb based on where they were born, or what race they are. Again, persistence plays a role, but so does environment, and so do genetics, and intelligence is genetic even if persistence can make it so anyone can get a degree.
Using genetics as an excuse for taking steroids undermines the whole reason for having sports in the first place.
Steroids was invented in the first place as a way to prevent genetic discrimination. The reason for having sports is for our entertainment, and so the sporting companies can profit from it. The same reason we have corporations, so profits can be made. A sports team exists so it's owner can profit from ticket and other sales. A corporation exists so it's sha
Wow, you do have a very paranoid, warped view of life. My deepest sympathies. But protectionist nonsense like that which you are spouting only has the effect of keeping the whole world less efficient and more poor. Also, the connection that you draw between cheating in sports by using performance enhancing drugs and genetic discrimination is at best a very very thin one, and more realistically has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It doesn't work WELL for EVERYONE in a decentralized population, but there always are several routes that cover majority of population and are therefore lucrative for transport providers. After all, each society starts as more or less decentralized population, then it shows that some points in the grid are more attractive because of some natural or traffic (trade) advantage, then those attractive points get their population amassed, then the regular transportation service routes are established between them, etc.
Besides, you don't have to switch entirely to mass transit, all the way, door to door. Shopping malls are located strategically to serve several suburbs. Those are natural choices for potential mass transit stops, already equipped with enough parking places for commuters to leave their cars and catch bus or train or whatever.
IMHO, Suburbians just need to have a poll about if they would or would not use mass transit if it was available, because if there is interest in it, it certainly is doable.
Adding mass transit connection would further promote malls into society hubs. Next thing to cut expenses and pollution down would be to add to these society hubs/shopping malls rent-a-offices and fat data pipes. Then everyone could telework in Whichever Company, inc. from their nearest local services hub (formerly: shopping mall) office, without being stigmatized by co-workers as an outsider, pajama-employee, and without being distracted by own family members/home occupants.
$4/gal and you think it's much?
here in italy we are at euro 1.5/litre that is about $8.5/gal
and consider that the euro is growing steadily on the dollar, the money in what petroleum is buyed.
I bought a house where the grocery store went out of business, the library moved, the transit station closed, and the school just plain sux.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Does a TPM module matter? Afterall if the code runs we must assume its decrypted in memory, a debugger will quickly dump the decoded blocks to disk. Might take some re-assembly to recreate the PE file, but nothing that hasnt been done before. Afterall SecuROM already reads a 128bit TEA encryption key of the disk.. To decrypt sections in the executable but it still leaves pages decrypted (it needs to run.. afterall) and theres your entry point. Its futile.
I really dont get it. I dont understand statements like "I don't want t pay for someone elses bad genes." Indeed a true reflection of your humanitarian self. Maybe Socialised medicine needs to be renamed to something more friendly to the ears of the communist fearing USA. I mean canada has it, france has it, the uk has it. wait infact most 1st world countries have it. Wait...even cuba has it.. Are you actually also trying to say that if someone cant afford to pay for medication they should die. if a homeless person cant afford to get his kidneys looked at because of all the crap he eats and drinks he should die? He choose to be poor? he choose to eat your leftovers and live in the freezing cold? Sounds like an intelligent choice. You work hard and YOU deserve the best health care money can buy.. yes you do, you go american man. show the world a land of freedom, freedom from what? freedom from being a slave to your economy and government. Why should you care about anyone else. The world revovles around you and the working class mean nothing. pfft.. what i wrote made no sense to me. its starting the get this way in south africa as well.
One of the few days I wish I had mod points to use. I have smoked on and off for years. A previous smoker telling me I should quit doesn't bother me much, even when they talk about the benefits of quitting or the risks of smoking. But when these self rightous assholes come out of the woodwork to condemn any behavior they deem stupid I just want to shove a whole pack straight up their asses and light em up. I hear more nonsmokers bitch about that whole "it is a choice" shit than I have ever heard from smokers. In fact, I don't think I have EVER met a smoker cry about how they can't quit because its a disease or some shit. Most smokers don't quit because they don't want to quit. That simple.
Oh...and for all you self rightous pricks bitching about lost productivity you might want to wander out to a smoke pit sometime. I have observed more important decisions and work being accomplished at a picnic table by a few smokers than coming from any meetingroom agenda. And for all you whiners saying "but that is second hand smoke" then you shouldn't leave your house because walking through the parking lot every day is going to expose you to just as many toxins if not more than standing upwind from a smoker outside.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
A lot of /.'ers claim to be libertarians and to love Ron Paul. The reality is, a lot of /.'ers want libertarianism for themselves and big government liberalism for others. FYI, Paul isn't just anti-Bush. He's against all statists, right and left alike.
I might be the only contributor to this Web site who actually believes in freedom of contract.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
...huh?
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
you fool, wasn't that obvious...?
more seriously, bush wants to prepare a strong "ethical" legal base for mutant emotionless obedient all-surviving (Janus?) soldiers.
Hence the rare display of sanity.
Everything's there for a reason, good or bad.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
I agree that there's also a lot of short term fluctuation that some people are getting rich on. (The terms "price-fixing" and "criminal conspiracy" somehow come to mind.)
And it's also true that the oil supply is limited (at any particular price).
But I still think that the basic cause of the current price level is the devaluation of the dollar...and that it hasn't hit bottom yet. Much of the US debt is held by a few foreign countries, and they could kill the dollar in a day if they chose to (and at the cost of devaluing their holdings).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Racial discrimination carried on because people are still racist, and it is possible to determine a person's "race" (whatever "race" means) by looking at him or her.
Genetic makeup, on the other hand, requires analysis of a person's DNA in a laboratory. This bill makes it illegal to require a DNA sample.
But genetic discrimination has always gone on and will always continue to go on. Case in point: when you apply for life/health/disability insurance, the application will ask things like "Do either of your parents have heart disease?", "Do either of your parents have cancer?", etc. Doesn't that sound an awful lot to you like genetic discrimination? After all, they're trying to ascertain your genetic disposition toward various disorders.
This is definitely "obvious" legislation, as no one is comfortable having their DNA used against them for employment or insurance decisions. It just seems too Orwellian or something. But as an Economist, this legislation is awful. It creates adverse selection in the health insurance market, because while I can go out and get my DNA sequenced and interpreted and make health insurance decisions accordingly, my insurer can't have access to that information and can't price my insurance properly. If I'm genetically predisposed to some expensive health problem, I'm going to purchase a more comprehensive policy, whereas if my DNA looks clean, I'll purchase less insurance. This is a breakdown in the very purpose of insurance. Purchaser and insurer need to have the same information or insurance doesn't work.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-sibeledmonds_17edi.ART.State.Edition1.45b446a.html