What is Digg?194 Comments
- afflusso, on 05/01/2008, -8/+71When I saw it was 414-1, I knew that it would be RP. They don't call him Dr. No for nothing. The reason he voted against it is just because he really does believe that it's not the Congress's job to make laws like these.
- Clark3934, on 05/01/2008, -11/+68Because he is a strict Constitutionalist and this isn't an power enumerated to Congress by the Constitution?
The man's got integrity--at least give him that! - Clugenheim, on 05/01/2008, -8/+51"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.
It's right in the article. RIGHT under where you got your quote. - AAEXP, on 05/01/2008, -27/+59Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was the only member of Congress to vote against the bill.
Why on earth did you vote against it, Ron Paul? - tomjm5000, on 05/01/2008, -36/+60Some Diggers didn't seem to realize that Ron Paul was, and always will be, largely against a lot of the GOOD things the government can do... like stopping companies from screwing people over for diseases they only potentially may get.
- Xihix, on 05/01/2008, -4/+25It only makes sense that Paul voted against it. In fact, the moment I read the score, I automatically knew it was Paul. But the way he has been voting hasn't changed in all the years he's been in House, because he really does know what he stands for.
- Mononuclear, on 05/01/2008, -2/+21It has to do with federal government regulation of private businesses which Paul is and always has been against.
- Aphelion27, on 05/01/2008, -13/+32Perhaps you could look at it like this. He is against the federal government interfering in an employers RIGHT to run HIS business as HE sees fit.
- thinman1189, on 05/01/2008, -21/+37The House voted 414-1 for the legislation Thursday, a week after it passed the Senate on a 95-0 vote. The only member of Congress to vote against the bill was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
"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.
------------------------------
I agree the government sucks when it comes to privacy, but c'mon. - mohsenxp, on 05/02/2008, -5/+19His ideas are just in an idealist world. But in the real world, Government DOES NEED TO INTERFERE with the business sector. Believe it or not...for the GOOD of the people.
I have respect for Ron Paul, but when he shows that he can easily neglect the overall good for the public by being literal to his word, I have to lose some respect. - pilot3033, on 05/01/2008, -6/+20GATTACA
- megabytehl, on 05/01/2008, -8/+22GATTACA GATTACA!
- magamiako, on 05/01/2008, -4/+17Genetic predispositions should not be involved with things like insurance and employment are involved. I'm glad this got passed. Every person has the right to live a happy and healthy life. Genetics should not be considered for that except in the form of helping you.
- AriaStar, on 05/01/2008, -0/+13Okay, so my great-grandmother had diabetes and that means I'm less valuable in the workforce? Um, denying me a job or health coverage makes me less valuable because I can't get prompt treatment if sick. Someone's genetic profile doesn't indicate the value of that person as an employee. But making it difficult, if not impossible, for competent people to get treatment when needed does devalue that person as too much time will be spent dealing with an illness until severe enough to go to the ER and be hospitalized.
And you know that desire and passion also play into the field one is "best suited for," right? Not just our physical make-up? - TrueJournals, on 05/01/2008, -4/+15That logic makes no sense. It's your choice to drive the car, it's not your choice to have the genes you do.
- Myonosken, on 05/02/2008, -1/+11Insurance companies are one of the most immoral systems around. The idea is to pay to cover yourself- the reality is pay lots then, when you have an issue, you are covered but then have to pay more from then on! It defies logic.
- TrueJournals, on 05/01/2008, -4/+14sh4rkb1te: See my comment below. It's your choice to be a racecar driver. I don't think anyone chooses to get breast cancer. If actions YOU TAKE put you in danger, you should probably pay more. If the disease is deeply encoded in your genetic material, which you have no control over, it's not fair to make you pay more.
- Gerz1219, on 05/01/2008, -6/+16"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
A law which opposes genetic discrimination establishes justice, promotes the general welfare, and secures the blessings of liberty to persons who have inherited genetic defects.
I suppose the framers didn't explicitly grant Congress the right to pass legislation regulating the usage of genetic information.
Oh, that's right -- genes had not yet been discovered when the Constitution was written. - nikipedia, on 05/01/2008, -1/+10I could not disagree more. The burden of insurance costs should be shared equally by everyone, period. This information will not be used against a minority of people. Almost everyone has genes that predispose us to disease, and giving insurance providers that information would deny coverage to the people who need it most--people who did not make unhealthy lifestyle choices and may yet still be doomed to suffer the consequences of a fatal disease.
- deviationer, on 05/01/2008, -6/+15Gattaca heh
- AbsurdParadox, on 05/01/2008, -4/+12Don't you know? Business owners are capitalists and they're EVIL.
- atbnet, on 05/01/2008, -4/+12Except that isn't how it works moron. If you have a ***** car you aren't going to pay as much. They don't give a ***** whether you die or not. It's CAR insurance not life insurance.
- schreck9, on 05/01/2008, -2/+10No, they can't. A reasonable standard we should all agree to is that one should be judged on one's actions, not on one's potential actions based on one's parents and genes.
- aqzman, on 05/01/2008, -9/+16What is this? Negative comments about Ron Paul not getting dugg down? Alright, who divided by zero?
- ExRe, on 05/02/2008, -0/+6Your genes say you might kill someone, so we are going to have to give you a lethal injection to make sure you don't.
