SOMEONE EXPLAIN 2 me Y Dr. Paul Voted "NO" on this BILL!!!!!!!!!

[powertothepeople]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_go_co/genetic_discrimination

 

[Kludge]

Only if you use English.

Edit: His reasoning is right there in the article.... -_- "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," Paul said.

 

[Forefall]

Y Not?

 

[The One]

I'm not even going to read whatever you linked to, and I'm still going to answer the question correctly......because the constituion doesn't authorize it.

 

[soapmistress]

If someone posted the entire text of the bill, I'm positive we could nail it in about 10 seconds flat.

PROBABLY has to do with telling private businesses how to conduct their affairs with customers who could take their business elsewhere if they don't like the company's policies. That's just my guess though

 

[soapmistress]

nm. Someone else already read it

 

[goldstandard]

This is what Paul said:

"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," Paul said.

 

[Dave39168]

Some suggest privacy concerns... I think the bill is basically just more regulations. This is something the free market can take care of. If I own an insurance company i should be able to insure who i want, for whatever reasons I want. Now wether or not that will get me a bunch of customers is another question.

In a real free market (we're not there right now): The insurance companies that place to many restrictions on who they cover will not do much business. Those who are more fair will get more business. Insurance is all about crunching numbers and calculating the risks. I say if someone is genetically predetermined to costs the insurance company a lot of money then why not charge them higher premiums.

Its not someone's fault if they are a higher risk customer, true, buts its also not everyone else responsibility to pick up the difference in costs right?

I hope that made sense. It does to me.

Summary: Free markets can handle this issue without the government telling them to do the right thing.

 

[powertothepeople]

Thank you.

 

[Joseph Hart]

This is why I never donated blood.

 

[constitutional]

This is why I never donated blood.

why?

 

[constitutional]

This is what Paul said:
"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," Paul said.

How is the federal government involved in this? They are simply saying, "don't do it!" They are not keeping any record. I don't understand where RP is coming from.

I'm totally baffled on how we will solve the issue of "genetic discrimination".

 

[Kludge]

How is the federal government involved in this? They are simply saying, "don't do it!" They are not keeping any record. I don't understand where RP is coming from.

I'm totally baffled on how we will solve the issue of "genetic discrimination".

To my understanding the bill was to forbid (insurance) companies to check a person for genetic defects before insuring them. On whose authority does congress get to forbid consensual contracts between two private entities?

Why shouldn't an insurance company be allowed to check for pre-dispositions to heart disease if they want to? It'd probably help their profit-margins, increasing currency circulation.

 

[amy31416]

This is why I never donated blood.

That's just ignorant.

 

[constitutional]

To my understanding the bill was to forbid (insurance) companies to check a person for genetic defects before insuring them. On whose authority does congress get to forbid consensual contracts between two private entities?

Why shouldn't an insurance company be allowed to check for pre-dispositions to heart disease if they want to? It'd probably help their profit-margins, increasing currency circulation.

Alright, I get it: RP is against employers from giving genetic test to employees but since the bill places restriction on insurance companies (against free market), RP voted against the bill.


^^^ or at least that's the excuse I will use if someone ever throws this question at me.


But I still don't understand what he means by "Because of the federal government's poor record in protecting privacy...."

 

[Kludge]

But I still don't understand what he means by "Because of the federal government's poor record in protecting privacy...."

*shrug* Mis-spoke?

 

[Shinerxx]

That is probably the one sentence the AP picked out of Ron Paul's answer.

 

[brandon]

I think it is pretty clear that Dr Paul supports mandatory genetic tests before any contracts are made.

 

[Joseph Hart]

That's just ignorant.

Thanks. I have the right to choose based on human rights. My DNA will not be labeled with my name in a database.

 

[IRO-bot]

I never could donate blood. Always seemed to coincide with a recent newly minted tattoo.