Your genetic info can no longer be used for discrimination against you

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So an insurance company cannot use one of the most accurate risk-prediction tools to base their premiums on? Yay, I've always wanted to have my insurance premiums subsidize people who are at extreme genetic risk for expensive medical care.

ZV

Maybe we should just kill those unwanteds before they're born or force sterilize people at risk so they can't pass on their unwanted genes.



/sarcasm

How about we build a nation with just perfect people, and only those perfect people are allowed to do anything, like breeding and living.

Hmm... Oh, wait...

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

More strawmen in there than a whole field full of scarecrows. Wow. Just plain wow.

ZV

Wow indeed.

My father, faced with a repairable condition, had to make a choice. He could either face a 95% mortality rate for the procedure being done for free, or a 90% survival rate for a procedure done out of the country for about the locally impossible cost of what my college education ended up years later. We lost him when I was 11 years old, because there was no way to obtain that kind of money in our situation, and he chose to live out the rest of his days rather than consent to almost certain misery and death. He sucked it up, fell over dead one day, and I grew up without a father. This isn't a straw-man to me, sweet-tits.

Perhaps down the road you will stop considering other human beings as sick cattle to be put down and discarded, ignoring the fact that many of them are contibuting members of society with careers, husbands, wives, and children. What am I thinking, it's all about your pocket, right? Silly me.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

More strawmen in there than a whole field full of scarecrows. Wow. Just plain wow.

ZV

Wow indeed.

My father, faced with a repairable condition, had to make a choice. He could either face a 95% mortality rate for the procedure being done for free, or a 90% survival rate for a procedure done out of the country for about the locally impossible cost of what my college education ended up years later. We lost him when I was 11 years old, because there was no way to obtain that kind of money in our situation, and he chose to live out the rest of his days rather than consent to almost certain misery and death. He sucked it up, fell over dead one day, and I grew up without a father. This isn't a straw-man to me, sweet-tits.

Perhaps down the road you will stop considering other human beings as sick cattle to be put down and discarded, ignoring the fact that many of them are contibuting members of society with careers, husbands, wives, and children. What am I thinking, it's all about your pocket, right? Silly me.

See above. Also, look up the definition of a strawman argument. You're setting up an argument I haven't made, then fighting against that argument and claiming victory. That would be the definition of a strawman.

You're welcome to pick out which crow you want to eat, but you'll be eating it just the same.

ZV

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt


You're welcome to pick out which crow you want to eat, but you'll be eating it just the same.

ZV

I think you should go eat a dick.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You're welcome to pick out which crow you want to eat, but you'll be eating it just the same.

ZV

I think you should go eat a dick.

You're not even reading my posts at all, are you.

ZV

 

[JSt0rm]

Zenmervolt: If i came into your house and hacksawed off your leg and called 911 and left never to be seen again who should cover your medical bills? Let's say you answer your family. Then lets say your father and mother both got some freak cancer because of a chemical dumped into the water supply of the small town they lived in and have spent every last dime of the families on health care to try and save themselves. Who then should pay for your healthcare?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

But this has not been the case, premiums have increased at a rate that far out performs wages, which for the middle class have barely kept pace with inflation. HMO premiums have increased something like 70% over the past 8 years.

you have to go back further than that. and also compare HMO premiums to regular insurance premiums. HMO isn't a magic bullet to the cost of medicine, but they did reduce costs.

Your arguement doesn't make sense either. If profits were the only reason needed to drive down costs than why would medicare even be *remotely* competitive with private industry? By that argument private industry should blow medicare out of the water, but it doesn't. In fact it shows that staying competitive with medicare seems to be the only objective.

i didn't say profit was the sole incentive. the politicians have adjusted it for the reasons politicians do anything. of course it ends up overrunning the yearly target and so you get things like the reimbursement reduction (determined by a formula back in 1998) that was announced about two weeks ago. and you get doctors threatening to leave the system.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You're welcome to pick out which crow you want to eat, but you'll be eating it just the same.

ZV

I think you should go eat a dick.

You're not even reading my posts at all, are you.

ZV

Sadly, I did read your posts. It left me with the impression that you're a pathetic, hollow shell of a man. You should be spending more time trying to pick out which dick you want to eat--I'm sure it'll taste just the same at the last one.

You were only going to get a stern warning for you first "dick eating" post. Too bad you posted this second one first. Because of your father, you are personally upset, but we can't let you act that out here.

One week off.

Perknose
Senior At Mod

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Zenmervolt: If i came into your house and hacksawed off your leg and called 911 and left never to be seen again who should cover your medical bills? Let's say you answer your family. Then lets say your father and mother both got some freak cancer because of a chemical dumped into the water supply of the small town they lived in and have spent every last dime of the families on health care to try and save themselves. Who then should pay for your healthcare?

Actually, in that scenario, you should. Outside of that, I have insurance. Barring insurance, me. Barring me, family. Barring family, friends. Barring friends, I would seek a charitable institution. Barring that, TS for me.

