Redstate

Having one gene for Sickle Cell is actually beneficial if you live in a Malaria high-risk area. HAving that makes you naturally resistant to it. Having both genes makes you almost immune to it, but again, you suffer from the conditions of SCA. Just thought I'd point that out...

And how is it that Hastert could possibly keep something like that off the floor? Couldn't the legislature get around it somehow?

It's a massive stretch to suggest that this is being blocked by Hastert, and it is unfair to him as well.  There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of very worthy bills introduced every year, every session in Congress.  Hastert typically allows the regular committee process to work itself out.

The bill was introduced 3/10/2005 and referred to the Education and Workforce Committee and to the Ways and Means Committee.  Both Committees get lots and lots and lots of bills referred to them for action, so it takes time for them to move on any one particular piece of legislation.  Considering that Education has been working on the Higher Education act and Pension reform all summer and Ways and Means has been working on CAFTA, pension reform, and Social Security, it is not surprising that they have not taken a look at this bill yet.

In order for the bill to move, both Committees need to pass the same bill out of Committee and send it to the floor.  Then Hastert and Delay decide whether to schedule it for a vote.

Since both the Education Committee and Ways and Means Committee have to take action on the bill, it makes it more complicated, but not impossible to move the legislation.  John Boehner (Ohio) and Bill Thomas (CA) are two of the most productive and efficient Chairmen in the House, and have a good history of working together (see pension reform legislation).

If you want to take a positive step to getting this legislation moving, I'd suggest you reach out to those two chairmen and ask them to hold hearings on the bill and mark it up and send it to the floor.

Accusing the Speaker of failing to move the legislation isn't the best strategy.  It is the equivalent of stomping your feet and demanding candy at the grocery store.

So I'd suggest that you write a letter to these two chairman, call their staff, and explain to them the importance of this issue.  But don't accuse them of ignoring the issue or failing to promote sound science, it's counterproductive and you will likely be ignored.

was a wrestling coach.  I'm certain he knows how and where to exert pressure to get this done if he wants to.  This legislation has been rattling around the Hill for about a decade now.  It's passed in the Senate unanimously what? four times already?

Let's just get this thing done.  

Very few people understand how important this issue is because it is rather abstract and technical, but it is the most important thing, in my opinion, to maintaining the traditions of freedom, opportunity, and democracy that Americans pride themselves on.  

I'd rather just focus any and all pressure on Hastert and let him exert pressure where needed further down, but I haven't even taken legislative process 001.

So:

http://johnboehner.house.gov/contact.asp

http://billthomas.house.gov/Contact.asp

http://tomdelay.house.gov/Contact/

You're right, he definitely gets some blame for this one too.

"Delay by DeLay

In the House, the bill is "being held up by order" of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) "appears to have largely ignored it," despite an "entreaty" from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), CongressDaily reports. As a result, the legislation likely will not reach the House floor this year..."

Link

Also, there were 250 members of the House in favor of essentially this bill back in 2001.  I think that's enough time and obvious support to bring this thing to a vote.  

People predisposed to get sick hould have to pay more money, bieng a higher risk.  If the risk is high enough, they should be rejected entirely.

Insurance is a gamble, not a charity, and if the odds are stacked against the insurance company, they shouldn't play.

They often provide health insurance, and life insurance, and of course they also have lost productivity if emplyees are out of work sick or die and they have to retrain someone else.

Let's say you have an A instead of a G somewhere in your genome.  This mutation is associated with a 30% increase in serious illness.  At present you are perfectly healthy:  BP, cholesterol, heart rate, weight, etc.

"No job for you?"

I don't think it's the place of government to establish the right to employment, either.

You would have no problems with insurers who refused to cover, or charged all African Americans higher premiums?

And you would have no problem with employers who refused to hire African Americans because "they cost more to employ"?  Because of insurance, earlier death, lost work for health issues,...

http://www.nmanet.org/Health_policy-nma.htm

Nobody is talking about establishing a right to employment here.  The legislation is about making it illegal to discriminate based on DNA sequence instead of actual health status.

For example:  The link above says African American males have twice the mortality rate from heart disease that Caucasian males have.  Should ALL African American males pay twice as much for health insurance?  Or should insurers treat every person as an individual and look at their actual health status?  Those who are overweight, have high blood pressure, smoke, have high cholesterol, sedentary lifestyle, etc. pay more regardless of whether they are African Americans or Caucasians?

Please consider the several references in the diary that indicate that many, most, or all genes are only able to predict an increase in the chance of disease.  Very few can predict disease with absolute certainty.

"You would have no problems with insurers who refused to cover, or charged all African Americans higher premiums?"

I'd not think well of those insurers, and certainly wouldn't invest in one for being so stupid, but I don't think all stupid things should be illegal.

" And you would have no problem with employers who refused to hire African Americans because "they cost more to employ"?  Because of insurance, earlier death, lost work for health issues,..."

Same.  I think any company that did this wouldn't get away with it in America today, because there would be enormous investor and customer backlash.

