Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   Bush gets one right: Signs bill barring employers and insurers from discriminating against people genetically predisposed to disease   (upi.com ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

276 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 May 2008 at 7:46 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-05-21 07:49:24 PM  
if you're constantly taking a dump you'll end up getting some in the toilet
 
2008-05-21 07:49:36 PM  
Thank you, George.

Now please go away.
 
2008-05-21 07:50:18 PM  
He also vetoed the give farmers even more money making food and gas more expensive bill. I'd say he is doing pretty well this week.
 
2008-05-21 07:51:13 PM  
Interesting.

Now it will happen on the sly.


Insurance companies will hire detectives to follow you
and pick up your cup or cigarette

and have it analyzed before approving your application
 
2008-05-21 07:52:20 PM  
Don't pin this on Bush, thank Congress on this one. How many years have they been trying to get it passed?
 
2008-05-21 07:54:01 PM  
Well, you can't call him a Nazi.
 
2008-05-21 07:57:56 PM  
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Also, even hillbillies can get the obvious issues right, like this one. "Anyone who has sex with a ten-year-old should go to jail forever!!" Duh. It's the complicated issues where they stick to their simple, knee-jerk conclusions that constitute the problem.
 
2008-05-21 07:58:20 PM  

HR 493 / S 358, PDF at GPO. "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008", 42pp.


Looks like it was pretty popular -- 420-3 in House (roll no. 261, 4/25/2007); 95-0 in Senate, record vote 113, 4/24/2008; House approved as amended by Senate, 414-1 (roll no 234, 5/1/2008).

 
2008-05-21 08:01:08 PM  
Selector: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not if it's a broken digital clock.

/Yes, I know it's a saying that started before digital clocks.
//Doesn't mean I can't say the saying is no longer valid.
///Even an idiot sometimes get it right.
 
2008-05-21 08:01:12 PM  
rjShadow: Well, you can't call him a Nazi.

You know who else you couldn't call a Nazi?
 
2008-05-21 08:05:14 PM  
For him, it's personal: The Bush family suffers from a form of genetic retardation that makes them think they are pre-Magna Carta royalty.
 
2008-05-21 08:06:41 PM  
wow. 1-out-of-10000000. Hey even a stopped watch is right twice a day, lol

Bush himself is genetically predisposed to disease...
 
2008-05-21 08:07:14 PM  
How about a genetic predisposition to want to rape children? That's disease, isn't it?

Bush supports pederasts.
 
2008-05-21 08:09:33 PM  
I heard this on NPR where they said that it passed with only a single "No" vote in the house and I thought to myself, "I bet that was Ron Paul."

H.R. 493 bans discrimination by employers and insurance companies based on genetic information. The bill passed 95-0 in the Senate, and 414-1 in the House. The lone no vote was Ron Paul.

Damn but I love being right.
 
2008-05-21 08:13:29 PM  
Good for him. Shame the last 7 years were such a farking waste.
 
2008-05-21 08:13:52 PM  
Chameleon: I heard this on NPR where they said that it passed with only a single "No" vote in the house and I thought to myself, "I bet that was Ron Paul."

H.R. 493 bans discrimination by employers and insurance companies based on genetic information. The bill passed 95-0 in the Senate, and 414-1 in the House. The lone no vote was Ron Paul.

Damn but I love being right.


Why would he vote "no" on that?? Does he just like doing the opposite of what everyone else is doing??
 
2008-05-21 08:14:41 PM  
He's just genetically predisposed to alcoholism and foot-in-mouth disease and doesn't want to be ineligible for work at the Crawford Wal-Mart.
 
2008-05-21 08:15:09 PM  
Also, 3...2...1... till someone comes in here to whine about how this bill is teh EVIL, and it infringes on the imaginary right of buisnesses to operate however they want.
 
2008-05-21 08:15:45 PM  
img227.imageshack.us
 
2008-05-21 08:16:37 PM  
Chameleon: The lone no vote was Ron Paul.

Why does Ron Paul hate people genetically predisposed to disease?
 
2008-05-21 08:24:06 PM  
Because you should have the right to fire an employee if a genetic disease makes them unfit to work for you, and you shouldn't have to hire someone that may cost your company big insurance premiums down the road.

Face it, your rights end where mine begin, and if you get additional protections, you get them at my expense.
 
