Anti-genetic bill passes through Congress and the only one to oppose it........

[Wheezer]

WASHINGTON - Companies would no longer be able to use genetic information like a person's predisposition for breast cancer, sickle cell or diabetes to make insurance or job vdecisions under a bill passed by Congress on Thursday.

The House voted 414-1 for the legislation a week after it passed the Senate on a 95-0 vote. The bill would bar health insurance companies from using genetic information to set premiums or determine enrollment eligibility. Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions.


Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was the only member of Congress toote against the bill.

President Bush is expected to sign it into law.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said that for years doctors have been forced to tell women whose families have a history of breast cancer to refuse genetic testing for fear of discrimination.

"They have recommended to them that until a bill such as the one we are passing today becomes law in this country, they should not put at risk their health insurance," Slaughter said.

Lifesaving concerns

The use of genetics to determine insurance and benefit eligibility is not unprecedented.

In the 1970s, several insurers denied coverage to blacks who carried the gene for sickle cell anemia. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California secretly tested workers for sickle cell trait and other genetic disorders from the 1960s through 1993; workers were told it was routine cholesterol screening.

In another incident, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. paid 36 employees $2.2 million in 2002 to settle a lawsuit in which the workers claimed the company sought to genetically test them without their knowledge after they had submitted work-related injury claims. The railroad denied that it violated the law or engaged in discrimination.

Without genetic testing, researchers say it will be more difficult to find early, lifesaving therapy for a wide range of diseases with hereditary links such as breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson's disease.

"We will never unlock the great promise of the Human Genome Project if Americans are too afraid to get genetic testing," said Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., who sponsored the bill along with Slaughter.

Each person probably has six or more genetic mutations that place them at risk for some disease, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. That does not means that a disease will develop, researchers said, just that the person is more likely to get it than someone without the genetic mutation.

Congressional efforts to set federal standards to protect people from genetic discrimination go back more than a decade, to a time when there were only a small number of genetic tests.

But now, with the mapping of the human genome in 2003, people have access to far more information about their hereditary disposition to such crippling afflictions as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease or Lou Gehrig's disease.

gotta wonder why RP would think this is such a bad thing.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
gotta wonder why RP would think this is such a bad thing.

Because it's big government sticking their nose into private business. In this case, the government is effectively saying that everyone must be treated the same by private businesses no matter what. It's akin to someone with a horrible driving record getting the same car insurance rates as someone with a clean record. Sure, they haven't had an accident lately, but they are predisposed to have one, especially compared to someone with a clean record.

When the government says who businesses can sell to, and for how much, it's a bad day for capitalism. Dead weight loss is created in the market as insurance prices will now climb for everyone, and fewer total people will be able to afford insurance at all. Oh wait, the government can just give everyone insurance! :roll:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Because he's an advocate of individual rights and near laissez-faire capitalism? In a truly "free" society the government wouldn't prevent insurance companies, employers, and whoever else from requiring you to submit a DNA sample before agreeing to do business with you or to consider you for employment. Note that as it becomes increasingly feasible for insurers to evaluate the likelihood that a person will suffer from disease, people would essentially end up being more and more "self-insured". In the extreme case where all medical needs could be predicted with 100% accuracy, insurance would no longer serve a purpose and those people who were going to suffer from disease (and who weren't wealthy) would have to rely on charity.

Ultimately, we're going to have to make a decision about what kind of society we want. Do we want to have socialized medicine (with the taxes and benefits that come with it), do we want the semi-socialized mess we have right now (that comes with even higher costs and perhaps less care), or do we want to have a real, free market health care system (that will come with lower costs and better care for some people, higher costs for other people, and millions of Americans dying for lack of care)?

Do we join with other nations that are moving forward and providing environments where their citizens have higher quality of lives than Americans, or do we maintain the dogma of the free market religion we have been indoctrinated with and continue our downward spiral towards third world nationhood (courtesy of an economic force called Global Labor Arbitrage)? Will Americans choose to pursue their long term rational selfish interests as Americans even if that means eschewing some short term greed or will we continue on a path of having a highly polarized society with a de facto aristocracy and nobility? Will the populace choose reason or stick with its current religion? In a sense, the state of the nation's economy, our quality of life, and the health care issue are really part of the same issue.

 

[bamacre]

Is this the "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act?"

Seems it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G..._Nondiscrimination_Act

According to Wiki...