There's no need for government to be involved here, and I don't want government destroying liberties where it's not necessary to do so.

You do know it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring among other things?

But those laws are superfluous in your opinion because the market would punish a company that fired all it's African American employees in an effort to decrease healthcare costs?

What do you suppose would happen if that strategy worked?  Company A fires all African Americans to cut healthcare costs, and in fact their expenses decrease, profits go up, stock price goes up.

What do you think company B, company A's competitor might do?

What do you think the longterm outcome of such behavior might be?  Could it be an underclass of people who are treated differently on the basis of things like skin color (or DNA sequences) that do not necessarily predict the behavior, health, abilities, intelligence, education of the group who is being discriminated against?

Does discrimination ever become wrong?  Or is making an extra buck a loftier goal than treating people fairly based on their abilities and their performance?

Yes, as I said, I wouldn't think well of those people.

But I just don't think all "wrong" things should be an excuse for government to grow.

And yes, I do know it's currently illegal to do some of these things.  We have lots of laws I disagree with.

Removing the genes that cause painful cancer deaths and other life threatining disease is discrimination?  It is our right to be born with a painful andlife threatining condition?  I can see arguing that life may be destroyed in the process of the research, but now just the idea of trying to save people from genetic diseases is offensive?

If it's OK for insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of genetics, what about parents ??

What if a genetic screening is done on an embryo in the first couple of weeks, and the test shows it will have a fatal disease that will cost thousands in medical bills??  The parents have no money so society will cover the costs. Can the parents kill the baby ?? I don't think money is always more important than morals, and somethings are better left up to God to be the only person that knows.

If you're going to keep abortion legal, then I don't see why it matters what the motivation for it is.

So, sure, let the parents who kill their unborn children do so in a discriminatory way.  I don't see how it's any more or less repugnant.

Can their insurance company drop the family's coverage if they do not abort the baby because this is a pre-existing condition?

If they can, should we allow insurers to do so legally?

You bring up an important point about how genetic discrimination is going to shape our society in the future.  If the insurance company will automatically drop the family from coverage if a child with Cystic Fibrosis or Down Syndrome is born, because it will obviously cost the insurer money, then won't many families feel pressure to have an abortion if tests indicate they will have a child with a genetic disorder?  I'm not saying they're right to do it, but won't that pressure exist for some peole?  What if their employer would fire them because of increased insurance costs and the anticipation that the parents would be less productive at work?  That's going to impact the decision making process for a lot of people.

Can we, society, refuse to provide medical care for a seriously ill child born to parents who then are dropped from their insurance plan and or fired from work because their child has a genetic disorder?  If so, what becomes of children born with serious genetic illnesses?  We know what the Greeks did to solve this problem.  Do we really want to go there?

On the flip side, if we agree that we can not or will not bind their feet and leave them on the mountain, doesn't that mean that we are just going to end up instituting nationalized healthcare when it's all said and done?  We've all got mutations in different genes.  Are we going to provide healthcare for those who are stricken from birth with a genetic disorder, but not those who become ill at age 10, 20, 30, 40,...?

Or, do we force everyone to undergo a battery of genetic tests on their unborn child and force them to have an abortion if the child has the wrong genes?  If we do, who will decide which genes are right and which are wrong?  And how long will it be before someone decides that the right genes to have are the ones that make you have blue eyes and blonde hair?

Can we, as a society, permit genetic discrimination to take place?  If we do, what kind of society will we become?

From the first link:

The concept of "genetic discrimination" only recently entered our vocabulary. But the problem is well documented. In as many as five hundred cases, individuals and family members have been barred from employment or lost their health and life insurance based on an apparent or perceived genetic abnormality. Many of those who have suffered discrimination are clinically healthy and exhibit none of the symptoms of a genetic disorder. Often, genetic tests deliver uncertain probabilities rather than clear-cut predictions of disease. Even in the most definitive genetic conditions, which are few in number, there remains a wide variability in the timing of onset and severity of clinical symptoms. Employers have access to medical/genetic information, which may be used to discriminate against their employees.

So you see, what we are talking about here is treating people differently, unfairly, based on some sequence of DNA that they possess and because of which there is some chance that they may become ill, but quite often they will never get sick because of that gene.  The situation is, in many ways, roughly analogous to discrimination against African Americans for being different than white people in terms of susceptibility to some disease.

No one is talking about "removing genes" except where such removal would be by the "personful".  It's sort of a "baby with the bathwater" kind of thing.

Nobody is opposed to curing disease except where such cure involves eliminating the diseased.  You get me?

That's my fear.. If insurance companies drop you if you have a genetically predisposed problem in your unborn child, then what do you do ??

Especially if you have three other kids to take care of, what are you going to do if the whole family is going to be dropped from insurance and or fired?

My suggestion is we all take a little time to call or write Dennis Hastert so future generations of Americans, starting with those who may have children in the next few years, never have to face a situation like this.

