After being blocked by republican congress for years, this thing is finally going to pass. I don't know wtf happened before if the vote is now 420 to 3. It seems like the previous house really did have no idea what the hell they were doing. It's now in the senate and being held by douchebag who won't let it go to vote (Tom Coburn R Oklahoma). There has been concern of whether this will actually keep insurance companies from discriminating, but I hope it works so that people will be able to take advantage of medical science.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11787&feedId=online-news_rss20

Quote :

"Soon it will be illegal to deny US citizens jobs or insurance simply because they have an inherited illness, or a genetic predisposition to a particular disease. On 25 April, the House of Representatives voted 420 to 3 to pass the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). The Senate is expected to endorse the act within a few weeks, which is also supported by President Bush. "I am so stunned by the majority," says Sharon Terry, president of the Genetic Alliance, a charity lobbying for the rights of people with inherited illnesses. "Clearly the House finally understood the incredible significance this has. The American public can now access genetic tests, feel safe about their genetic information not being misused and participate in research that involves genetic information.""

5/9/2007 4:18:48 AM

in other news, bush vetoed the first hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation.

5/9/2007 8:51:29 AM

Quote :

"Soon it will be illegal to deny US citizens jobs or insurance simply because they have an inherited illness, or a genetic predisposition to a particular disease."

I think there may be some jobs that genetically predisposition people should not be allowed to do. Like, a midget working as part of a swat team. Or a person born with a contagious disease should probably not work in a hospital.

And insurance companies should allow a person born with AIDS to get life insurance... just multiply the rate by two... to the 100th degree... plus one. It just wouldn't make sense.

There are always two sides to a story. It's all sugary sweet and nice to be nondiscriminatory, but there is such a thing and safety and protection of general interests. I just hope this nondiscrimination act doesn't backfire on everyone.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 9:16 AM. Reason : *shrugs*]

5/9/2007 9:09:32 AM

How is aids or a contagious disease genetic?

5/9/2007 9:42:07 AM

Quote :

"I think there may be some jobs that genetically predisposition people should not be allowed to do. Like, a midget working as part of a swat team. Or a person born with a contagious disease should probably not work in a hospital."

if they aren't able to do the job, or could possibly pose a danger, it isn't

Quote :

"deny US citizens jobs or insurance simply because they have an inherited illness, or a genetic predisposition to a particular disease"

those are job related factors......It really won't change things that much, with all the labor laws already out there.

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 9:56 AM. Reason : higher insurance costs tho.]

5/9/2007 9:56:07 AM

ok, seems you people have no idea what this is about. there are genetic links to many neurodegenerative diseases, cancers, etc... many people choose to not get their dna analyzed for these links when there is a family history because if it turns out they have the mutant allele and insurance companies find out, they may not be able to be covered or be charged higher rates. also, their jobs may be at risk. insurance companies have been real dicks on this issue by violating people's privacy to get the information. they will go after medical centers aggressively to get this information, with varying degrees of success. currently, a little over half of the genetic consultants said they would not give out the information for any reason. but that means the other half are leaking data, which is bad.

Quote :

"I think there may be some jobs that genetically predisposition people should not be allowed to do. Like, a midget working as part of a swat team. "

that's basically covered under the american's with disabilities act. that is an old law that this new law has nothing to do with really. it's obvious that employers are not punished if someone cannot perform a job.

Quote :

"Or a person born with a contagious disease should probably not work in a hospital."

again, this has nothing to do with this legislation, especially because contagious diseases are not genetic. you can't catch alzheimer's disease, can you... this is probably covered in the american's with disablities act

Quote :

"And insurance companies should allow a person born with AIDS to get life insurance... just multiply the rate by two... to the 100th degree... plus one. It just wouldn't make sense."

actually, i couldnt disagree more. this is kind of what this law protects against, that if someone is known to be affected by a disease down the line that insurance companies can't raise their rates or deny them coverage. it makes sense that if someone wasn't paying insurance and then they get sick, that it's their own damn fault (unless they couldn't afford it to begin with). however, if someone is born with a disease, they should not be penalized (but they still are currently if they are born with AIDS for example).

Quote :

"There are always two sides to a story. It's all sugary sweet and nice to be nondiscriminatory, but there is such a thing and safety and protection of general interests. I just hope this nondiscrimination act doesn't backfire on everyone."

yes there are two sides to every story. the insurance companies are the other side of this one. this issue rarely comes up with employment, but this is just one more safeguard for people's rights. if anything was going to backfire, it would have already been handled in similar cases under the american's with disabilities act

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

5/9/2007 10:23:03 AM

Oh I'll sell you life insurance even if you have a massive history of heart failure in your family...but theres no Act in power that says I cant overcharge the shit out of you

5/9/2007 10:27:35 AM

^charging more due to genetics would still be discrimination under this law.

5/9/2007 10:32:36 AM

so everyone gets charged more to cover it.

5/9/2007 10:36:24 AM

if insurance companies want. but the point of insurance in the first place is that everyone puts in money in case someone gets sick.