Yes, I have insurance. I'm not a fool. But I accept that if I have any additional risk factors I will pay higher premiums as a result. Under no circumstance would I expect to be able to force another person to pay for me, nor would I expect to have low premiums even if I was in a high-risk group.

I know I'm a heartless bastard, but that's the only logical way to be.

ZV

 

[Double Trouble]

Zenmervolt, your credibility on this topic has been shredded by other posters, perhaps the garage is the best place for ya. Your "I don't need no government, I can do it all by myself na na boo boo" would be very funny if it wasn't for the fact that there are others who actually believe that BS.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Zenmervolt, your credibility on this topic has been shredded by other posters,

No, they simply disagree. There have been many emotional pieces, but no logical reason why genetic information cannot be used as a piece to make actuarial tables more accurate. Every argument against me starts with a premise that I disagree with, but none of those arguments offer any more support for their premise than I have offered to support mine.

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
perhaps the garage is the best place for ya.

Logically void. Therefore irrelevant.

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Your "I don't need no government, I can do it all by myself na na boo boo" would be very funny if it wasn't for the fact that there are others who actually believe that BS.

Where have I said that I can do it all alone? A person needs a support network, but that support network should be his friends and family. I also never said that we don't need a government. I noted explicitly that a government is necessary to provide a framework that allows individuals to better themselves. I simply do not believe that the government's proper place is as a parental figure or safety net towards its citizens, nor do I believe that citizens are somehow subservient to society as a whole.

Government is necessary. It is the only way to allow us to get past subsistence living and to secure full rights for the individual. I object only to the government attempting to dictate ethics or morality.

Minarchy is not the same as anarchy. There's a vast difference. If you look at the writings of the founders, you'll find that they support my view. All I advocate is that which is consistent with Jefferson, Franklin, and Locke.

ZV

 

[emfiend]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Zenmervolt: If i came into your house and hacksawed off your leg and called 911 and left never to be seen again who should cover your medical bills? Let's say you answer your family. Then lets say your father and mother both got some freak cancer because of a chemical dumped into the water supply of the small town they lived in and have spent every last dime of the families on health care to try and save themselves. Who then should pay for your healthcare?

Actually, in that scenario, you should. Outside of that, I have insurance. Barring insurance, me. Barring me, family. Barring family, friends. Barring friends, I would seek a charitable institution. Barring that, TS for me.

Yes, I have insurance. I'm not a fool. But I accept that if I have any additional risk factors I will pay higher premiums as a result. Under no circumstance would I expect to be able to force another person to pay for me, nor would I expect to have low premiums even if I was in a high-risk group.

I know I'm a heartless bastard, but that's the only logical way to be.

ZV

The argument you make only makes sense in the context of something other than health care and health insurance, namely life insurance. Life insurance premiums currently do indeed get established with certain individual dispositions considered. Your points make complete agreeable sense when applied to life insurance premiums. Health insurnace, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing. To say they should or can be established based on genetic information makes no practical sense. Group policies, for instance, are not at all set by individual characteristics of employees.

In spite of the visceral reactions you've received, I still wonder if you can recognize this subtle nuance...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: emfiend

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Zenmervolt: If i came into your house and hacksawed off your leg and called 911 and left never to be seen again who should cover your medical bills? Let's say you answer your family. Then lets say your father and mother both got some freak cancer because of a chemical dumped into the water supply of the small town they lived in and have spent every last dime of the families on health care to try and save themselves. Who then should pay for your healthcare?

Actually, in that scenario, you should. Outside of that, I have insurance. Barring insurance, me. Barring me, family. Barring family, friends. Barring friends, I would seek a charitable institution. Barring that, TS for me.

Yes, I have insurance. I'm not a fool. But I accept that if I have any additional risk factors I will pay higher premiums as a result. Under no circumstance would I expect to be able to force another person to pay for me, nor would I expect to have low premiums even if I was in a high-risk group.

I know I'm a heartless bastard, but that's the only logical way to be.

ZV

The argument you make only makes sense in the context of something other than health care and health insurance, namely life insurance. Life insurance premiums currently do indeed get established with certain individual dispositions considered. Your points make complete agreeable sense when applied to life insurance premiums. Health insurnace, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing. To say they should or can be established based on genetic information makes no practical sense. Group policies, for instance, are not at all set by individual characteristics of employees.

In spite of the visceral reactions you've received, I still wonder if you can recognize this subtle nuance...

I agree about group policies. I was assuming the discussion was about individual policies which do take into account such things as family history and tobacco use.

ZV

 

[Double Trouble]

ZV: you are the poster child for why libertarians can't ever win anything in an election. I'm disgusted by the repubs and dems alike, but there are too many people included in the libertarian fringe that espouse ideas that 99% of sane people can not accept. By your logic, if someone is born disabled such that they can not feed themselves it's "someone else's problem", so the person can just rot and die. Very nice.