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

[Carole]

I suspect the contracts were not consensual. One person in the article referred to was told he was being tested for cholesterol when actually they were testing for sickle cell syndrome. they Lied, the do Lie, they will Lie.

I believe any medical testing done should not involve indepth testing for traits or potential future diseases. Discrimination would exist everywhere and hardly anyone could get a job or would be charged higher insurance rates. Private companies need to be upfront about hteir medical exams. They are just trying to avoid ever having to pay medical costs for people who become ill. I really find this repulsive.

They government sticking its nose in and suggesting this Non-discrimination bill they passed will prevent problems is just unlikely. If anything, it will be used against people one way or another and is yet another database they can get their hands on.

 

[constitutional]

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

That's right, you have the rights. That's why it's donate.

 

[angelatc]

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

I would suspect it is because he does not think the government should dictate how insurance companies should run their businesses.

 

[Broadlighter]

It's another case of the federal government telling the market what it can and cannot do.

This is the inverse of what the relationship between the people and the federal government should be. The people tell the government what to do, not vice versa.

If more people want this legislation, they should work through their states and the courts to fight for their privacy rights.

 

[PeterWellington]

If you don't want someone to get charged more because of their DNA and you support a law that would forbid it, then is this not self contradicting?

In other words, if we have a free market I may be charged, let's say, $100/month based on my "good" DNA. If we have legislation that makes it impossible for this same company to look at my DNA, then they would have to charge $100 plus an additional fee for unknown risks that my DNA would have shown I have very little propensity to, and I may end up paying $150/month. So, in effect, wouldn't you just be transferring that "injustice" to me and other people who would normally pay less? What if we can't afford insurance now? While it's true that the person with "bad" DNA isn't to blame for that, how can you or I be?

If you think it's unfair then you have the power to help that person out with your money, and I would suggest you do, but I wouldn't *force* you to.

 

[Knightskye]

Free markets.

Please post questions about Dr. Paul's positions in the right forum, please.

 

[constitutional]

If you don't want someone to get charged more because of their DNA and you support a law that would forbid it, then is this not self contradicting?

In other words, if we have a free market I may be charged, let's say, $100/month based on my "good" DNA. If we have legislation that makes it impossible for this same company to look at my DNA, then they would have to charge $100 plus an additional fee for unknown risks that my DNA would have shown I have very little propensity to, and I may end up paying $150/month. So, in effect, wouldn't you just be transferring that "injustice" to me and other people who would normally pay less? What if we can't afford insurance now? While it's true that the person with "bad" DNA isn't to blame for that, how can you or I be?

If you think it's unfair then you have the power to help that person out with your money, and I would suggest you do, but I wouldn't *force* you to.

I am all for free market but that's just going to the extreme. I'm sure you can come up with a better reason to justify that. Your argument has such flaws.

"Since you are overweight, you will be charged more. Or since you are black and blacks have higher chance of getting X disease, your premium will be high." The simple fact is, genetic tests are a discrimination. You can't control what diseases you will inherit--or what color your skin is. Dr. Paul is against genetic based discrimination but the bill contained other regulations that he had to vote against the bill.

Here is a better explanation provided earlier: "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."

 

[PeterWellington]

I am all for free market but that's just going to the extreme. I'm sure you can come up with a better reason to justify that. Your argument has such flaws.

How is my example extreme in the slightest? It's very real. If my DNA shows that I have a negligible risk for disease XYZ then the insurance company can afford to charge me less for health care, all other things equal. If I'm not allowed to show that genetic information to them then they have to charge me more because they have to assume I have an average risk. How is that "just"? So it's "fair" for me to pay more, but unfair to others to pay more?

Since you are overweight, you will be charged more. Or since you are black and blacks have higher chance of getting X disease, your premium will be high." The simple fact is, genetic tests are a discrimination. You can't control what diseases you will inherit--or what color your skin is. Dr. Paul is against genetic based discrimination but the bill contained other regulations that he had to vote against the bill.

Here is a better explanation provided earlier: "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."

Natural market forces will drive companies out of business if they *irrationally* discriminate (i.e. we'll charge people who wear purple sweaters 10 times more because we don't like that color). *Rational* discrimination (i.e. you're a smoker so I'm going to charge you more because you cost me more) is rewarded. There's no need for laws, the market will sort out what people really want or don't want.

 

[soapmistress]

People who feel that paying a rate which is based on an assumption of average risk is unfair because of their predisposition to below-average risk, should consider self-insuring i.e. sock away the money you'd be paying in premiums in a bank account or tax-deferred healthcare account. The standard insurance model is not your only option and since you have the option to not be a consumer then it is not unfair. Take your money elsewhere.

The answer to almost every situation involving the evils of corporate greed is a pretty simple one: Take your money elsewhere. If there's not a product in the market that fits your needs, then bingo! You've just found your entrepreneurial niche - run with it and get rich. Problem solved.

