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.'"
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?
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?
Maybe. I keep wonderng where the loophole is, and how big it is.
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.
Well they've been using family history for a while; which is basic an easy way to get someone's genetic profile......
I wonder how that will fare under the law.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
For you to be able to claim that health insurance is a fundamental right as a human being, you must also claim that the right to property is not a fundamental right. Is this what you're claiming?
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!
Before you start accusing George Bush of sanity, I suggest you read the signing statement that almost certainly accompanies this new law.
This week, in Federal Court, the Bush Administration has asserted that the AUMF (the bill congress passed to give him permission to invade Iraq) also gives him the right to have the military (that's military, not police) have the right to arrest a US citizen on US soil and hold him indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
Now the Bush administration has asserted this right before, but because of inherent executive powers, which while being insane is at least consistent. But now, he's asserting these military-police dictatorial powers come from a bill passed by congress authorizing a foreign invasion.
This is astonishing, but frankly, I'm too disturbed by this new development to be astonished.
So before you start giving Bush a thumbs-up for some genetic anti-discrimination law, and start feeling comfortable that you will hang on to some shred of personal liberty, you might want to keep in mind that he's now asserting complete dictatorial powers and he could give a good god damn about the Constitution or any bill he has signed, because when it comes right down to it, he's now calling the shots and it's going to take more than some silly little election, or court, or congress to change things.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
But if the fact that she's a dog is what prevents her from doing either of those two, doesn't that mean that those are discriminating against her genetically? (I see my original post has been modded troll - It wasn't how I intended it, but fair enough. I'm just using this as an extreme example. There are many more subtle yet real world examples, it just makes it a bit clearer this way)
-- All your booze are belong to us.
ATTTACAGATTAC
Seeing that made me think of the movie title "Gattaca", at which point I realized that "Gattaca" was actually deliberately named using only a,t,c,g on purpose... digging in wikipedia confirms that it was named for an enzyme, EcoRI, that cuts "GAATTC"
I'd never really thought about the significance of the title before. Makes an already great movie, just a little bit better. Thanks for that epiphany...
If someone gives the results of genetic tests to [company], the "issuers of Medigap policies" have neither requested, required, purchase or disclosed anything.
Kinda like during that Chicago ban* on selling Foie Gras, restaurants boosted prices and served foie gras for 'free'.
*since repealed
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hate to feed the flame... but I seem to recall a statistic that indicated mortality rates for heart disease were significantly higher in Afrcian American males than in any other ethic group. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_4_100/ai_76513087 Now that speaks nothing toward how insurance companies actually calculate rates, and doesn't address the issue that the mortality rate may be higher because African American males tend to be uninsured at a higher rate, or other factors and statistical loopholes like that. You can make a case for anything using statistics.
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.
I do agree with this. AMA isn't always right. I have friends who are diabetic, and have noticed that over time, the AMA's definition of a "healthy blood sugar level" has risen because more and more people have higher blood sugar. They still keep by the old standards and are healthier in general than the diabetics who follow the new blood sugar standards. Go figure.
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.
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?
The US government agrees (at least with alcoholism, but it's related to smoking so I mention it.) Supreme court case Traynor v. Turnage 1988, 485 US 535.
BTW, I've spent most my life not smoking, however I have fallen back to smoking in the last 6 months so I'm not coming from a biased non-smoking POV.
Camping on quad since 1996.
STARTING smoking is a lifestyle choice - one which is often made at an age where you're too young and headstrong to know better.
That argument has no merit at all unless you happen to have been a smoker for something like 30 years, and happened to have started at a time when people still didn't fully appreciate the health consequences of smoking. When I was "young and headstrong" in the 1980s and 1990s WE ALL NEW BETTER. Even the kids who did start smoking knew it was bad for you, and knew it was addictive, but it was "cool" to be rebellious and do stupid things. That doesn't mean we should be let out of our responsibility to deal with consequences of doing stupid things.
As someone who is a smoker and has tried many times to quit, I do NOT feel that I have control over it without medical aids.
Well, then, use the medical aids man! You made a bed when you started smoking that you must now lie in. You have a choice no matter what you say--REALLY try quitting (medical aids and all), or dealing with having to shiver outside in the rain during some smoke breaks, having smelly breath and clothes, paying more for insurance and extra tobacco taxes.
That effectively puts it in the "disease" category (as another poster has pointed out).
Total crap. It isn't a disease it is an addiction. You don't have a tumour that makes you HAVE to smoke or you'll die. There is no virus or bacteria that forces you to suck on a burning stick of tobacco or drink alcohol or inhale white powder. You made a choice to get hooked and you can make a choice to try to get out of it. If you aren't TRYING to get "un-hooked" then you are still making an unhealthy lifestyle choice. So long as you try (and you have, so don't give up) you are making a responsible choice that should be (and sometimes is) rewarded with incentives by insurance companies and the rest.