2008-05-21 08:26:13 PM  
Nurglitch: Because you should have the right to fire an employee if a genetic disease makes them unfit to work for you, and you shouldn't have to hire someone that may cost your company big insurance premiums down the road.

Face it, your rights end where mine begin, and if you get additional protections, you get them at my expense.


So I can fire fat people for being heart-attack risks??
 
2008-05-21 08:30:00 PM  
Nurglitch: So buisnesses are precognitive now? What ever happened to be hired/fired based on your qualifications pertaining to the job?
 
2008-05-21 08:30:53 PM  
Not to be a dick or anything, but isn't this basically:

Insurance company: There is a way for us to gather more information about a prospective client (for lack of a better word) and make a better informed decision.

Government: No, you can't have that information, you have to do this blindly, roll the dice, and hope you don't insure Mr. Sicky McDisease.

Shouldn't people have the choice of taking one of these tests, and if they "pass", get way lower insurance rates? I know this would probably lead to higher rates for those that "fail", so I guess I'm being a jerk about it, but as it is, don't we all end up with higher rates because those predisposed to disease are driving them up for those of us who are relatively healthy?

I'm working from basically zero background info here (though I did RTFA), so somebody please set me straight if need be.
 
2008-05-21 08:35:24 PM  
Also, I might add that genetic predisposition does not equal destiny. And I think any genetic scientist with a grain of integrity would undoubtedly point out that with alot of diseases that might have a genetic connection that lifestyle choice and environmental factors play a large role in determining whether people develop said diseases.
 
2008-05-21 09:22:26 PM  
GhostFish: Yes. And it's not fair.

But it's also not fair that someone with a genetic predisposition to disease would have to pay higher rates, or be un-insurable altogether, because of the way they were born.

So either most of us get screwed a little, or a small section of the populace gets screwed completely.

We lift each other up. That's society.


I rather like you.
 
2008-05-21 09:41:39 PM  
danfrank: I guess I'm being a jerk about it, but as it is, don't we all end up with higher rates because those predisposed to disease are driving them up for those of us who are relatively healthy?

Yep, and I'm perfectly okay with that.
 
2008-05-21 09:44:19 PM  
captainktainer: GhostFish: Yes. And it's not fair.

But it's also not fair that someone with a genetic predisposition to disease would have to pay higher rates, or be un-insurable altogether, because of the way they were born.

So either most of us get screwed a little, or a small section of the populace gets screwed completely.

We lift each other up. That's society.

I rather like you.


I don't! Lift each other up... what a crock! My father is an alcoholic and therefor I'm predisposed to addictions. Does that mean I can still get great health insurance due to my genetically predisposed love for cigarettes and whisky?

And considering the government it stepping in... what will happen is that most of us will get screwed completely!
 
2008-05-21 09:46:20 PM  
glenlivid: For him, it's personal: The Bush family suffers from a form of genetic retardation that makes them think they are pre-Magna Carta royalty.

That was definitely not the case for Bush Sr. He didn't not buy into global anarchy or 'might makes right'. He was a New World Order kind of guy.
 
2008-05-21 09:46:29 PM  
<libertarian> Let the market decide! </libertarian>
 
2008-05-21 09:47:40 PM  
Korovyov: HR 493 / S 358, PDF at GPO. "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008", 42pp.

Looks like it was pretty popular -- 420-3 in House (roll no. 261, 4/25/2007); 95-0 in Senate, record vote 113, 4/24/2008; House approved as amended by Senate, 414-1 (roll no 234, 5/1/2008).


Liberals want to fark you over until you feel like you have no choice but to crawl to them to take care of you.
 
2008-05-21 09:47:51 PM  
I'm genetically predisposed to this:

www.uma-thurman.eu
 
2008-05-21 09:52:41 PM  
I've come to the conclusion that, without fail, Bush is either lying, wrong, or trying something sneaky/sinister by default with absolutely everything, no matter how trivial or benign.

If he tells me the sky is blue, the sky will have somehow turned purple. If he tells me he likes baseball and hot dogs, it's a certainty he just watched curling while eating sushi.

So the question now is what in this is he lying about, or what sinister reason is behind this seemingly benign or even beneficial veto. He's put me in a tough spot of deciding if I should actually be in favor of genetic discrimination. So far I've yet to be wrong with this system... I might have to switch sides on this issue.

