What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
88 Comments
- inactive, on 04/28/2008, -0/+44Anybody else thinking about the movie GATTACA?
- pintomp3, on 04/28/2008, -2/+27this is why the profit motive doesn't work for health care.
- DemocAnarchis, on 04/28/2008, -1/+17This is the ***** everyone else, selfish, greedy ***** that is destroying our society. You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that those gifted with "good genes" would be getting a discount. Rates will stay the same with those who are at risk being charged a premium.
This isn't some ***** altruistic ideal, its just a way to squeeze more money out of families who are already struggling to pay for the medical bill that their ***** health plan doesn't cover. - TimberWolfGirl, on 04/28/2008, -2/+18This is a bit too Brave New World for me!
- smacksaw, on 04/28/2008, -8/+19Or we could simply stop ***** around with this and just provide universal coverage. I don't know why right-wingers and libertarians don't get it. You are trading away your civil liberties and privacy for a corrupt "free-market" that is anything but. Health care is a scam and free-market principles don't apply.
- PhilliesBlunt, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10I dunno dude. Why should I pay for this war when it's *****? Why should I pay to fund schools when I don't have kids? Why should I pay to fund the fire department when your house gets lit up?
- silentboom, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9This is a question of Privacy. The insurance company should not have the right to ask for your genetic information. This is getting ridiculous. I'm not a cow with an ear tag or someones prize show horse. If they got rid of all the government interference surgery would be alot cheaper because a free market would allow doctors to compete and if you wanted the finest surgeons you could buy them. Soon we will all have ***** care under a mandatory tax and disgusting socialist system. What we need is the government to step out of these things and stop raising prices by making everything more difficult. This is the same government that gets charged $3000 for a toilet seat.
- edwartica, on 04/28/2008, -2/+11agreed. I'm a believer that health insurance should be a non profit entity. I know its idealistic and probably wouldn't work, but the current system doesn't seem to work either.
- aethelberga, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8Even using "lifestyle choices" is a bit iffy. A smoker has a higher chance of getting lung cancer, and that's their choice to smoke or not, but a waitress or bartender who works in a smoky bar is also at higher risk for lung cancer due to second hand smoke. Is 'choosing' to work in an environment like this a "lifestyle choice"? Should their rates be higher just because they cannot find work in a library or a park? Would your insurance rates be lowest if you work harvesting hay outdoors, in the fresh air getting lots of exercises? What if all that physical labour gave you a heart attack? Or damaged your back? Would you be covered fro some illnesses/injuries depending on your profession, but not others? Where's your lifestyle choice then?
- Snuxoll, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7That movie was EXACTLY the first thing I thought about.
- wacki, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7I'm a computational biologist by trade. I've spent my whole life looking at genetic information. I firmly believe that GATTACA style discrimination would be a total nightmare. There are just way to many exceptions to every rule that we find. The body is based off of complex interactions and concentration gradients. Many of these interactions we simply don't understand. Very few illnesses are linked to one and only one gene.
- pintomp3, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7it seems to work a lot better in most other countries. they have implemented non-profit health care in different ways, but they all seem to work better than we have. we should incorporate the best ideas from canada, britian, japan, germany, switzerland, etc and come up with something that works for us.
- Snuxoll, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8No, it is an issue, just because you are pre-disposed doesn't mean you WILL need more health care. To top it off it's unfair to ***** people over based on something they can't control. And I'd be willing to bet if they tested your DNA you'd find some interesting pre-dispositions as well.
- borez, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6That's bollocks, you can't help the genes you were born with, why should you pay a premium.
- Rabbittt, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7Social Healthcare or Eugenics, your choice..
- BXRWXR, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5The taste?
- Royal0rleans, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5It won't
U.S. outlaws genetic discrimination
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13785-us-out ... - explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+4Go watch more MST3000.
- funkywood, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Hey it's just eugenics the free market way.
- kroni, on 04/28/2008, -3/+7sounds like future scenarios of the thing of "omg, the genetics says it is a nigro!! don't hire him"... hail mr bush
- pianomahnn, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Sure, it's their choice to smoke, but they should also have to pay for what consequences (most likely) will occur from that. Why should I be forced to offset the costs of their poor health choices? You should note that I didn't bring up working conditions. That's a different matter entirely and should be dealt with as such. But there is no reason why, to a certain degree, health insurance shouldn't be handled similarly to auto insurance. Those rates are based a number of factors, many of which are due to expected outcomes, and people pay it. There is no horrible outcry as to why a 16 year old male pays far more than a 40 year old female. They are, based on historical data, more likely to cause some damage which results in higher costs to the insurance company than the 40 year old female. A person who chooses to smoke or eats to obesity should have to pay more because they will, based on historical data, end up needing far more health care than a person who lives a healthy lifestyle.
