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

[Craig234]

Louise Slaughter has been fighting - and been blocked - for 12 years to pass a law banning discrimination in insurance and employment over genetic information. It passed the Senate without any no votes in 2003 and 2005, but the Republican House leadership had refused to let it be voted on.

More recently, it was blocked under a rule allowing one Senator to block legislation by Sen. Tom Coburn, who finally removed his block.

It passed now, with no Senators voting against it, and by a 414-1 vote in the House, the no vote was Ron Paul.

A lesson I'd note is that the Republican members (almost all) were not opposed to this bill, but like a lot of issues, the leadership had its own agenda.

Link to a site with relatied information on the 'GINA' bill.

Edit: corrected the vote info from a previous vote.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Moonbeam]

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

Is that what he was saying? I assumed he was one of the genetically defective.

 

[herm0016]

can we get clifs from the bill? this is interesting.

 

[emfiend]

It'll probably all shake out in the end anyway. Those without the bad genes can still potentially get sick. Irregular premiums would not diminish the risk of those without the bad genes. It would only help the insurance companies turn a larger profit.

Those who feel this is unfair are probably going to have the right to not participate in insurance coverage if they feel their risks are sufficiently low.

 

[PokerGuy]

A rare victory for the public, congress does something useful for once!

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So an insurance company cannot use one of the most accurate risk-prediction tools to base their premiums on?
ZV

The concept of insurance is based on spreading risk. Without the protection this legislation provides, consumers are placed in a catch-22 position where on the one side they should get tested to catch things at an early stage, but yet when they do get tested for things they put themselves in a position of no longer being able to get health insurance because of information the insurance company might gain access to. Or, they might no longer be employable because they are at a higher risk of some future disease. For the good of society, you have to set limits on how certain information can be used.

Yay, I've always wanted to have my insurance premiums subsidize people who are at extreme genetic risk for expensive medical care.

.... or, lets look at the other side of the coin: "yay, I can actually still have health insurance despite (through no fault of my own) having a genetic risk factor for some future disease". How do you know you're not the one getting subsidized??

 

[Xavier434]

Sweet!

 

[StormRider]

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

Isn't that the purpose of insurance? It's to share the burden so everyone (ideally) can get medical care. If none of us want to "subsidize" another person then we might as well not have insurance and have everyone pay for things themselves.

Personally, I would consider myself lucky if I have good health and never need to use my insurance.

I *would* mind paying higher premiums that are caused by people doing stupid things (like refusing to wear helmets or seat belts, building homes in flood areas, smoking and drug abuse etc.) but for things they have no control over (like cancer or heart disease), I don't really mind.

 

[jonks]

GATTACA!

 

[Carmen813]

Thank god, now at least I can have kids and know they won't be utterly screwed (or at least as badly) by insurance companies.

<---cancer survivor (as is my wife)

 

[StageLeft]

Good arguments on both sides, I'm afraid. I suppose as things are now I'd rather keep it not possible to discriminate against, although I can see why a private company would want to. I don't know that our socity should be so cold and callous that if a person has a disposition to die at 35 after a decade of expensive treatment we should essentially forget them, which is where such things could lead to otherwise.

 

[GTKeeper]

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

This is the point of insurance. The healthy people subsidize the sick people. If you didn't win the genetic lottery and had some kind of chronic condition that required lots of treatment you would be OK with an insurance company saying 'hey, buddy your premium is 10k/month now or we drop you'. You would be ok with that?

 

[Carmen813]

I'd also like to point out that with as many medical conditions as exist today, I highly doubt anyone has "perfect" genes that are not in some way related to some illness. It's only a matter of time before they are found out. Not to mention that the genes you are born with can be modified by carcinogens, which is the entire cause of some types of cancers (like what my wife had).

There is no such thing as genetic perfection. And if it *did* exist, the environment we live in would screw it up damn quick anyway.

 

[Zenmervolt]

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

Wow, that's one hell of a strawman.

Charging higher health insurance premiums to a person with a verified genetic predisposition towards cancer is no different from charging higher car insurance premiums to a person who is a single male under 25. Insurance companies absolutely should be allowed to charge higher premiums to people who are more likely to cost them extra money in payouts.

If the bill is just saying that they cannot deny coverage entirely based on genetic information, then I'm all for it. But if it prevents insurance companies from basing premiums on genetic information then I think it goes too far.

ZV

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

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

Wow, that's one hell of a strawman.

Charging higher health insurance premiums to a person with a verified genetic predisposition towards cancer is no different from charging higher car insurance premiums to a person who is a single male under 25. Insurance companies absolutely should be allowed to charge higher premiums to people who are more likely to cost them extra money in payouts.

If the bill is just saying that they cannot deny coverage entirely based on genetic information, then I'm all for it. But if it prevents insurance companies from basing premiums on genetic information then I think it goes too far.