//am I kidding? Am I? YOU'LL NEVER KNOW!
 
2008-05-21 10:28:23 PM  
danfrank: Not to be a dick or anything, but isn't this basically:

Insurance company: There is a way for us to gather more information about a prospective client (for lack of a better word) and make a better informed decision.

Government: No, you can't have that information, you have to do this blindly, roll the dice, and hope you don't insure Mr. Sicky McDisease.

Shouldn't people have the choice of taking one of these tests, and if they "pass", get way lower insurance rates? I know this would probably lead to higher rates for those that "fail", so I guess I'm being a jerk about it, but as it is, don't we all end up with higher rates because those predisposed to disease are driving them up for those of us who are relatively healthy?

I'm working from basically zero background info here (though I did RTFA), so somebody please set me straight if need be.


In a perfect void, I'd consider that to be true. However, I think it's part and parcel of spreading the risk. It sucks, but--as GhostFish said--it's also a lot fairer than the alternative.

Also, this isn't a perfect world. One of the biggest problems with for-profit insurance is that, well, insurance companies try to make a PROFIT. Given the shadiness inherent in most large business, that can (and often does) take the form of insurance companies attempting to weasel out of paying for anything they can. This, in my eyes, gives them another tool with which to accomplish that--and a VERY powerful one at that.

For example, take me. Alzheimer's disease has been fairly virulent in my family for the past few generations. Although I have a 'standard' risk, according to APOE (homozygous for APOE 3, tested myself in a genetics class), given my family history, it's quite possible there's something we don't know about yet acting in conjunction with APOE and contributing to Alzheimer's. It's a powerful tool, but it is by no means a perfect predictor.

It's my main fear that insurance companies would attempt to utilize it in this manner, especially considering how quickly science can advance. Say gene A is experimentally shown to be linked to pancreatic cancer, yet a later study shows that another gene can nullify gene A's harmful effects.

How long would it take for this discovery to find its way into the genetics guidelines? Look how many people don't even fully understand the fine print in their policy, and then imagine scientific jargon thrown in there. Once again, not to belabor the point, this provides a useful tool for disingenuous insurance.

Finally, this policy doesn't take diet and lifestyle into account. To use myself as an example, again with Alzheimer's, I eat healthy (large amounts of fruits/veggies), exercise regularly, and actively learn, which has been shown to lower the incidence of Alzheimer's. My genetics, however, wouldn't reflect this.

I suppose it's a matter of me not trusting an industry built upon profits when they may have to pay YOU some day, but I'm wholeheartedly glad Chimpy signed this bill.
 
2008-05-21 10:31:19 PM  
yeah you can tell it's an election year.

Israel appeases Syria (^)
 
2008-05-21 10:45:56 PM  
My best friend has a grandmother who developed Huntington's, which is a dominantly inherited genetic disorder. His mother seems to be suffering from the same, which means that there's a 50% chance that my friend will also begin to lose his mind sometime in his 30s. He's 22 now, and afraid to be tested, mostly because he's terrified that he won't be able to get health insurance if he knows for a fact that he's positive for Huntington's, and thus will eventually require about 5-8 years of assisted living as his brain is eaten up in what should be the prime of his life. He wants to know one way or another, as a negative test result would totally change his world outlook right now.

Insurance is about spreading the risk. "Perfect" information about clients is not beneficial for society at large, and I'm perfectly fine with paying more on a personal level (my genetics are pretty damn good) to help those who have such burdens as my friend. Glad to see so much sanity in the thread over the selfishness.
 
2008-05-21 10:48:11 PM  
Meh, Bush knows that if we knew his genetic mental defects he wouldn't have been elected.
 
2008-05-21 10:59:10 PM  
Ceph: Don't pin this on Bush, thank Congress on this one. How many years have they been trying to get it passed?

Both deserve credit. Give credit were its due:

Thank you, U.S. Congress.

Thank you, President Bush.

/sorry about the recent veto override GW, I was with you on that one too.
 
2008-05-21 11:01:54 PM  
Richard Pye: rjShadow: Well, you can't call him a Nazi.

You know who else you couldn't call a Nazi?


Winston Churchill?
 