I am sure you'd want to hear that right? Are you you because of your genes or your actions and experiences? - inactive, on 05/01/2008, -7/+13Wait, you mean there was propaganda out there to make us think otherwise? Wow, maybe next time we should all look at the candidate as a whole so we can make an educated vote and not just move like sheep
- commenter01, on 05/01/2008, -1/+7i think the bigger issue is that you can choose what car you drive. if at some point in the future you can swap genes, then your argument might be valid.
- locojones, on 05/01/2008, -5/+11This legislation is just smoke & mirrors. How would you, as a consumer, ever know whether you've been discriminated against based on your genetic background? They're still going to do it, now they're just going to do it with more secrecy and have better excuses for why you're being denied. I wish they'd spend their time passing something useful.
- pbaehr, on 05/01/2008, -2/+8You're missing the point. If the government isn't given the power to govern something, it doesn't have the authority. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad.
As times change, so does the need for legislation, but that's what amendments are for. Ron Paul is playing by a stricter interpretation of the rules than everyone else. - zephc, on 05/01/2008, -5/+11House votes to fail to recognize that risk assessment is what insurance companies do all the time.
- nikipedia, on 05/01/2008, -4/+10You have no idea what you're talking about. Insurance companies would NEVER give you a discount for having "good" DNA--they would just deny coverage to people who need it most.
- commenter01, on 05/01/2008, -2/+8i only read the words before the first comma. then i dugg you down.
- AriaStar, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6Comment moved. Digg, please allow deleting in the first two minutes rather than just editing like this. Thanks.
- Myonosken, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5Who the hell is called Jefferson?
- mohsenxp, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5and they'll make money how? Think please, thank you.
- burninthepyre, on 05/01/2008, -0/+5Nevermind, I was looking at the wrong damn vote.
PS. I hate captchas. - Colecoman1982, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6How can it make insurance premiums skyrocket? This is a practice that isn't in common use yet. Their risk doesn't go up if they can't use it in the future, things just stay the same. If they raise rates and then blame this, then they're lying.
- cliffzdude, on 05/02/2008, -2/+7Insurance is based upon pooling of risk. If we allow the highly regulated insurance to drill down even further who is in what pool, the idea of risk pooling becomes almost moot. Sure, it sounds good to say that if you were born with "good genes" you deserve a discount, but if we allow insurance companies to start making sub-pools down to the genetic level, you'll think differently when the next sub-pool includes your issue/behavior/race/whatever.
Do go read up on "risk pooling" before you comment, please... ..not flame baiting, just sayin'... - anonymiau, on 05/01/2008, -4/+9So you agree the government sucks when it comes to protecting privacy, but you'd rather have a crooked government misuse your personal information than a crooked business? Besides, the US is run by a corporate government. In a country where lobbyists and politicians are best buddies and corporations have better law protection than people, what do you think will be the gain for the working man?
- inactive, on 05/01/2008, -10/+14***** a... once you let the government in it never leaves and it creates new problems unforseen. federal regulation needs to be done away with. private companies have NO POWER over our lives, only the government does. now watch what future NEOCON governments do with control of our genetic information... stupid stupid liberals. and this regulation will not stop the rise in insurance premiums. insurance companies use risk assessment. if you have no genetic predisposition to disease, etc... you could have expected your rates to go down. next up, governement genetic database to ensure our "rights" are protected.
- nikipedia, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4What are they going to do, sneak into your bedroom and take a DNA sample? Come on.
- Anonymous99, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5Purely curious, but how can this be considered intrusive regarding protecting our privacy? I would assume that the insurance companies simply remove the blank of their forms that ask about genetic information. How is the government protecting any sensitive data about us in this sense?
- fantasticFlan, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5Black lung at 12 'cause your parents are *****, that's why.
- Clark3934, on 05/01/2008, -2/+6Cause Thomas Jefferson was such a bad President...
- bowe, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4well congress can go ahead and make an amendment if they want it changed.
- arandia, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4Even if they knew all about your genetics, they would still be wrong about your strengths and weaknesses.
- stonebear, on 05/01/2008, -1/+5If only this could stop them. Unfortunately, this is exactly the thing globalization exists to defeat. It will be easy for health insurers to offshore ordinary lab work to countries with more lax regulation, who knows what other unofficial tests might be conducted there as well. Once a clandestine genetic profile is built in some other country (all that's really needed from the lab is a thumbs up or down), the high risk subject can be scrutinized for a legitimate reason for denial or cancellation, as is commonly (but unofficially) done to high risk patients in the industry anyway.
- dfan917, on 05/01/2008, -3/+7He believes the "necessary and proper" clause was intended to give congress the power to make laws to carry out their already enumerated powers, not to grant to themselves any powers a simple majority decides is "necessary."
He understands that a large portion of our current laws are based on the latter interpretation of the clause and would have no problem with many of them being removed. In fact, in his 20+ years in office, he has likely voted against many of them. - mstrebe, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6Yes it is. Firstly, the concept of eminent domain as established in the constitution clearly places the general welfare above personal property rights. Secondly, the constitution specifically grants the power to regulate commerce, which is what this bill does.
It's a hell of a stretch to suppose that corporations have the right to be protected from laws which may tend to reduce the amount of profit that they can take. Nothing about the constitution validates laissez faire market policies and it certainly doesn't elevate them to a "right"
So suck it. - XBSHX, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4You sure like copy & pasting your replies over and over don't you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is