 

[PeterWellington]

People who feel that paying a rate which is based on an assumption of average risk is unfair because of their predisposition to below-average risk, should consider self-insuring i.e. sock away the money you'd be paying in premiums in a bank account or tax-deferred healthcare account. The standard insurance model is not your only option and since you have the option to not be a consumer then it is not unfair. Take your money elsewhere.

The answer to almost every situation involving the evils of corporate greed is a pretty simple one: Take your money elsewhere. If there's not a product in the market that fits your needs, then bingo! You've just found your entrepreneurial niche - run with it and get rich. Problem solved.

I completely agree with you *if* that's what the free market arrived at. In other words, if car insurance companies hadn't collected statistics on theft rates of different color cars, then it would be perfectly reasonable to insure against theft using average rates. However, once data comes out that red cars are stolen twice as much as green cars (hypothetically), then it makes perfect sense to charge owners of red cars higher premiums.

What we're talking about in the case of health insurance companies is forcing them to ignore meaningful information, information that they would have used to set rates in the free market based on more accurate data.

 

[soapmistress]

I completely agree with you *if* that's what the free market arrived at. In other words, if car insurance companies hadn't collected statistics on theft rates of different color cars, then it would be perfectly reasonable to insure against theft using average rates. However, once data comes out that red cars are stolen twice as much as green cars (hypothetically), then it makes perfect sense to charge owners of red cars higher premiums..

I don't have a problem with that. I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing here. We can buy cars with cheaper insurance rates if we want to etc.

What we're talking about in the case of health insurance companies is forcing them to ignore meaningful information, information that they would have used to set rates in the free market based on more accurate data.

Again, I understand what you're saying. I don't think we should ban a business from doing what is agreeable to them and their customers. I agree that the pricing model you described is weighted and not the best shake for everyone. I was just shying away from the fair/unfair terminology I guess because usually it implies that something must be regulated or fixed - and in this case I think that the fix is in the hands of the consumer. But I almost always think that

 

[mathamagician]

Yay more intrusive government intervention in my industry (insurance). Almost all (possibly all) regulations regarding insurance can be solved when laws are designed to protect competition instead of mandate actions and compliance.

Anyway there goes my idea for having an insurance product that expecting parents buy for their baby that covers expenses associated with possible birth defects and/or genetic susceptibility to certain diseases.

 

[Kalifornia]

because some libertarians believe that ANY Regulation of big corporations under the commerce power is bad. I disagree. Big business can be as destructive as big government if unchecked.

 

[Kludge]

because some libertarians believe that ANY Regulation of big corporations under the commerce power is bad.

I wonder if you're confusing conservatism with libertarianism.

 

[mathamagician]

I'm a libertarian and I question the entire existence of limited liability. Meaning I am sympathetic to abolishing the corporate (limited liability) legal structure entirely. What right does the government have to create an artificial person? I am however not in favor of regulating private enterprise such as this bill would do.

 

[mathamagician]

Hey guys FYI I am the insurance guy that crunches the numbers and punishes the person with the red car. That's my whole job, I am that dark evil shadowy entity that everyone hates. Whenever you wonder why and insurance company would charge you more for this or that just think of me. Mwa ha ha. Let me know if you have any questions about this. I happen to work in P&C insurance though not health (however I still know a lot about it and other lines of insurance).

 

[sidster]

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.

lol!

 

[AggieforPaul]

votes like these really piss me off. Dr. paul is too idealistic. he shouldnt have voted against this, just like he shouldnt be against net neutrality.

Yes what he's saying sounds good in a perfect world, but hell if I can support a vote against a bill that prevents employers from gaining insight into my future risk of developing disease.

And Paul is partially right; government is inefficient, and this measure wont work 100%. But how is it worse than NOTHING? How is it worse than just letting employers discriminate and run roughshod over people?

 

[Kludge]

votes like these really piss me off. Dr. paul is too idealistic. he shouldnt have voted against this, just like he shouldnt be against net neutrality.

Yes what he's saying sounds good in a perfect world, but hell if I can support a vote against a bill that prevents employers from gaining insight into my future risk of developing disease.

And Paul is partially right; government is inefficient, and this measure wont work 100%. But how is it worse than NOTHING? How is it worse than just letting employers discriminate and run roughshod over people?

Nono, he voted AGAINST the forbidding of allowing companies to use medical records to "discriminate" against potential clients.

Article used bad wording (he voted in favor of allowing private companies the use of consensual genetic tests to determine whether or not they'll hire/insure a person).

 

[AggieforPaul]

Nono, he voted AGAINST the forbidding of allowing companies to use medical records to "discriminate" against potential clients.

Article used bad wording (he voted in favor of allowing private companies the use of consensual genetic tests to determine whether or not they'll hire/insure a person).

And I think its a poor vote. In many cases, I find big business even more abhorable than government, and this is one of them