National Association of Manufacturers, the National Retail Federation, the Society for Human Resource Management, and United States Chamber of Commerce and other members of the Genetic Information NonDiscrimination in Employment Coalition, (GINE) say the proposed legislation is overly broad and are concerned the bills, would do little to rectify inconsistent state laws and hence might increase frivolous litigation and/or punitive damages as a result of ambiguous record-keeping and other technical requirements.

Without hearing from Paul himself, it seems difficult to say why he voted against it. Or if there was only one reason. Government intervention into the free-market would be obvious, but may not be the only reason.

 

[sandorski]

RP has a lot of good Ideas, but this is one in a long list of Horrible Ideas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Wheezer
gotta wonder why RP would think this is such a bad thing.

Because it's big government sticking their nose into private business. In this case, the government is effectively saying that everyone must be treated the same by private businesses no matter what. It's akin to someone with a horrible driving record getting the same car insurance rates as someone with a clean record. Sure, they haven't had an accident lately, but they are predisposed to have one, especially compared to someone with a clean record.

When the government says who businesses can sell to, and for how much, it's a bad day for capitalism. Dead weight loss is created in the market as insurance prices will now climb for everyone, and fewer total people will be able to afford insurance at all. Oh wait, the government can just give everyone insurance! :roll:

Try not to be a block head. You have control over the risks you take driving. You have no control over your genes. This is like the government screening children for a gene for gun-nutism and eliminating it from the pool.

Stay away from me you parasites, my blood is my own.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You have no control over your genes.

Of course not, and the opponents of that type of a bill aren't attempting to refute that. Rather, they're challenging the altruistic notion that other people have a moral duty to help those with bad genes and that they should be forced, at gunpoint via taxation, to pay to help those people.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

For a second I actually forgot that we had a right to health care. But now I remember, its the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and health care.

In a free society the businessmen should have the same rights as normal people. So if one individual wants to voluntarily buy health care services, then the other person has the right to voluntarily screen the other person. Its not pretty and maybe not fair, but its the price of a free society.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

You guys are lame!

http://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php

Statement by Rep. Ron Paul on S. 1858

4/9/2008

Madame Speaker, as an OB-GYN I take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring about the health of newborn children. However, as a Representative who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation?s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.

S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the Untied States. Some will say that the program is merely a guide for local hospitals. However, does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the flaws contained in the model eventually adopted by the federal government, almost every hospital in the country will scrap their own newborn screening programs in favor of the federal model? After all, no hospital will want to risk losing federal funding because they did not adopt the ?federally-approved? plan for newborn screening. This, thus bill takes another step toward the nationalization of health care.

As the federal government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.

In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ?public health? disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ?emergency.? Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families? medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a government-declared health emergency, while the federal government will be very unlikely to relinquish its? new powers when the emergency passes.

I am also skeptical, to say the least, that a top-down federal plan to screen any part of the population will effectively help meet the challenges facing the health care system in the event of a real public emergency. State and local governments working together with health care providers, can better come up with effective ways to deal with public health emergencies than can any federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons Madame Speaker that I oppose S. 1858.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You have no control over your genes.

Of course not, and the opponents of that type of a bill aren't attempting to refute that. Rather, they're challenging the altruistic notion that other people have a moral duty to help those with bad genes and that they should be forced, at gunpoint via taxation, to pay to help those people.

Oh yes, that's not kooky at all. :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You guys are lame!

http://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php

Statement by Rep. Ron Paul on S. 1858

4/9/2008

Madame Speaker, as an OB-GYN I take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring about the health of newborn children. However, as a Representative who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation?s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.

S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the Untied States. Some will say that the program is merely a guide for local hospitals. However, does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the flaws contained in the model eventually adopted by the federal government, almost every hospital in the country will scrap their own newborn screening programs in favor of the federal model? After all, no hospital will want to risk losing federal funding because they did not adopt the ?federally-approved? plan for newborn screening. This, thus bill takes another step toward the nationalization of health care.

As the federal government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.

In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ?public health? disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ?emergency.? Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families? medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a government-declared health emergency, while the federal government will be very unlikely to relinquish its? new powers when the emergency passes.

I am also skeptical, to say the least, that a top-down federal plan to screen any part of the population will effectively help meet the challenges facing the health care system in the event of a real public emergency. State and local governments working together with health care providers, can better come up with effective ways to deal with public health emergencies than can any federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons Madame Speaker that I oppose S. 1858.