ZV

Wow are you walking a slippery slope. For what illness do you draw the line? Almost every single possible ailment has genetic implications.

I think I need to ditch this thread and let someone else argue against your insanity, because its pushing just about every single anger button I have.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: StormRider

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

Isn't that the purpose of insurance? It's to share the burden so everyone (ideally) can get medical care. If none of us want to "subsidize" another person then we might as well not have insurance and have everyone pay for things themselves.

No.

The purpose of insurance is for an individual to hedge against a potentially catastrophic event.

ZV

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

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

Wow, that's one hell of a strawman.

Charging higher health insurance premiums to a person with a verified genetic predisposition towards cancer is no different from charging higher car insurance premiums to a person who is a single male under 25. Insurance companies absolutely should be allowed to charge higher premiums to people who are more likely to cost them extra money in payouts.

If the bill is just saying that they cannot deny coverage entirely based on genetic information, then I'm all for it. But if it prevents insurance companies from basing premiums on genetic information then I think it goes too far.

He did tell you he was being sarcastic, so no strawman. There were plenty of other serious posts to respond to.

As to insurance premiums vs total denial of coverage, I can see a debate with reasonable arguments on both sides.

As to employers, there can be no debate. GINA also prevents employers from discriminating based on genetic info or family medical history. With an eye towards the future and the proliferation of DNA info likely to become widespread, this absolutely required for fair treatment in the marketplace.

 

[Carmen813]

Deleting my flamepost, sorry.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

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

This is the point of insurance. The healthy people subsidize the sick people. If you didn't win the genetic lottery and had some kind of chronic condition that required lots of treatment you would be OK with an insurance company saying 'hey, buddy your premium is 10k/month now or we drop you'. You would be ok with that?

Yes I would. That's how car insurance works after all.

And, as stated, that's not the point of insurance. Insurance is a hedge against catastrophic occurrences, not a means of wealth redistribution.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: StormRider

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

Isn't that the purpose of insurance? It's to share the burden so everyone (ideally) can get medical care. If none of us want to "subsidize" another person then we might as well not have insurance and have everyone pay for things themselves.

No.

The purpose of insurance is for an individual to hedge against a potentially catastrophic event.

ZV

Why don't you just say it?

How about you don't put words into my mouth? If you have a logical position, put it forth. Hiding behind illogical emotions is a coward's trick.

ZV

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

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

This is the point of insurance. The healthy people subsidize the sick people. If you didn't win the genetic lottery and had some kind of chronic condition that required lots of treatment you would be OK with an insurance company saying 'hey, buddy your premium is 10k/month now or we drop you'. You would be ok with that?

Yes I would. That's how car insurance works after all.

And, as stated, that's not the point of insurance. Insurance is a hedge against catastrophic occurrences, not a means of wealth redistribution.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Putting catastrophic accidental coverage aside (car accidents, and such) and dealing solely with diseases that are capable of being genetically determined, if genetic info at some point can 100% accurately predict who will get these diseases, and you have no problem with allowing insurance companies to charge whatever rate, no matter how exhorbitant, to this percentage of the population almost certain to need treatment at some point for their disease, then the only people left insured against those diseases are those we know are never going to suffer from them...?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

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

This is the point of insurance. The healthy people subsidize the sick people. If you didn't win the genetic lottery and had some kind of chronic condition that required lots of treatment you would be OK with an insurance company saying 'hey, buddy your premium is 10k/month now or we drop you'. You would be ok with that?

Yes I would. That's how car insurance works after all.

And, as stated, that's not the point of insurance. Insurance is a hedge against catastrophic occurrences, not a means of wealth redistribution.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Putting catastrophic accidental coverage aside (car accidents, and such) and dealing solely with diseases that are capable of being genetically determined, if genetic info at some point can 100% accurately predict who will get these diseases, and you have no problem with allowing insurance companies to charge whatever rate, no matter how exhorbitant, to this percentage of the population almost certain to need treatment at some point for their disease, then the only people left insured against those diseases are those we know are never going to suffer from them...?

I didn't say they should be able to charge any rate at all. All I said is that they should be able to use the information to help determine rates. Statistically it's an incredibly valid predictor, more accurate than family history, which they use currently. No-one is screaming about insurance companies using family history to determine premiums and I don't see why this would be a problem. This doesn't mean that they can charge whatever they want, but if treatment is costing 50k/month, then a premium of 10K/month is a bargain for that person. It all depends.

ZV

 

[Brainonska511]

This is good. Insurance companies would probably have used genetic information to say that someone had a pre-existing condition and would not qualify for normal coverage.

 

[ElFenix]

invidious discrimination is where a trait that has nothing to do with performance or predictability is used as a criteria for evaluation. invidious discrimination i have a problem with.

using genetic information to determine insurance rates through actuarial science is about the opposite of that.

but i am still undecided on this.