- silentboom, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3It's true, it will lead to science based racism. Whole races of people will have prices raised because of a possible tendency. Our country has lost it's god forsaken minds. Genetic profiling should be completely illegal.
- rolan1bp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I agree with you. The error that he speaks of is carefully controlled for in every experiment. I know because I do microarrays and genetic screens. However, I agree with his overall message, I don't think that genetic testing should be used to set or deny insurance policies.
A great example of this is one of the diseases I work with, Huntington's disease. HD has been mapped to the 4th chromosome and is influenced by an expanded CAG repeat sequence on the huntingtin gene. Individuals with long CAG repeats will have the disease whereas individuals with short repeats will not.
HD is hereditary and many people at risk are not tested for fear of being black labeled by insurance companies. This leads to a lifelong internal battle over whether they have or do not have the disease. Questioning themselves whenever they forget something, analyzing their movements, posture, etc. This ultimately leads to complete ignorance of their disposition during a period in which we are finding that it is critical to begin treatment.
These individuals are placed in a situation where they pass up a chance at prophylactic treatment due to their fear of insurance companies. By banning the use of genetic screening as a tool for determining insurance policies you are benefiting the patients, and ultimately that is what health care is all about. - kinerry, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5exactly, the free market is amazing, but this just doesn't qualify for the free market
- JavertHolmes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3My guess is that you'll be the first in line to complain when you realize that your particular genetic sequence has a 70% chance of coming down with a terminal, expensive-to-treat disease and that the best competitive rate you can get is $3,000 a month for insurance.
- inactive, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
- XeNoGeAr78, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I was thinking more of the novel Next.
- JavertHolmes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3As you say this, do you realize that you could have a genetic sequence that causes some rare, expensive disease that'll cost you thousands a month to get insurance for if this is passed? Do you really have that much faith in your genetics?
You can be "very healthy" and have 10 servings of fruits and veggies a day. If you're genetically predisposed to a certain disease, you will be paying out the ass for it. - sirlancelot88, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Tekproxy, you seem to be misinformed about natural selection.
Darwinian fitness concerns only the capacity of an animal to pass on its genes. It has nothing to do with the health or physical fitness of the animal during its lifetime. Even if modern medicine is keeping some detrimental hereditary genes around: if modern medicine can treat the condition, it's an evolutionary moot point. It doesn't matter if the genes have the potential to cause conditions or not; all that matters is the person having offspring before those conditions kill him (or even manifest at all).
When thinking about natural selection, please do not imagine the capacity for a human to survive in some primitive jungle environment. The environment in which modern humans live includes the city and modern medicine, and that is what must be considered when determining Darwinian fitness. - silentboom, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3You just said what I wanted to, much better than I could.
- silentboom, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I'd rather chip in for the smokers than be genetically profiled in some database somewhere, that's for sure.
- gotterdammerung, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Wow, how simplistic can you be? You realize that the only way this would act as a natural selective pressure would be if it killed the people without "healthy genes?" Moreover, the "bad genes" would have to kill them before they reached sexual maturity... sound good to you?
- inactive, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5Being pre-disposed to a certain medical condition doesn't mean you will get it. So you could be paying through the nose and die from old age so the insurance company can reap profits on something that is normally a public service. Employing somebody based on this knowledge is also unconstitutional.
As you know, all men are created EQUAL......with genetic testing we are creating a born-into caste system....thats remeniscant of a third world country like india... - jdavid, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3dude, there is very little chance that you will not be ID'ed for life based on it. i suspect any secondary use will be used the the SS number is being used today for credit tracking. if you consent to giving your DNA to anyone, well, you better believe someone is going to let the cat out of the bag and sell that "marketing information". I would like it to be a Federal Crime to sell someones DNA profile. In fact, it maybe the first white collar crime that should be punishable by death. You could ruin someones life by releasing that information.
- spongya77, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Well, this is the typical, selfish argument, which blames the victims, and the poor... I would like to talk to you in 20-30 years, when you won't be that healthy any more, your body starts to break down, and you will have a choice to get treatment for whatever thing that will kill you, or send your kids to college. It's very easy talking while you're young, and feel you'll stay this way. But at the end everybody dies. And before that everybody gets sick.