2008-05-21 11:05:13 PM  
Pretty much everyone has a predisposition to something. This helps everyone. Just because your genes say you could possibly end up with some disease doesn't mean it will happen.

Anyone who is opposed to this bill should take a look-see into their family tree and the death of their close relatives to see which diseases they may be prone to get. Everyone has at least one!
 
2008-05-21 11:06:59 PM  
EmmaLou: Pretty much everyone has a predisposition to something. This helps everyone. Just because your genes say you could possibly end up with some disease doesn't mean it will happen.

Anyone who is opposed to this bill should take a look-see into their family tree and the death of their close relatives to see which diseases they may be prone to get. Everyone has at least one!


Mine seem to be mostly venereal.
 
2008-05-21 11:18:39 PM  
Nemo's Brother: glenlivid: For him, it's personal: The Bush family suffers from a form of genetic retardation that makes them think they are pre-Magna Carta royalty.

That was definitely not the case for Bush Sr. He didn't not buy into global anarchy or 'might makes right'. He was a New World Order kind of guy.


As a member of the Carlyle Group, the biggest defense contractor-conglomerate the world has ever seen, he definitely believes "might makes right". He also believes ex-presidents should peddle their influence for war profits, and will stand to make a VERY healthy profit from the "war on terra".
 
2008-05-21 11:20:31 PM  
Shaggy_C: Why does Ron Paul hate people genetically predisposed to disease?

Well, he voted against it, ostensibly, because he thought it didn't include adequate protections for privacy in the infant genetic screening program it funds.

In the long term, that could be a very big deal.

However, being Paul, I have a feeling he would have found an excuse to vote against it no matter what simply because it's a government program, and we can't have those.
 
2008-05-21 11:33:52 PM  
AndyMan1: I've come to the conclusion that, without fail, Bush is either lying, wrong, or trying something sneaky/sinister by default with absolutely everything, no matter how trivial or benign.

If he tells me the sky is blue, the sky will have somehow turned purple. If he tells me he likes baseball and hot dogs, it's a certainty he just watched curling while eating sushi.

So the question now is what in this is he lying about, or what sinister reason is behind this seemingly benign or even beneficial veto. He's put me in a tough spot of deciding if I should actually be in favor of genetic discrimination. So far I've yet to be wrong with this system... I might have to switch sides on this issue.

//am I kidding? Am I? YOU'LL NEVER KNOW!


What if he's not doing anything, just to fark with us? That counts as being sinister, doesn't it? Bastard.
 
2008-05-22 12:14:27 AM  
Life is very valuable.
Life is not infinitely valuable.

My insurance pays for fat, old smokers to use thousands of man-hours of a physicans's time for a insignificant extension of their lives. That same amount of time could have been spent saving the lives of people that take care of themselves or caring for children with their entire lives ahead of them.

What's the result? In fifteen years time there won't be enough medical resources for all the baby boomers and everyone else. Even if they fix medicare, that's not going to make 1,000,000 more doctors and nurses fall out of the sky! There will be a black market for medicine, and none of us will be able to afford it.

Genetic information would make insurance better. That information could be used to better pool risk; the testing and such would catch thousands of risk conditions early when they can still be treated easily. The math and statistics of pooling risk don't give a shiat if you don't have a choice in the matter! Reality is what it is! I like donating to a charity hospital that treats uninsured patients, but I don't like being coerced via insurance into paying for your $20,000 a month in Type 2 Diabetes treatment which could have been completely prevented if the genetic risk factors had been identified years before you got it.
 
2008-05-22 12:20:13 AM  
Oh no! Someone take his pulse quick! He's probably a pod person beginning the zombie apocalypse!
 
2008-05-22 01:01:35 AM  
Here's the funny thing about "healthcare" in America: Most of our pre-existing conditions are related to our genetics, and let's face it, they are the reason we go to the doctor in the first place. The Chinese have a health system based on "body types", and once we fully figure out the genome, I think science will discover Chinese medicine was correct on many things.

