Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act --> Socialism

[rp08orbust]

I'm kind of disturbed that it isn't more obvious to everyone why Ron Paul voted "No" on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, so I've stuck the (simplified) reason in a new thread title for all to see. It appears that the emotional taboo associated with anything DNA-related has clouded peoples' ability to think clearly on this issue. If the bill had instead banned insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of weight, then I don't think anyone would be questioning Ron's vote, and yet the issues would be no different.

True, like most things the federal government regulates these days, there is no authority for it in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, and therefore it is a state issue, if a government issue at all.

But far more importantly, the bill is an assault on your freedom to negotiate with your insurance company and on your ownership of your own DNA. If you have wonderful DNA and would like to show it to your insurance company to argue for a lower premium, then too bad, the government has stepped in and said that isn't fair to those with bad DNA who can't likewise argue for lower premiums. If you were allowed to show insurers your good DNA, then those who *didn't* show their DNA would be suspected of having average or bad DNA and would continue getting higher premiums than you, and we can't have that, because we're all equal, right?

Well, the unintended consequence (or maybe not-so-unintended) of this bill is higher premiums for almost everyone: insurance companies will be forced to insure high-risk people they would not otherwise insure, or who would otherwise have to pay higher premiums. BUT, the insurance companies won't know *who* these higher-risk people are, so they will have to charge *everyone* higher premiums in order to make up for the losses on the high-risk people. That's equality for you.

As the premiums go up, of course, the clamoring for socialized medicine will grow, until finally the government steps in and saves the day from the greedy insurance companies who were crippled by the very same government from doing their job well, which was to assess individual health risk and efficiently assign insurance premiums accordingly. It's the same old story: the government screws around with something until the people have no choice but to let the government take it over completely. E.g., the government banned Americans from buying prescription drugs from overseas in the name of "safety", which eliminated competition and drove up domestic drug costs until people finally clamored for Medicare prescription drug coverage.

If you approve of this bill, then you are essentially supporting uniform premiums for everyone, because the only reason premiums EVER differ from one person to the next is because the insurance companies discriminated based on *something*: age, gender, weight, diet, physical activity, sports, etc. And if you favor uniform premiums for everyone, then there is no need for insurance companies at all, because their expertise is in assessing risk is irrelevant. We might as well have Hillary's or Obama's (and now McCain's) government health care plan.

[Kade]

I'm kind of disturbed that it isn't more obvious to everyone why Ron Paul voted "No" on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, so I've stuck the (simplified) reason in a new thread title for all to see. It appears that the emotional taboo associated with anything DNA-related has clouded peoples' ability to think clearly on this issue. If the bill had instead banned insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of weight, then I don't think anyone would be questioning Ron's vote, and yet the issues would be no different.

True, like most things the federal government regulates these days, there is no authority for it in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, and therefore it is a state issue, if a government issue at all.

But far more importantly, the bill is an assault on your freedom to negotiate with your insurance company and on your ownership of your own DNA. If you have wonderful DNA and would like to show it to your insurance company to argue for a lower premium, then too bad, the government has stepped in and said that isn't fair to those with bad DNA who can't likewise argue for lower premiums. If you were allowed to show insurers your good DNA, then those who *didn't* show their DNA would be suspected of having average or bad DNA and would continue getting higher premiums than you, and we can't have that, because we're all equal, right?

Well, the unintended consequence (or maybe not-so-unintended) of this bill is higher premiums for almost everyone: insurance companies will be forced to insure high-risk people they would not otherwise insure, or who would otherwise have to pay higher premiums. BUT, the insurance companies won't know *who* these higher-risk people are, so they will have to charge *everyone* higher premiums in order to make up for the losses on the high-risk people. That's equality for you.

As the premiums go up, of course, the clamoring for socialized medicine will grow, until finally the government steps in and saves the day from the greedy insurance companies who were crippled by the very same government from doing their job well, which was to assess individual health risk and efficiently assign insurance premiums accordingly. It's the same old story: the government screws around with something until the people have no choice but to let the government take it over completely. E.g., the government banned Americans from buying prescription drugs from overseas in the name of "safety", which eliminated competition and drove up domestic drug costs until people finally clamored for Medicare prescription drug coverage.

If you approve of this bill, then you are essentially supporting uniform premiums for everyone, because the only reason premiums EVER differ from one person to the next is because the insurance companies discriminated based on *something*: age, gender, weight, diet, physical activity, sports, etc. And if you favor uniform premiums for everyone, then there is no need for insurance companies at all, because their expertise is in assessing risk is irrelevant. We might as well have Hillary's or Obama's (and now McCain's) government health care plan.