And about "why should I pay" argument in a rational basis: if you don't have coverage, or very little, your productive years will be much shorter (you'll seek care as late as possible, you'll get substandard care, and you become bankrupt if the treatment is expensive). Healthy adults, however work more, and produce more - just look at Europe, if you want to see an universal health care system in work. And don't give me that "but they have to wait in line" crap. I have a very good insurance with a freaking hospital (I'm working in the research part). I asked for an appointment for an Ear Nose and Throat specialist two months ago -the date is in July. I asked another for an ophthalmologist: the date is November (!!) 4th. I've never had to wait even for specialists for more than three weeks in Europe. Sure, if I pay two thousand for a private doctor, I can get an appointment tomorrow. Tell this to my HMO2 people. - stevenhatfield, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4Watch Gattaca. It'll clear things up for you.
- elliotys, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2The insurance companies should not even exist.
- kosser, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2this is some ***** up ***** right here. so i guess people born with genetic deficiencies are just plain screwed. This should never pass. How are we talking about universal health care and then something like this pops up??
- tian2992, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2There is a federal and International law against torture, but you know…
- Beanbones, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Please show me on this doll where the bad health care provider touched you.
- sliksta, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2You could not be more wrong.
- Beanbones, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2There's a fine distinction that gets overlooked a lot these days: everyone has equal RIGHTS, not equal ABILITIES. Some people are smarter, stronger, more artistic, have better taste, are more empathetic... the one thing that we all have in common is that we're all different, and we are created different.
HOWEVER, and this is the true triumph of democracy, we have equal rights DESPITE the fact that we're not all equal. And to me, that is the reason why genetic traits shouldn't influence how much you pay for your health insurance - it's against the spirit of democracy. - inactive, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Your post is ridden with contradictions. The reason for genetic testing would be to establish who is "genetically inferior," then either charge more for coverage for those people, or not cover them at all. Under universal health care, this situation would obviously not exist. The private healthcare system is the reason for this happening, not the solution. When you talk about $3000 toilet seats, I'm pretty sure you're talking about the GAO report that came out about military contractors. Once again this is the PRIVATE SECTOR contractors bilking the taxpayer because the military has decided to outsource so many things. Would you recommend outsourcing even more to fix the problem?
- pintomp3, on 04/28/2008, -1/+21st. being a crappy driver is your choice, having a genetic condition is not. 2nd, you can live just fine without car insurance. living without health insurance, especially if you have a condition, is much tougher. people seem to forget, the #1 reason for bankruptcy in this country is medical expenses. that is inexcusable.
- garywilliams, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1If genetic testing is permitted for insurance purposes, then those people with genetic predispositions toward certain diseases will not be able to afford coverage. As insurance is presently instituted, everyone shares the burden. Setting one's premium based on genetics is very different from setting one's premium based on prior history of speeding and traffic accidents, as such history indicates a predisposition for harming other people, and people can choose whether or not to be good drivers, but they cannot choose their genetic make-up.
- ffttoteof, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1In most places in the US (maybe even all places in the US), males pay more in auto insurance until age 21 because, statistically, males under the age of 21 gets in more accidents.
Not saying it's right, just that there's a precedent. - TheUngod, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Education benefits all and a military benefits you directly (even though it is misused many times). Aside from that, you're absolutely right. We shouldn't be paying for many things we are. If your house goes up in flames, you should have insurance or pay out of pocket for the fire department. Many times it's irresponsibility that leads to homes catching fire (but not all of course).
- inactive, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Fair enough. It just seems hard to reconcile a Laissez Faire philosophy with the knowledge that it is always some private contractor that squanders all the money. For instance, we pay about 10 times as much for a Blackwater mercenary to do the same job as a regular soldier. We pay about 4 times per capita for healthcare than all other industrialized nations. We pay more for the Internet and get much ***** service. Why? These are all places where free market economics should be saving us money, but is not.
- spongya77, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1The writer did not talk about the easily testable genetic disorders. He was making an argument, that even IF you are predisposed to have type II diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases, does NOT mean, that you will get them, ergo, you shouldn't be charged extra (or denied). (Those with family history of HD, or any other genetic crap like that are rightly afraid of the insurance companies.)
Treating healthcare like a business, by the way, is the most evil thing in the last forty years. It is NOT a business, and it will NOT generate profit AND provide people with an acceptable level of care at the same time. - giantsfan134, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Everyone is not born equal. People are pretty much in a caste when they are born with some people going up or down a level.
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is