Ok, that's a reasonable explanation.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday425.php

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You guys are lame!

http://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php

Statement by Rep. Ron Paul on S. 1858

4/9/2008

Madame Speaker, as an OB-GYN I take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring about the health of newborn children. However, as a Representative who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation?s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.

S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the Untied States. Some will say that the program is merely a guide for local hospitals. However, does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the flaws contained in the model eventually adopted by the federal government, almost every hospital in the country will scrap their own newborn screening programs in favor of the federal model? After all, no hospital will want to risk losing federal funding because they did not adopt the ?federally-approved? plan for newborn screening. This, thus bill takes another step toward the nationalization of health care.

As the federal government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.

In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ?public health? disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ?emergency.? Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families? medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a government-declared health emergency, while the federal government will be very unlikely to relinquish its? new powers when the emergency passes.

I am also skeptical, to say the least, that a top-down federal plan to screen any part of the population will effectively help meet the challenges facing the health care system in the event of a real public emergency. State and local governments working together with health care providers, can better come up with effective ways to deal with public health emergencies than can any federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons Madame Speaker that I oppose S. 1858.

I must be missing something....how does he get from:

Companies would no longer be able to use genetic information like a person's predisposition for breast cancer, sickle cell or diabetes to make insurance or job vdecisions under a bill passed by Congress on Thursday.

to:

S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program.

I don't see the connection.

It's akin to someone with a horrible driving record getting the same car insurance rates as someone with a clean record.

I disagree....insurance companies often have a "across the board" rate hikes when ever there are a higher than normal claims.

My rates go up because to many idiots get into accidents....yes their rates also go up and probably more so, as it should be, but so do mine and many others who have great records.

Why should my health insurance be any different? Why should I have to pay higher rates simply because out of 50 people they screen 39 of them have the genetic defect that makes them more vulnerable to cancer.....which is what will happen....another "across the board" rate hike to cover the companies expense of "what might happen" to a select few.

I agree, that government should stay out of private business, but if they stay completely out and there are no regulations private business will run amok.....everyone want the government to do something about gas prices, but who cares about insurance companies getting information about your genetic make up and using to to raise your rates or deny you coverage over what *might* happen with your health.....doesn't seem to make too much sense.

 

[bamacre]

Looks like what SoundTheSurrender posted is a response to a different bill...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858

 

[bamacre]

http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/dissent/?p=874

On April 25, 2007, opposing [pdf] the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 493, Paul said, in part:

Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual?s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a ?unique medical health identifier.? I also support repealing the phony ?medical privacy? regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will.

Because of the Federal Government?s poor record in protecting privacy , I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee?s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.

The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493?s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party. Therefore, instead of creating more Federal regulations and bureaucracies, my colleagues should increase individual control of health care by passing legislation expanding Health Savings Accounts and individual health care tax credits and deductions.

 

[soccerballtux]

The more I see his responses the more I see how poorly our country is run. He's exactly right-- the states are 100% capable of doing this themselves.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
The more I see his responses the more I see how poorly our country is run. He's exactly right-- the states are 100% capable of doing this themselves.

AND you should be able to see, if you look deep enough, how the media is a very biased and not to be trusted and that they manipulate us on the deepest levels...

The status quo in DC and the media is afraid of the pragmatism and honesty that Ron Paul brings to the table.. He is the only patriot we really have out of all of them

 

[ranmaniac]

If we eventually do get national healthcare, what's to stop the Federal government from overriding the states, and start using genetic information as a basis to tax people more for national healthcare? With the national id card, they will already have your fingerprints, all they have to do is pass a law that demands for a a sample of DNA, and your information goes into a database to be shared or sold without your knowledge. Of course the choice would be to use private health insurance instead, however, once the Federal government starts using genetic information, so will the private sector.

It is disturbing to see that we have the potential of becoming a Gattaca-esque society. The question is who do you trust less, for-profit corporations who answer to shareholders, or the federal government who answers to no one?

No wonder people absorb themselves with tv and video games, this sh*t is depressing...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Wheezer
gotta wonder why RP would think this is such a bad thing.