So you like eugenics? Because being able to give more benefit to genetically inferior peoples has a name....

Not saying I disagree with you one way or another... I just hope you have thought out the consequences of a free market health and breeding system.

[IRO-bot]

So you like eugenics? Because being able to give more benefit to genetically inferior peoples has a name....

Not saying I disagree with you one way or another... I just hope you have thought out the consequences of a free market health and breeding system.

So a $2 million dollar home on the beach in central Florida should have the same house insurance premium as a $50,000 home in the middle of say.....South Dakota????


Or better yet, make the home values the same....should they still have the same premium?

[Kade]

So a $2 million dollar home on the beach in central Florida should have the same house insurance premium as a $50,000 home in the middle of say.....South Dakota????

No. What's your point? Why is it a common tactic to try and sound clever by asking a absurdly illogical question as a response to a real question?

As a counter, are houses of equal comparison to people?

Are you saying that a human body is comparable in shifting values to homes?

[crazyfingers]

The Feds should not be interfering with private contracts.

Corporations are powerless to infringe on one's rights without the coercive hand of government.

[IRO-bot]

No. What's your point? Why is it a common tactic to try and sound clever by asking a absurdly illogical question as a response to a real question?

As a counter, are houses of equal comparison to people?

Are you saying that a human body is comparable in shifting values to homes?

What? You are not making any sense at all.

An insurance companys job is to take all the information it can and asses the risk of insuring said object.

House in florida = lots of risk due to hurricanes.
House in SD = hardly any risk.

Therefore it should be more expensive premiums for the FL home.


Human A has diabetes, heart problems, and doesn't exercise
Human B is fit, no health problems, and excersises daily.


Human A is at higher risk therefore should have higher premiums.



Did you get all that? Or do I need to draw a graph for you?

[SeanEdwards]

So a $2 million dollar home on the beach in central Florida should have the same house insurance premium as a $50,000 home in the middle of say.....South Dakota????


Or better yet, make the home values the same....should they still have the same premium?

People can choose where to build their home. They can't choose what genes they are born with.

I don't know about the specifics of this bill, I just think your argument in support of discrimination based on genetics is flawed. It's fundamentally no different from saying an employer should be able to reject hiring black people, because black people commit more crimes, or whatever. At its root, it is collectivism. It's lumping people into a group based on their DNA, rather than on their actions.

[IRO-bot]

How is it discrimation? Why should a company be forced to insure an unfit person at the same rate as a fit person.

Where is the collectivism if you are investing each individual and evaluating their health risks?

Perhaps I could add more too it. Maybe it is a bit like uh, is it Walter Blocks book? Defending the undefendable.

What rights are being violated by a company looking at your DNA and judges the risk values associated with it to determine a proper premium value?

Where in the constitution does it say that a person who owns a company can't hire a white, black, asain, hispanic, or whatever person? Freedom has to be upheld on both spectrums, otherwise it merely becomes a tryanny to someone. I personally don't condone the actions but it should be allowed.

As such, if someone were to not hire any "blacks", then the black community has a right to not purchase those goods, as well as ask other not to. I myself would hop on the bandwagon and not purchase their goods as well. Then said company might have to look at their sales and see how bad it is affected and make their decision accordingly. If they wanted to be racist asswhole and continue to not do that then they will sufer is the will of the people is to make their profits suffer for their hate.

I wouldn't force them to hire black people or whoever though. That is how the free market is supposed to work. Government CANNOT legislate morality. How often has Ron Paul said that? Morality comes from yourself and your values and the values tought by your Religion or whatever else.

[Kade]

What? You are not making any sense at all.

An insurance companys job is to take all the information it can and asses the risk of insuring said object.

House in florida = lots of risk due to hurricanes.
House in SD = hardly any risk.

Therefore it should be more expensive premiums for the FL home.


Human A has diabetes, heart problems, and doesn't exercise
Human B is fit, no health problems, and excersises daily.


Human A is at higher risk therefore should have higher premiums.



Did you get all that? Or do I need to draw a graph for you?

I haven't made any claims either way, your obtuse pandering to a point I have yet to make only exposes the fact that you seem to have taken the side of discrimination, As Sean Edwards points out.

I do think there is a heavy distinction between willingly unhealthy people versus genetically predetermined unhealthiness. I don't think corporations have the right to that information about someone in general.

[rp08orbust]

I do think there is a heavy distinction between willingly unhealthy people versus genetically predetermined unhealthiness. I don't think corporations have the right to that information about someone in general.

Of course they don't--one's DNA is one's own property. But what about those who *want* a corporation to see their DNA because it will get them a lower premium and give it to them voluntarily?