Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act --> Socialism

[AutoDas]

It sounds to me as many of you are racist and would like to see the civil rights laws repealed! As to not hiring minorities and letting the market place take care of it that is just bunk. The civil rights laws were passed in our country because the free market was not correcting discrimination. To say that someone with what is perceived to be a genetic defect can not or will not be a major contributor to society is soothsaying plain and simple. Are you advocating that we allow soothsayers to run our society? When do we get around to punishing those with red hair or blue eyes because of some so called genetic defect. Are fat people to be discriminated against because of their predisposition to be heavy. In times of plenty the fat people are considered genetically defective but in times of famine the same people are considered genetically superior. Many of you seem to think it's just too bad if someone can't get insurance and they should just hope for charity to come to their rescue. Sounds great until you find yourself in that catagory. If you have any heart disease, diabetes, ms, alzheimers(sp) or senile dementia in you family you my friend are a candidate for higher premiums or no insurance at all. Any suicides in your family? Yep you get the high premiums. If of course you are a member of the MASTER RACE of world war II fame than please disregard my rantings as none of this applies to you!

Another racist coming here to tell us we're the racists. ha
You people are paranoid. Look out, Wal-Mart wants your brains!

So is being black. Or asian. Or short. All of those characteristics can be tied to a gene or combination of genes.

We don't allow employment discrimination against blacks, even though they may be predisposed to crime (if you believe crime statistics) because we don't judge people for pre-crimes. We judge individuals based on their ACTIONS, not based on statistical analysis of groups that share some characteristic. At least that is the rule in regards to employment and insurance matters, and it seems reasonable to me.

Oh really? Why is it that car insurance companies charge higher rates for people who drive red cars? Statistically, people who drive red cars come into more accidents. Black people are at a much higher risk for heart conditions so why shouldn't they be discriminated against? White people are at higher risk for skin cancer. It all evens out in the long run.

If a business doesn't higher an able body person just because of their race then that's their business's loss.

If people got lower insurance premiums based on their genes then automatically people would try to choose a partner that has low premium genes to reproduce.

If financial institutions are given the power to choose which genes get lower premiums they can silently manipulate the gene pool of society.

Ron Paul voted No probably because he thought of this……

uh you got it backwards

Insurance companies have been issuing policies for a long time without needing to know the contents of people's genes. If that business model worked for them in the past, then why does it not work now?

Have you seen the news? It's not working, it needs to get more efficient.

[Paulitician]

It sounds to me as many of you are racist and would like to see the civil rights laws repealed! As to not hiring minorities and letting the market place take care of it that is just bunk. The civil rights laws were passed in our country because the free market was not correcting discrimination.

Where in the hell did you get your education? It was the State that segregated people. There were parts of the US (or the South more specifically) where people had no problem integrating, but government forced them not to. Ever heard of Jim Crow *LAWS*? That is not to say there weren't businesses, or wouldn't be businesses today, who wouldn't discriminate because of race, but to say that laws were passed because of the failure of the "free market" is utterly revisionist and wrong. (I think if such businesses were to discriminate for racial reasons today, they'd likely go bankrupt.) The fact is, the problem of racism/segregation was government. There were inherent contradictions and shortfalls in Constitution itself, and in certain laws in particular. Legislation was implemented to correct government! Government was the main culprit for institutionalizing racism. If you ask me, any private institution should be able to discriminate for whatever reasons it wants--whether one is male or female, tall or short, fat or thin, dark-skinned or light-skinned, ugly or pretty, smart or dumb, funny or boring, capable or non-capable, has good genes or bad genes etc.. That is their right, and the right of every individual. Government should not force me to associate with anyone I don't want to on or with my property. But that is just my opinion. Will such a free market perspective lead to better race relations? I think so. When you're forced against your will, you become resentful--and there are many cases where having non-"affirmative action" type crap actually helps and increases "diversity." I make these arguments as a "minority" and anti-racist individual.

As for this particular bill, I don't know much about it, but I could understand Ron Paul's vote and am of the same opinion.

[SWATH]

Well what if a smoker demands the same low premiums as a non-smoker. Under this law the insurance company would be forced to charge them lower premiums if the smoker argues that they have a genetic pre-disposition to smoke (or use drugs in general). So therefore arguing that discrimination against smokers is genetic discrimination.

[hypnagogue]

Well what if a smoker demands the same low premiums as a non-smoker. Under this law the insurance company would be forced to charge them lower premiums if the smoker argues that they have a genetic pre-disposition to smoke (or use drugs in general). So therefore arguing that discrimination against smokers is genetic discrimination.

