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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 10, 2005
23,984
6,786
136
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

I wouldn't mind seeing health insurance return to this principle - stop covering expected visits to the doctor (ie: annual physicals) and go back to covering hospitalizations and other catastrophic things. Maybe some of the more expensive drugs too. It would certainly help to lower overall costs, as there would not be some faceless corporation footing the bill for marked up drugs, needless tests, etc.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: 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.

Wow, what else does this sound like. I can't quit remember, but it's drilling in my mind to figure it out.
 

emfiend

Member
Oct 5, 2007
100
0
0
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

This is an ethical issue. Not an actuarial one.

The flaw in your argument is that the expression "likely to cost them extra money in payouts" in the context of auto insurance, is tied to choices made by the driver(s) of vehicles. One's genetic makeup is not a matter of choice.

Sickle cell anemia is known to occur disproportionately in blacks than in any other race. If insurance companies began charging higher premiums to blacks for this reason, that would amount to using genetic information in the manner you're advocating. I think its wrong and we should avoid it from happening.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Already a thread on this.


Originally posted by: Craig234
It passed now, with no Senators voting against it, and by a 414-1 vote in the House, the no vote was Ron Paul.

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. 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.

 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: 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

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

The problem with using genetic information to determine premiums is that there are hundreds of diseases that have genetic influences, however no SINGLE gene will guarantee you will get a disease. given the amount of genes that exist in the human genome it is virtually guaranteed that everyone has at least some of these genes. This would simply be a way for insurance companies to unjustifiably increase premiums when the risk of developing many of these illnesses is extremely small. Genetics alone cannot predict the risk of illness, environmental factors also are extremely important.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Carmen813

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

medicine has always been a for profit business.
 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,324
2
0
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

That's from the individual point of view.

The only way to implement this is from a higher level view point where you have the healthy people subsidize the cost of care for the unhealthy by spreading the risk among everyone. That's the point of having a society -- otherwise we are just individual animals looking after ourselves.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Carmen813
They passed a similar law in the movie GATACA, it resulted in their 'utopian' society.

Weren't the laws passed in Gattaca the exact opposite of this, namely, they ALLOWED companies and the government to hire employees, make loans, or set insurance rates specifically based on a person's potential as revealed by genetic traits available in pre-natel DNA?
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Carmen813

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

medicine has always been a for profit business.

My point was referring to the fact that numerous non-profit HMOs were purchased by for-profit HMOs. These companies are horrifically inefficient, even when compared to government run programs such as medicare.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Carmen813

My point was referring to the fact that numerous non-profit HMOs were purchased by for-profit HMOs. These companies are horrifically inefficient, even when compared to government run programs such as medicare.

medicare's much vaunted efficiency has a lot to do with the fact that medicare more often covers ridiculously expensive EOL care for the mere fact it covers old people. open heart surgery may have 10x the dollar cost in overhead as getting a tooth pulled, but costs 100x more so the overhead 'efficiency' is 10x higher.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Carmen813

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

medicine has always been a for profit business.

Not only that, but remember that for every drug that is approved there are many, many blind alleys. That $600/month wasn't just for her prescription, it was recouping the cost of all the failed experiments that eventually led up to that prescription. Capping the price of prescriptions will only result in reduced R&D, which means fewer new drugs available overall.

Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Carmen813

My point was referring to the fact that numerous non-profit HMOs were purchased by for-profit HMOs. These companies are horrifically inefficient, even when compared to government run programs such as medicare.

medicare's much vaunted efficiency has a lot to do with the fact that medicare more often covers ridiculously expensive EOL care for the mere fact it covers old people. open heart surgery may have 10x the dollar cost in overhead as getting a tooth pulled, but costs 100x more so the overhead 'efficiency' is 10x higher.

From the reading I've done, even the people who hate medicare agree it is about 15% more efficient than private companies.

