Congress passes anti-genetic discrimination bill 414-1: Guess who opposed?
- Thread starter TER
- Start date
Most likely he voted against it because he thinks that this ball is in the State Government, rather than the Federal Government's ballpark. As he has said before, the Constitution places many limits on what the Federal Government is supposed to be involved in.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think about the bill. I definately think it is out of the Fed's ballpark. On one hand, medical insurance companies could and probably would abuse it in order to make more money. On the other hand, why should I pay for someone else's bad genetic luck? That sounds mean to say, but I already pay for every other bad male driver on the road although I've never been in a wreck or gotten a ticket...unfortunately all problems are not simple.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think about the bill. I definately think it is out of the Fed's ballpark. On one hand, medical insurance companies could and probably would abuse it in order to make more money. On the other hand, why should I pay for someone else's bad genetic luck? That sounds mean to say, but I already pay for every other bad male driver on the road although I've never been in a wreck or gotten a ticket...unfortunately all problems are not simple.
Last edited:
TER
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 17,946
Thanks. You explained it better than the Ron Paul quote chosen in the article.
That being said, is that what his position would be then? That the states should decide? Or does he believe that genetic material should be used to for various reasons other than medical teatment? Example, less insurance premiums, employment, etc.
That being said, is that what his position would be then? That the states should decide? Or does he believe that genetic material should be used to for various reasons other than medical teatment? Example, less insurance premiums, employment, etc.
Last edited:
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
Im sure Ron Paul also has privacy concerns.. I can see this as the foundation for a national database of peoples' names and genetic information.. ON top of that theyll need a phone number and address to contact people for their safety, etc.
Its a reacharound for the real ID
Its a reacharound for the real ID
i would say he believes it's definatly a matter for the states to decide. I would think it's a contract dispute. If free markets provide coverage, then insurance companies who discriminate would lose business. most people probably have something wrong in their codes. dna is more cluttered than windows vista. this would drive prices down as people would compete for this large market.
... Can someone please explain to me why he voted no? I'm just not understanding it completely.
I don't know, but can tell you why I would vote NO on almost any new law.
Because these laws are almost always a fraud.
The moment there is a law - don't forget that there are millions of them ON the books already - the question becomes one of words instead of intent or morals (Clinton's famous: depends what the meaning of the word "is" is). The depraved (unscrupulous) need only satisfy the words in order to enjoy an actual protection from consequences that would otherwise be a clear case of fraud or aggression - at least to the average community. There are endless examples where "new" or "improved" laws are astonishingly adept in having "unintended consequences" - as if.
Justice is inversely proportional to the quantity of law. - Proemio
I wrote and argued a ton on that subject over the years.
It's a fundamental issue surrounding the "what's wrong" question.
In the department of "words have meaning", just ponder "nation UNDER law" - it's in our face...
Yep, good point, probably the main reason in this case.
How about the easiest defense - who says you can't discriminate on a genetic basis? You have the right to act as you see fit, whether your hiring decisions be influenced by genetics, ideas, intelligence, or otherwise (or insurance decisions). They can't have your genetic data unless you already gave it to them (or someone else, who had the power to give it to them).
tonyr1988
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 806
A lot of people fall into that trap - why can't the government keep some of our data? Private corporations collect tons of information all the time, and they're certainly worse (or potentially worse) than the government.
This is the big difference: if a private corporation does something wrong with your personal information - accidentally loses it, sells it to someone, etc...you can sue them and punish them. If the govt does it, you're ****ed.
Also, the federal government can use the information for more uses than private corporations in most instances (companies can't arrest you and take you to jail). But the previous point is the main one, IMO.
TER
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 17,946
This answer gives so much clarity. Thank you.
chowdy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 151
You hit the nail right on the head.
Knightskye
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,249
link
Okay. Can someone please explain to me why he voted no? I'm just not understanding it completely.
Ron's for the free market is why. The bill prevents insurance companies from not covering someone with a history of genetic conditions, like heart disease. Ron doesn't like (a lot of) regulations.
robert4rp08
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,613
Yup. I think there's 2 issues here, unnecessary federal regulations and privacy:
1. Further federal regulations on private companies (although the medical industry will love this, see #2). I do not condone discrimination. However, the free market should be left to decide. If a business owner only sells product to white males, in general, they will lose a lot of business. Once word gets out of their discriminatory business practices they will be sunk. It's a poor business model and any business owner would be stupid to follow it. Therefore, such federal regulations are unnecessary in a non-nanny state.
2. People will now willingly hand over their DNA for diagnostic testing, screening, and research purposes without the concerns of not being covered by healthcare. The obvious folly is that their genetic makeup will now be in a database, shared between hospitals, on your medical record, on your real id card, shared between countries, accessible by the government, etc. How long before part of the sign-in process requires a cheek swab?
1. Further federal regulations on private companies (although the medical industry will love this, see #2). I do not condone discrimination. However, the free market should be left to decide. If a business owner only sells product to white males, in general, they will lose a lot of business. Once word gets out of their discriminatory business practices they will be sunk. It's a poor business model and any business owner would be stupid to follow it. Therefore, such federal regulations are unnecessary in a non-nanny state.
2. People will now willingly hand over their DNA for diagnostic testing, screening, and research purposes without the concerns of not being covered by healthcare. The obvious folly is that their genetic makeup will now be in a database, shared between hospitals, on your medical record, on your real id card, shared between countries, accessible by the government, etc. How long before part of the sign-in process requires a cheek swab?
Bruno
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 19,518
That's true.
And if a hacker hasn't hacked a system yet, it is only because a hacker has not yet tried...
McCain was talking about electronic medical records yesterday on his visit here. I have the same concerns about that and privacy. Millions of vets had their VA records comprimised already recently.
rp08orbust
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 4,803
It is an insurance company's JOB to discriminate! I.e., to assess peoples' likelihood of needing medical care and charge premiums accordingly. If the insurance companies aren't allowed to use genetic information an applicant may have provided, then why should they be allowed to use *any* information? Why should they know your gender? Or weight? Or even your last name, which could provide clues as to a person's country of origin and therefore correlate with certain risks?
Here's another way to look at it: Let's suppose you have a perfectly healthy family history and wonderful DNA. You would like to show this to your insurance companies and ask for a lower premium. But now the government steps in and says, "Nope, not fair! You have to pay as high of a premium as everyone else so that those with bad DNA don't have to pay higher premiums." That is an assault on your freedom to negotiate with your insurance company.
It would be analogous to not letting private colleges use SAT scores for making admission decisions.
Here's another way to look at it: Let's suppose you have a perfectly healthy family history and wonderful DNA. You would like to show this to your insurance companies and ask for a lower premium. But now the government steps in and says, "Nope, not fair! You have to pay as high of a premium as everyone else so that those with bad DNA don't have to pay higher premiums." That is an assault on your freedom to negotiate with your insurance company.
It would be analogous to not letting private colleges use SAT scores for making admission decisions.