I don't think that's the case. I've been reading through the bill (it's a huge one) and all the language I've seen pertains to results of genetic testing, not to any manifested condition which may have within it's causes a genetic element.

[virgil47]

AutoDas, you are a moron. You are also a racist. Your calling me a racist because I pointed out the inequities of the genetic testing program that so many of you advocate indicates to me that you are afraid of being found out. You and your ilk are dividers of mankind and society in general. From the types of replies my post has generated I see that the MASTER RACE that Adolph Hitler touted is alive and well. Of course most of you are very young and still believe you will live forever but in time you will learn differently and also discover some frailties in your family trees. I am aware that the government supported the peoples racist leanings. The government however did not own the restuarants, bars, grocery stores and other businesses that actively promoted racism. The government was a reflection of what society in general wanted not the other way around. If we had waited for the market place to correct racism the black peoples would still be using the back door and separate restrooms to name but a few things from the "good old days" when obvious "genetics" was used to divide society.

[RonPaulalways]

If we had waited for the market place to correct racism the black peoples would still be using the back door and separate restrooms to name but a few things from the "good old days" when obvious "genetics" was used to divide society.

What utter nonsense you write.

Black people are far worse off today than before the Civil Rights Act. Never in history have incarceration rates for blacks been as high as today.

The situation with regards to white-black relations has not improved either. There are far more cases of black men raping white women today than there were in 1960: 40,000 white women are raped by black men each year

Here is the raw data:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

And an article about it:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...6-A4CBA45FCB13

Whites are worse off, blacks are worse off, while the establishment ostriches bury their head underground.

The truth is not pretty, but if you deny it, and let it continue, you are an accomplice to this social disaster.


Now to address the Civil Rights Act more specifically. The Civil Rights Act was not needed to end public segregation. The Supreme Court ended state-sanctioned segregation of schools in 1954. The Civil Rights Act meanwhile infringes on the right of a bigot to be a bigot in his own private establishment. This is immoral. We must respect his rights, since he is not violating any one else's. As soon as you cross that line and try to use the power of government coercion to impose your values on him, you have become a tyrant.

[Naraku]

It amazes me how people think the free market is a cure-all for all social problems.

It seems most of you don't have a $#@!in' clue what you're talking about. Your genes do not define what you will become. You may have genes showing a higher risk of diabetes, but that doesn't mean it will ever manifest. People should not be judged on what may be possible, but what is a clear risk. That's what the legislation is for.

[Danke]

It amazes me how people think the free market is a cure-all for all social problems.

Not at all.

Just that history teaches us (and those silly fellows that wrote the Constitution) that it is better than the alternative.

[rp08orbust]

You may have genes showing a higher risk of diabetes, but that doesn't mean it will ever manifest.

Of course not--no one is claiming that you can perfectly predict a person's future health needs from their DNA.

However, it is an actuary's job to *guess* what your future health needs will be and price your insurance premium accordingly. If you think you can do a better job of predicting your health than the actuary and don't think you will get the diseases that the actuary thinks you are likely to get, then don't buy the insurance--you'll come out ahead!

People should not be judged on what may be possible, but what is a clear risk. That's what the legislation is for.

And like most legislation, it will have the exact opposite effect. Until we socialize medicine, insurance companies will *always* hire actuaries to make guesses about your future health needs. All this legislation does is make the most reliable predictors of your future health needs off limits by banning insurance companies from even accepting the results of genetic testing when voluntarily provided by YOU when you think they are in your favor. This forces insurance companies to limit themselves to the more traditional but superficial predictors such as your height, weight, age, ethnicity, family history etc (all of which is equally "unfair" as being judged by your DNA).

As a result, their guesses will be less accurate. Some people will of course get free rides as their real health risks hidden in their DNA go undetected by the actuaries, but at the same time, others will get screwed as they pay higher premiums based on superficial indicators when their DNA could have ruled out certain risks.

Thus, I see absolutely nothing good about this bill: it will not make insurance premium pricing any fairer (it will make it more UNfair); it violates the constitutional right to freedom of association by forcing insurance companies to do business with those they don't want to; and it violates my right to my own DNA as private property by telling me I can't use it in my favor when shopping for health insurance. This bill effectively means that the US government owns all DNA since it can dictate what an individual can and can't do with it.

It sounds like what you really object to is some people having to pay more for their own health care than others due to nothing other than the lousy hand that nature dealt them. In other words, you object to life not being fair. If so, then you will probably find a lot more sympathy among socialists than among Ron Paul supporters.

[RonPaulalways]

People should not be judged on what may be possible, but what is a clear risk. That's what the legislation is for.

Why not? Insurance companies are private organizations. They have a right to judge people on any thing they want.