I can't stand HMOs. They place decisions in the hands of some private company bureaucracy where the bottom line is all that matters, taking away decisions from doctors and patients. The concern is always about money, never about humanity. They also have an abhorrent position towards the treatment of mental health, believing that all issues such as depression can be addressed in cute little 8-12 week therapy sessions, if they cover them at all.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Carmen813

Maybe the problem was turning health care into a for profit business in the first place. I also see a problem with the current costs of medicine, they are out of reach of most normal americans. My wife is in trouble with her medical insurance, it would cost something like 600 dollars a month for one of her prescriptions. It's madness, there is no way anyone our age who isn't born with a silver spoon can afford the treatments she needs.

medicine has always been a for profit business.



Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV

Which is what we are going through, since they are completely and utterly unaffordable. Worst part is without them she is bedridden many days a week due to pain and thus unable to finish her college degree or pursue employment, so its just a self-perpetuating problem. She couldn't get a job right now and work if she wanted to, which she does. So now I'm scrambling around trying to get her on my medicaid, just so she can get the prescriptions she needs to function.

Just because we had bad luck and both were diagnosed with cancer. Makes me question what the hell the point of getting treatment was if you can't even live afterwards. Our health care system is an absolute mess.

Neither of our "cancers" has genetic predispositions either, as far as modern science is concerned.

 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: StormRider
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

That's from the individual point of view.

The only way to implement this is from a higher level view point where you have the healthy people subsidize the cost of care for the unhealthy by spreading the risk among everyone. That's the point of having a society -- otherwise we are just individual animals looking after ourselves.

Society exists to enable the individual to further himself (or herself). To the extent that a society serves the purposes of free individuals, it is good. When a society begins to elevate itself above the individual, it begins to crumble. An individual may choose to sacrifice himself for the benefit of society, but that must be a free choice of the individual. A society that attempts to force an individual to sacrifice himself is immoral.

The purpose of insurance is for an individual to hedge against catastrophe. The mechanism through which this is accomplished is cost-sharing, but there is a great difference between a mechanism for accomplishing an end and an end in itself. People are mistaking the mechanism for the end, which is simply not accurate. Cost-sharing is the mechanism through which insurance accomplishes its end. Cost-sharing is not the end itself.

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV

Which is what we are going through, since they are completely and utterly unaffordable.

So, in the interest of making drugs affordable, you would prefer a situation in which the development costs couldn't be recouped and the drugs were never developed at all? You would really prefer it if no-one had access to the drugs because they didn't exist?

ZV
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Carmen813

From the reading I've done, even the people who hate medicare agree it is about 15% more efficient than private companies.
maybe so, got an article or something?

I can't stand HMOs. They place decisions in the hands of some private company bureaucracy where the bottom line is all that matters, taking away decisions from doctors and patients. The concern is always about money, never about humanity. They also have an abhorrent position towards the treatment of mental health, believing that all issues such as depression can be addressed in cute little 8-12 week therapy sessions, if they cover them at all.

ultimately the decision can always be made by the doctor and patient. that the doctor doesn't work for free or that the patient doesn't have enough money to cover isn't something people want to hear, but the world isn't always fair.

the HMOs succeeded in reducing the cost of medicine over the course of the 90s. unfortunately medicine is something whose costs increase due to the fact that any time something easy to cure is cured, what is left to cure/treat costs more to cure. the more rare the illness the less people there are to spread the costs around. ultimately you've got a skilled artisan with a limited number of hours in the day able to work on one problem at a time. that is about the most expensive way of doing things.

the most cost effective advances in the human condition have been proper plumbing and food safety techniques. neither of which are medicine.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
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


yes it is different. a 25 year old can control his driving. a person can not control if their kidneys go bad or they get leukemia... big difference.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV

Which is what we are going through, since they are completely and utterly unaffordable.

So, in the interest of making drugs affordable, you would prefer a situation in which the development costs couldn't be recouped and the drugs were never developed at all? You would really prefer it if no-one had access to the drugs because they didn't exist?

ZV

To those who can't afford it, the existence of (unaffordable) treatment is no different than it not existing at all. Cost sharing is the only way treatments can be affordable to all but the richest few. Your arguments seem to center around a strict libertarian belief that society is essentially irrelevant and that the individual is all that matters -- everyone's on their own to fend for themselves. That's fine if you're willing to accept suffering of innocents for no particular reason, which most civilized people are not.