In America, everything is treated with this "OMG, YOU'RE USING YOUR HEALTHCARE DOLLARS" mentality that amounts to putting off conditions until they are critical. The whole idea is to treat you as little as possible, all-the-while taking your monthly payment. Asthma is the main reason I go to the doctor, but anytime I switch healthcare plans, they won't cover my minuscule doctor visits and medications because it's a preexisting condition...but it's the main reason I need health insurance. It's the biggest joke/catch-22 I've ever seen. It amounts to me paying for my doctor visits, prescriptions, and of course, my monthly insurance. Do I make decisions based on this? Absolutely. If it came down to me making my insurance payment or going to the doctor, I'm going to make my insurance payment in case something really costly should happen to me; at the same time, I'm jeopardizing my current health by not treating my existing condition.

My example is not the best, but for every one of us there is a similar situation that should make us reexamine why we have healthcare in the first place.

...or, at the very least, let's just call it what it is: A for-profit treatment industry.
 
2008-05-22 01:07:53 AM  
Isn't the whole point of health insurance the spreading out of risks over a high number of people so that no one person gets totally screwed? Wouldn't genetic testing pretty much go against that whole purpose?

Oh, and anyone who is fine with allowing people who might, someday, develop a disease to go without medical treatment altogether just to save a few bucks on their own policy is a douchebag of the first order, and I have nothing but contempt for you trash.
 
2008-05-22 01:11:09 AM  
Larofeticus: My insurance pays for fat, old smokers to use thousands of man-hours of a physicans's time for a insignificant extension of their lives. That same amount of time could have been spent saving the lives of people that take care of themselves or caring for children with their entire lives ahead of them.

Fat, old smokers choose to smoke. You don't choose your genes.

If you don't like "your $20,000 a month in Type 2 Diabetes treatment which could have been completely prevented," then it might be a good idea to create incentives for people to be tested. Insurance companies don't care about preventative measures. They just want to cut costs. The easiest way to cut costs is to price someone up or out, or simply refuse to insure them.

Let's be honest. If there weren't other regulations, insurance companies could and would arbitrarily cease treating people. Reasonable regulation, and the popularity of group plans through employers ensure that the insurance companies offer somewhat reasonable terms. If the "free market" nutbars get their way and push for an all individual approach, that's going to change. After all, what would stop them from simply cutting you off? You signed the one-sided adhesion contract that says they can terminate your benefits for any reason, and that should you want to take them to court, that you have to pay their lawyers for the privilege of suing them.
 
2008-05-22 02:50:51 AM  
LocalCynic: ...then it might be a good idea to create incentives for people to be tested. Insurance companies don't care about preventative measures. They just want to cut costs. The easiest way to cut costs is to price someone up or out, or simply refuse to insure them.

Mmm k, let's define this system that fixes healthcare right here and now.

The medical insurance industry should hereby be split into several separate industries.

The first is a collective bargaining patients association. An individual, for a small fee, joins said association. The association uses the bulk purchasing power of all it's members to negotiate the price of preventative and routine medical proceedures with physicians and hospitals. Members of the association may then purchase the medical service for the contracted price. It is the responsibility of the association managment to monitor the quality of the services provided. Furthermore, these associations can specialize or departmentalize special subsets of medical need; an association for diabetics, an association for cancer paitients who want chemotherapy, an association for HIV positive people, and so on and so forth. The negotiating power of the association will push all service prices to their lowest sustainable level, and any association that fails to do so, or colludes with intrests other than it's patient base, will be replaced by another.


The second industry created is the actual medical insurance, but it is left with only the aspects that are similar to other insurance industries. Only rare, one time, unpredictable, and catastrophic medical emergencies are covered. Serious trauma/emergency room visits, heart attacks, emergency surgery and so on and so forth. A contract between the insurer and insuree specifically and clearly list what events are covered, and the sum of money paid out when this event occurs. There would certainly be a wide range of events an insuree could pick and choose coverage for, each with it's own known risk and calculated, modest, premium.

This separation successfully divorces the collective bargaining aspect of medical insurance companies from the incentive to deny preventative care or minor proceedures. In fact, it would encourage preventative care as having association members which use more services would increase the bargaining power of the organization. This is also ideal for handling chronic illnesses, prescription drug needs, and other small but frequently reoccuring medical expenses.

This would fix healthcare in America sustainably and indefinately. Individuals would have the safety net of funds needed to pay for catostrophic emergency care, and the price of routine proceedures would reflect the needed amount of resources to provide them, instead of being intensely distorted/inflated by insurance companies and other external forces.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report