5/9/2007 10:45:04 AM

^ I'm not so sure if I want to agree with that. It has some truth to it, but not all. Do you really feel like it's fair if you know John Doe is going to get sick 98% of the time? Wouldn't it be fair to charge John Doe more since he's obviously going to use the insurance much more?

Yes, it'd be nice, cuddly, cute, generous, and all to support John Doe in that way, but if John Doe and everyone else with the same health issues didn't have to pay a higher premium for their insurance, then it might cause a big problem for other people who may need the "emergency" insurance, but can't afford it because the prices have sky rocketed because John Doe goes to the hospital every other day.

The REAL point of insurance should be to cover yourself/your family. If you had to worry about covering EVERYONE in America then you might run into problems. Example: Little Sue (who only has a 2% chance of getting sick) wasn't be able to afford to pay for both her and John Doe's insurance and one day she gets really sick. Do you think it'd be fair to her?

The good thing is, right now, insurance companies CAN discriminate and charge those with higher risk for more money. Making it fair for both Little Sue and John Doe.

There has to be a better solution to health/life insurance than this nondiscrimination act... but, I have yet to determine that as an armchair politician.

5/9/2007 11:10:38 AM

^^The point of insurance companies is nowhere near as altruistic as you make it sound. The point of insurance is to make money, both for the policy holders and the insurer.

Insurers try to make money by taking in more than they pay out. This is relatively easy on their part, since they have a large customer base and a relatively small percentage of those will ever have catastrophic injuries/illnesses that require enormous payouts.

Policy holders try to make money by consuming more in health benefits than they pay in the form of premiums and deductibles. Obviously, the odds of an individual actually making money from an insurance policy are fairly low because the odds of you requiring a large payout are low and because you're unlikely to seek out a situation that requires enormous health care bills. However, because the costs can be so great and because most people are poor savers, this is a risk that most are willing to take.

I'm personally of the belief that insurance companies and government have both colluded to raise health care prices to the point where it is difficult to self insure and to the point where common procedures are so expensive that more people are willing to take the risk of acquiring an insurance policy to cover routine/normal/preventantive health care (vice insurance for catastrophic illness/accidents). Insurers benefit by having more customers and more revenue and government benefits by acquiring more power (more people need Medicare).

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

5/9/2007 11:14:39 AM

Quote :

"a midget working as part of a swat team"

fyi, dwarves consider "midget" to be their version of the "n-word."

5/9/2007 11:14:53 AM

^ phew! good thing dwarves don't have an Al Sharpton Jr. or a Jesse Jackson Lite Version 2.0... otherwise I might get kicked off the soapbox.

5/9/2007 11:27:48 AM

Quote :

"think there may be some jobs that genetically predisposition people should not be allowed to do. Like, a midget working as part of a swat team. Or a person born with a contagious disease should probably not work in a hospital."

Unfortunately for you, they can discriminate for being ignorant. A midget couldn't be on the swat team because he couldn't meet the physical requirements of the job.

Genetic diseases are not contagious!

5/9/2007 11:31:13 AM

I was assuming:

Genetic = born with it
disease = possibly contagious

Genetic disease = born with it and possibly contagious

(maybe the article should have used a different word... like genetic disorder, so dumb people like me won't be so confused)

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : but thanks for arguing the point, keeps it interesting in here ]

5/9/2007 11:53:20 AM

^I'm pretty sure "disease" is simply a catch-all term for any condition, be it physical or bacterial/viral in nature, that impairs bodily function in some way. That might not be the perfect definition, but you do have things such as heart disease - problems with the heart that are usually due to high-cholesterol diets and sedentary life styles (although there are certain genetics that make some people more susceptible to heart disease). Heart disease is a "disease," but it's not communicable like, say, the common cold. You can't catch heart disease from somebody else.

5/9/2007 1:09:26 PM

welp, here it goes, yet another straw on the camel's back. Health insurance suffers a strong moral hazard when it comes to self selection. The insurance company finds it very difficult to recognize the risk inherent in insuring most individuals. However, individuals which are prone to risk tend to know they are. As such, individuals prone to claims get insurance and make claims, driving up rates for everyone. As rates go up, individuals not prone to claims recognize they are getting screwed and drop their coverage. As more people drop their coverage, the risk is shared among less people, driving rates even higher, driving away more people, driving rates higher and higher.

We try to get around this by having insurance provided through ones employer, thus keeping risk-prone individuals at bay (not an employee).

But such a system is inherently unstable, particularly if risk-prone individuals start choosing employment positions based upon insurance availability. So even with this model we will still end up with a large percentage of people driven to self insure.

Nope, this system sucks and is only going to be made worse by such laws. The only way out now is to nationalize the whole industry; at least then someone will be in a position to make the tough decision to stop insuring certain individuals. In Britain and Canada, there is a Government agency tasked with cutting people off when it is no longer cost-effective to save them. Here in America, however, where it would be the insurance companies making such a decision it is illegal for them to make it, so the system suffers.

5/9/2007 2:13:18 PM

I think you are overstating the problem. Insurance companies are still making money. Do you really think we've hit the point where the gov't can do it more efficiently?

5/9/2007 2:33:45 PM