Heck, using your logic, we should not have a fire department, why should you (the person who's house is not on fire) have to 'subsidize' the extinguishing of someone else who's house is on fire? Make the fire department private, and when they have to come out to your house, they charge you $1,000,000 since the cost of the service is borne only by those who need to use it. See how stupid that becomes?? Once upon a time that's how things worked, and people realized along the way that everyone could benefit from sharing certain costs.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Citrix
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

yes it is different. a 25 year old can control his driving. a person can not control if their kidneys go bad or they get leukemia... big difference.

There's no difference on the insurance company's end. And an under-25 male who does control his driving see no reduction in insurance premiums from that. If you are statistically likely to cost the insurance company more money, they should absolutely be able to increase your rates. Should they be able to deny coverage based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to price coverage such that it cannot be afforded based on what might happen? absolutely not. Should they be able to increase premiums without making them prohibitively expensive based on what is likely to happen? You bet.

Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Citrix
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

yes it is different. a 25 year old can control his driving. a person can not control if their kidneys go bad or they get leukemia... big difference.

There's no difference on the insurance company's end. And an under-25 male who does control his driving see no reduction in insurance premiums from that. If you are statistically likely to cost the insurance company more money, they should absolutely be able to increase your rates. Should they be able to deny coverage based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to price coverage such that it cannot be afforded based on what might happen? absolutely not. Should they be able to increase premiums without making them prohibitively expensive based on what is likely to happen? You bet.

Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV


I think you are making the extremely wild assumption that all insurance companies act 100% responsibly and adhere to statistics 100% of the time and that all their premiums etc. and denials of coverage and rates and annual increases in rates are all based on statistics. This is absolutely not true. Case and point my company:

Two years ago in my company (which is small about 35 people) had 5 cases of child birth. Last year our overall coverage premiums went up because we cost the health insurance company more money due to hospital stays for these births. Also last year, we had 0 additional child births.

Guess what our premium is for this year? Its exactly the same as last year because of the additional child births. And of course we get the run-around as to why our rates have NOT gone down since last year since we had no additional child births.

Oh and I forgot to mention.... after this year the increases on the premiums themselves (not what they were 2 years ago, just the increases) would have paid fully for 3 child births.

Sometimes I think insurance are just massive lay-away programs where you jack the cost once, but pay for it forever until its paid off or never paid off.

 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yes, the costs are a terrible burden, but the alternative is quite literally to not have some of those drugs at all.

ZV

Which is what we are going through, since they are completely and utterly unaffordable.

So, in the interest of making drugs affordable, you would prefer a situation in which the development costs couldn't be recouped and the drugs were never developed at all? You would really prefer it if no-one had access to the drugs because they didn't exist?

ZV

To those who can't afford it, the existence of (unaffordable) treatment is no different than it not existing at all. Cost sharing is the only way treatments can be affordable to all but the richest few. Your arguments seem to center around a strict libertarian belief that society is essentially irrelevant and that the individual is all that matters -- everyone's on their own to fend for themselves. That's fine if you're willing to accept suffering of innocents for no particular reason, which most civilized people are not.

Heck, using your logic, we should not have a fire department, why should you (the person who's house is not on fire) have to 'subsidize' the extinguishing of someone else who's house is on fire? Make the fire department private, and when they have to come out to your house, they charge you $1,000,000 since the cost of the service is borne only by those who need to use it. See how stupid that becomes?? Once upon a time that's how things worked, and people realized along the way that everyone could benefit from sharing certain costs.

And by your logic, since the drugs are unaffordable to some, it's better to have the wealthy people die than to save even a few. In your world it's better to have everyone die than to have drugs available only to a few?

Life is suffering. Innocents are going to suffer, that's just the way the world works. That's how it always has been and is how it always will be. Everyone, at one point or another, suffers. It simply cannot be prevented. The world is not the warm, fuzzy place they sell in kindergarten cartoons.

