PDA

View Full Version : SOMEONE EXPLAIN 2 me Y Dr. Paul Voted "NO" on this BILL!!!!!!!!!




powertothepeople
05-02-2008, 04:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_go_co/genetic_discrimination

Kludge
05-02-2008, 04:37 PM
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
05-02-2008, 04:37 PM
Y Not?

The One
05-02-2008, 04:37 PM
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
05-02-2008, 04:38 PM
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
05-02-2008, 04:39 PM
nm. Someone else already read it

goldstandard
05-02-2008, 04:40 PM
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
05-02-2008, 04:43 PM
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
05-02-2008, 04:46 PM
Thank you.

Joseph Hart
05-02-2008, 04:46 PM
This is why I never donated blood.

constitutional
05-02-2008, 04:53 PM
This is why I never donated blood.

why?

constitutional
05-02-2008, 04:57 PM
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
05-02-2008, 05:08 PM
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
05-02-2008, 05:12 PM
This is why I never donated blood.

That's just ignorant.

constitutional
05-02-2008, 05:15 PM
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. :rolleyes:


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

Kludge
05-02-2008, 05:19 PM
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
05-02-2008, 05:22 PM
That is probably the one sentence the AP picked out of Ron Paul's answer.

brandon
05-02-2008, 05:24 PM
I think it is pretty clear that Dr Paul supports mandatory genetic tests before any contracts are made.

Joseph Hart
05-02-2008, 05:51 PM
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
05-02-2008, 06:31 PM
I never could donate blood. Always seemed to coincide with a recent newly minted tattoo.

Carole
05-02-2008, 06:43 PM
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
05-02-2008, 06:45 PM
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
05-02-2008, 06:49 PM
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
05-02-2008, 08:05 PM
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
05-02-2008, 08:26 PM
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
05-02-2008, 08:43 PM
Free markets.

Please post questions about Dr. Paul's positions in the right forum, please (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24). :cool:

constitutional
05-02-2008, 08:52 PM
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
05-02-2008, 09:29 PM
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
05-02-2008, 10:02 PM
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
05-02-2008, 10:39 PM
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
05-02-2008, 10:58 PM
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
05-03-2008, 12:09 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:09 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:14 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:17 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:23 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:24 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:30 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:36 AM
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
05-03-2008, 12:46 AM
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

Kludge
05-03-2008, 12:53 AM
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

Lol... I misread what you said....

I think consensual tests should be permitted (no insurance if you aren't tested first), but I don't really understand how Paul voted nay on this either... Maybe we're missing a rider/amendment?

sidster
05-03-2008, 12:55 AM
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?


You really should rethink your comments here. Especially that on Net
Neutrality. I agree that it is not good for ISPs to manipulate or rather
"influence" your web-surfing and your internet access. However, what
is worse is allowing government to regulate the internet!

Net Neutrality is just a sneaky way to get government's claws into
regulating internet and eventually internet content.

mathamagician
05-03-2008, 01:06 AM
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

That's because big business (corporations) were created by the government and the government subsidies them (with contracts), create barriers to entry that protect them (complicated regulations only large companies can decifer) and bails them out when they're in trouble (airlines, big banks).

crazyfacedjenkins
05-03-2008, 02:16 AM
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.

I agree 100%. A lot of people don't understand limited liability and how evil it can end up being.

Dave39168
05-04-2008, 01:16 PM
Net Neutrality is just a sneaky way to get government's claws into
regulating internet and eventually internet content.

Amen my friend. They start out with something light that "sounds good" to get their foot in the door. Then they will get more and more intrusive as problems (created by regulation) arise. New regulation leads to more problems, so they create more regulation to deal with the new problems. And with a little time it will be something along the lines of: U.S. Department of Internet Safety, staffing 100,000 people with an agency in each state and spending $500 billion dollars a year. It will all be sold to us in the form of "protecting your children from internet predators, making sure the "wrong information" isn't published on websites, and making the internet more user friendly. (and if you have complaint about their sensorship just file the appropriate form and they'll get back with you in 6-8 weeks).

We need NO regulation of the internet whatsoever. Just think if the feds could sensor the spreading of ideas.... like RonPaulForums. Then it would be just as difficult to get accurate info from the internet as it is from the MSM.

SeanEdwards
05-04-2008, 01:25 PM
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.

Perhaps you could point out to me which of the following enumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress the authority to make laws regarding such matters?



Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

tekkierich
05-04-2008, 02:02 PM
I have "voted" in the same manner.

http://www.richardmatthews.org/vote/ (http://www.richardmatthews.org/vote/)

newbitech
05-04-2008, 02:09 PM
laws like this get passed by the problem is they are hardly ever enforced. Now people can say, yeah we have laws against genetic discrimination in our country, isn't the USA grand!

The fact that people think we would even need a law like this tells you that it will become common practice to do exactly what the law prohibits. Our DNA is already being harvested and cataloged. Businesses and insurance companies will get their hands on the data as part of routine background checks. There WILL be discrimination based on genetic information.

Hell businesses already do that when the hiring manager prefers a less qualified person who may be taller, more handsome, etc. The more qualified person never knows the real reason they were not hired.

This law is just more government bloat. How much money is going to be spent in the name of enforcing this law that really can't and won't be enforced? Waste. Dr. Paul voted against this item on principle. The government is not protecting anyone with this law, and I would argue it is doing the opposite by giving local and state governments no room to judge each case on an individual basis.

Truth Warrior
05-04-2008, 02:10 PM
I Favor Discrimination
by Michael S. Rozeff
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff205.html

jglapski
05-04-2008, 03:09 PM
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.

The government hasn't created it per se. Various limited liability structures are created by individuals for the most part. Nobody is forced to interact with corporations, and every corporation (or limited liability co.) must state that in its name.

jglapski
05-04-2008, 03:11 PM
That's because big business (corporations) were created by the government and the government subsidies them (with contracts), create barriers to entry that protect them (complicated regulations only large companies can decifer) and bails them out when they're in trouble (airlines, big banks).

And all those problems exist because of government actions.