Because it's big government sticking their nose into private business. In this case, the government is effectively saying that everyone must be treated the same by private businesses no matter what. It's akin to someone with a horrible driving record getting the same car insurance rates as someone with a clean record. Sure, they haven't had an accident lately, but they are predisposed to have one, especially compared to someone with a clean record.

When the government says who businesses can sell to, and for how much, it's a bad day for capitalism. Dead weight loss is created in the market as insurance prices will now climb for everyone, and fewer total people will be able to afford insurance at all. Oh wait, the government can just give everyone insurance! :roll:

When the government tells corporations they can't offer the service of murder for hire, it's a bad day for capitalism.

Oh, ya, and a good day for the nation.

What the hell is wrong with the right-wingers who think that any business desire is automaticaly good and should not be questioned for whether it's good for society?

This vote shows Ron Paul for the ideological extremist he is, despite some popular views.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Wheezer
gotta wonder why RP would think this is such a bad thing.

Because it's big government sticking their nose into private business. In this case, the government is effectively saying that everyone must be treated the same by private businesses no matter what. It's akin to someone with a horrible driving record getting the same car insurance rates as someone with a clean record. Sure, they haven't had an accident lately, but they are predisposed to have one, especially compared to someone with a clean record.

When the government says who businesses can sell to, and for how much, it's a bad day for capitalism. Dead weight loss is created in the market as insurance prices will now climb for everyone, and fewer total people will be able to afford insurance at all. Oh wait, the government can just give everyone insurance! :roll:

So you would be fine if companies could discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.? Because those are also factors outside of the control of the individual, which affect the company's bottom line.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Wheezer
gotta wonder why RP would think this is such a bad thing.

Because it's big government sticking their nose into private business. In this case, the government is effectively saying that everyone must be treated the same by private businesses no matter what. It's akin to someone with a horrible driving record getting the same car insurance rates as someone with a clean record. Sure, they haven't had an accident lately, but they are predisposed to have one, especially compared to someone with a clean record.

When the government says who businesses can sell to, and for how much, it's a bad day for capitalism. Dead weight loss is created in the market as insurance prices will now climb for everyone, and fewer total people will be able to afford insurance at all. Oh wait, the government can just give everyone insurance! :roll:

So you would be fine if companies could discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.? Because those are also factors outside of the control of the individual, which affect the company's bottom line.

I was going to use this analogy as well.

Neither free market nor state's rights arguments really apply here. This is about discrimination based on human attributes. Also, giving genetics more freedom to explore is a nice side effect.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/dissent/?p=874

On April 25, 2007, opposing [pdf] the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 493, Paul said, in part:

Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual?s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a ?unique medical health identifier.? I also support repealing the phony ?medical privacy? regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will.

Because of the Federal Government?s poor record in protecting privacy , I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee?s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.

The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493?s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party.The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493?s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party.The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493?s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party. Therefore, instead of creating more Federal regulations and bureaucracies, my colleagues should increase individual control of health care by passing legislation expanding Health Savings Accounts and individual health care tax credits and deductions.

Giving individuals control of their health care and not their employers by allowing their employers to deny them health care?

Why don't we just corral the "undesirables" and cull them? It would save a lot of money. :roll:

I have little faith in government largess (HIPPA is a huge FUBAR), but even less in those who believe that the dollar is more important than the people.

Businesses exist for one reason and that's to make money. Unfettered capitalism will bring us prosperity for whoever the wealthy deem fit. The rest can eat cake. Or have no insurance, same thing.

Prosperity for some, company stores for others. What a grand society :roll:

 

[Mean MrMustard]

RP :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
If we eventually do get national healthcare, what's to stop the Federal government from overriding the states, and start using genetic information as a basis to tax people more for national healthcare? With the national id card, they will already have your fingerprints, all they have to do is pass a law that demands for a a sample of DNA, and your information goes into a database to be shared or sold without your knowledge. Of course the choice would be to use private health insurance instead, however, once the Federal government starts using genetic information, so will the private sector.

It is disturbing to see that we have the potential of becoming a Gattaca-esque society. The question is who do you trust less, for-profit corporations who answer to shareholders, or the federal government who answers to no one?

No wonder people absorb themselves with tv and video games, this sh*t is depressing...

Nothing will stop them. Look up our aggressive eugenics programs in the early 20th century.

 

[nageov3t]

Ron Paul: the one man willing to stand up to Human-Shark hybrids with laser beams.