Society is not irrelevant, it is a tool to allow free individuals to coexist within a common framework. Properly implemented, a society allows individuals to achieve goals that would be impossible to achieve alone. However, a society should never force an individual to subsidize another. An individual may well choose, of his own free will, to voluntarily subsidize another, and I would applaud such an individual's choice, but to force subsidies is reprehensible, and to accept such subsidies for an extended period of time is also reprehensible.

Regarding the fire department: You are aware that many local rescue departments do exactly that? If they respond to an accident and the victims are not residents of the local town, they will bill the victim for the cost of the rescue effort. I would have absolutely no problem with a fire department billing for services rendered, though I sincerely doubt that the cost would be $1,000,000. Such a thing would be exactly the sort of catastrophic event for which I would insure myself, and I would expect that my insurance premiums would take such a thing into account (for a net effect similar to paying taxes to support a fire department).

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Citrix
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

yes it is different. a 25 year old can control his driving. a person can not control if their kidneys go bad or they get leukemia... big difference.

There's no difference on the insurance company's end. And an under-25 male who does control his driving see no reduction in insurance premiums from that. If you are statistically likely to cost the insurance company more money, they should absolutely be able to increase your rates. Should they be able to deny coverage based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to price coverage such that it cannot be afforded based on what might happen? absolutely not. Should they be able to increase premiums without making them prohibitively expensive based on what is likely to happen? You bet.

Despite what people think, this really, truly, is an actuarial issue. An insurance company is not a charity, morality is a null word for an insurance company, it's purely neutral.

ZV

I think you are making the extremely wild assumption that all insurance companies act 100% responsibly and adhere to statistics 100% of the time and that all their premiums etc. and denials of coverage and rates and annual increases in rates are all based on statistics. This is absolutely not true. Case and point my company:

Two years ago in my company (which is small about 35 people) had 5 cases of child birth. Last year our overall coverage premiums went up because we cost the health insurance company more money due to hospital stays for these births. Also last year, we had 0 additional child births.

Guess what our premium is for this year? Its exactly the same as last year because of the additional child births. And of course we get the run-around as to why our rates have NOT gone down since last year since we had no additional child births.

Oh and I forgot to mention.... after this year the increases on the premiums themselves (not what they were 2 years ago, just the increases) would have paid fully for 3 child births.

Sometimes I think insurance are just massive lay-away programs where you jack the cost once, but pay for it forever until its paid off or never paid off.

What companies actually do isn't really relevant in a discussion on what they should do. Yes, I agree that, in the absence of additional information, your example shows some very poor behaviour by the insurance company. But that doesn't mean that a responsible company should be barred from using a very good predictor just because some companies handle things poorly. Some people are irresponsible and drive drunk but that doesn't mean we should take cars away from everyone.

ZV
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
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

That used to be the purpose. However, we have now reached a point where many things less than a catastrophic event could still easily bankrupt someone without medical insurance.

There are also many catastrophic events that could be avoided with preventative care. You said in another post that you don't believe the genetic information should be able to be used to deny someone coverage, but that you think it should be allowed to adjust premiums. How would insurance companies get around that? Easily. They just make the premiums high enough that they know the client can't afford to pay them, the end result of which is the same as denying them coverage.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Balt
You said in another post that you don't believe the genetic information should be able to be used to deny someone coverage, but that you think it should be allowed to adjust premiums. How would insurance companies get around that? Easily. They just make the premiums high enough that they know the client can't afford to pay them, the end result of which is the same as denying them coverage.

Yet, somehow, that hasn't happened with other types of insurance. 17 year old boys are still managing to pay insurance premiums on WRX STi's and V8 muscle cars.

Also, from a different post of mine:

If you are statistically likely to cost the insurance company more money, they should absolutely be able to increase your rates. Should they be able to deny coverage based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to price coverage such that it cannot be afforded based on what might happen? Absolutely not. Should they be able to increase premiums without making them prohibitively expensive based on what is likely to happen? You bet.