I will very soon be seeing a doctor to get something prescribed, since the "over the counter" stuff helps somewhat, but not enough.
I have seen (known personally in fact) cancer patients and those with emphysema using oxygen who were still lighting up--I know it is tough. In both those cases they actually quit, even though the doctors said it was too late. In the lung cancer victim's case she wanted to live long enough to see her grandchild. In the latter case it was because the oxygen was an explosion hazard and the doctor said that she could cause an explosion and kill herself or her daughter while lighting a cigarette. They were "hard core addicts" like yourself, but given proper motivation ANYONE can quit. I applaud you for making the meaningful effort--though I support "discrimination against smokers" I also thing people should be encouraged and rewarded for making the effort to become non-smokers, even if they are struggling to do so.
I apologise if I appeared unsympathetic to those who are more strongly addicted to smoking than most--those who are in your situation aren't the ones that I have a problem with. The topic is somewhat personal for me as well, as I have lost more than one close family member to tobacco-related cancer. Actually being there beside someone you care about whilst they die brings about a lot of emotion--it has been many years now, but it still angers me when an unapologetic, "proud smoker" spouts some claptrap about "smokers' rights" because they can't smoke in their favourite eatery anymore or had to pay extra for insurance, or a rental car, or hotel room, because they smoke. Smoking is not a "right" and deserves no protection. Starting smoking is a foolish lifestyle choice and, as you've found out, one with a pretty steep price.
Demon tobacco is an easy whipping boy, that's all it is.
Christ, a job I once had was a real great one. Hi sarcasm. The first floor was where they stuck all the fat cows -- I don't know how or why it worked out like that, but you'd be lucky to fit 4 in an elevator. And these were big elevators. 12 normal people would fit in them.
These bitches would take the elevator DOWN. ONE FLIGHT OF STAIRS. AND STILL BE OUT OF BREATH.
Meanwhile, my smoker's ass is running up and down 6 flights of stairs because the elevator is too slow.
But let's demonize tobacco, not lazy ass fatties who exhaust themselves pushing their chair away from their desk.
Tobacco is simply easy to demonize. Nobody wants to stand up and defend it -- not even most smokers. Alcohol at least gets people up in arms..
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I fully concur. I was born in 1981. I received plenty of warnings to avoid smoking, and chose to smoke against sound advice. Fourteen years later (27 years old now), I'm still smoking. This is nobody's fault but my own. I fully acknowledge my personal responsibility in the matter.
The "funny" part is the fact that I'm supposedly gifted with above average intelligence. I've never struggled academically, and have routinely exceeded my peers in academically geared endeavors (both before the naval service and since enlistment). I also outrun most eighteen year olds, but that's a consequence of running 20-30 miles per week (active duty Navy, with an interest in road races). An outside observer might be led to believe that "I'm too smart to smoke", but that's apparently not the case.
In my rather educated opinion, things like lawsuites against tobacco companies are pure bullshit, and I fully support insurance industry trends toward charging higher premiums for smokers. There are rumors that Tricare (the primary military health care provider in the States) is planning to charge a $60.00/month fee to smokers within five years. Fine with me. Either I'll wise up and quit or I'll pay the price. Others shouldn't have suffer for my poor decision.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
What about AIDS victims? Are you going to argue that since they had risky sex they should not be helped?
They don't have a disease caused by sex, they have a disease caused by a virus. Smoking addicts have a disease caused by smoking. You don't smoke, and you can't get addicted to smoking. If you don't have sex, you can still get AIDS. If you have sex 100,000 times you can still avoid AIDS. If someone has unprotected sex on a regular basis with someone they know have AIDS, then maybe you could apply that logic, but I doubt that is the case for most AIDS cases.
Learn to love Alaska
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!
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.
Corporate insurance is only cheap because it is a pool of insurables. Basically, health care costs are power series distributed (with a very small minority drawing a huge amount of the cost). Smokers and the overweight are two contiditions that greatly increase the likelihood of being in that group.
Also, insurance companies will only write profitable insurance. So if a client (even a corporate client) doesn't pay in more premiums than benefits cost, there won't be insurance. Because you know your health history better than your employeer and the insurance company, the majority of the people who are in the low cost group will keep the bonus and the insurance will be taken by those who are or expect to be in the tails.
As a result, if individuals are purchasing it, rather than the company covering all employees with the same coverage, the price shoots up dramatically (from a few thousand a year to 10s of thousands a year).
Since the company is generally paying for health insurance (and most people don't compare that nearly as much as salary information). Their costs drop dramatically when they can show the insurance company that by restricting smokers they have cut their expected likelihood of having those very expensive patients dramatically.
So the company can restrict to non-smokers provide insurance and pay higher salaries than the company that hires anyone. With the same total employee costs as the other company.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.