Let's face it, insurance companies are insuring people who are predisposed towards genetic disease now.  And they know how many people are going to get sick from which diseases and how much it will cost them and they charge premiums accordingly.  They make a pretty good buck just evaluating risk based on the actual health status of their customers.  If we make it illegal for them to use genetic testing information to discriminate they are no worse off than they were before the advent of genetic testing.  The problem is if one insurer starts to test then all others will have to follow suit and gradually circle by circle we work our way down to the bottom.

The time to act is now.  And in so doing the Republican Party can create an Aegis, if you will, to defend itself against the claims of being anti-science and anti-progress which we can be sure will be coming in the 2006 elections on the ESCR issue.  

It's a win a prize for doing the right thing, kind of thing.  

Hastert, and possibly a few others, just need to hear the message loud and clear that we want a vote on this bill.

that my comments will not be interpreted as 'snarky' or condescending, but this is precisely why libertarianism is dead, utterly dead, as a viable governing philosophy for, not only actually-existing America, but any conceivable, probable America.  If insurance companies are to be permitted to discriminate on the basis of certain unfavourable DNA sequences, then millions of people with certain susceptibilities will not be able to afford health care; but our society is not a savage, primitive one in which the sick and weak are simply snuffed out for the offense of merely being sick and weak - we are not Nietzsche's cruel and noble ubermenschen, at least not yet - so the costs of their care will be socialized, purely and simply.  The question, therefore, is not whether the costs of the care of such persons will be socialized, but how - through the market of insurance companies, regulated to ensure access, or politically.  

And let's not even contemplate the evils that could ensue re. abortion, as discussed already in this thread...

Although I support the free market in almost every situation, the notion of a Gattaca-style genetic discrimination does raise really troubling visions of the future.

Since the government is a participant in the free market, I suspect genetic discrimination and insurance will be handled in much the same way that bad driving and insurance fraud is handled (in let's say... New Jersey): everyone pays more.

So those of us who are not genetically predisposed to disease would end up subsidizing those who are; I don't have a problem with that... for now.  It is a free-market solution of sorts, although imperfect.

Employers aren't going to pick up the cost of a genetically-predisposed worker; if prohibited from firing them or discriminating against them, they'll just pass the costs on to their non-predisposed employees in the group health/life insurance plan.

It ain't perfect, but this area seems to be ready-made for compromise.

-TS

Glad you enjoyed it!  And thanks to everyone who recommended it, and whoever promoted it.  After I posted it I came back to check and see how it looked  and if I had set up all the links correctly and it was completely gone from the recent diaries list!  And, well,... I think I broke posting rule number 1 a couple of times before I found it.

I'm pretty convinced prohibiting genetic discrimination is the most important thing in the world right now for anyone who takes the long term view of the world.  We can't predict what it's exact effects will be, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that some of them are going to be truly nightmarish.

I owe you, Kowalski and JustMe an apology for this thread the other day.

I think you can see, I'm not really a Nazi, I was just trying to build up to this diary.  It took me longer to finish than I thought.  (Those Linky-do's are great but kind of a pain.)

No worries. I understood from where you were coming.

Just a quick question.  I found your story so interesting I actually read all of it, but one issue was left unresolved.  You never actually explained why you thought Dennis Hastert was "holding up" this legislation.  From what you say it sounds like a good bill, but any legislation potentially has problem spots in it. In all fairness, if Hastert is doing what you say he's doing, surely he has some reason, no?  What is his explanation?

The right thing for medical care, I'm convinced, is to start getting government out.  We can't do it right away, but we can gradually ease it out.

Digging our way out (by expanding government's role in this sector) of the hole (ever-higher costs caused by government checks on market forces) will, no surprise, just get us deeper (raise costs even higher, making this stuff even less affordable).

Give me a break.

You think the GOP can show its support for science by banning a scientific practice?

The main point is that again I have to explain the free market to a Democrat.

Let's walk through this:

Your nightmare scenario happens.  Employers begin requiring DNA testing.  Health insurance does too.  Everyone rushes to hire and insure all those whose DNA makes them low risk.

In your world, that's where it stops.  Everyone with questionable DNA is pushed down the food chain.

In the real world, the free market takes over.

As you pointed out, DNA is not a perfect predictor in most cases.  Because of that, there are going to be plenty of people who are rejected by your hypothetical company.  But there other companies will snatch up those people because it is quite profitable to do so.

We see the same thing happening right now with credit.  Once you have bad credit, it's very difficult to get a decent loan.  But credit history, like DNA, is not a perfect predictor.  And companies are cropping up to exploit the fact that sometimes you are a very good credit risk even if you have a bad credit history.  (Take, for example, someone who married someone with a lot of debt but who still has a good-paying, secure job.)

Of course, there are those who have bad credit scores and actually ARE a bad credit risk.  They're going to have to pay more for a loan.

Likewise, there are those who are going to have to pay more for healthcare.  You may not have noticed this, but that's already the case in life insurance.  As a result, I can get cheaper life insurance because I don't smoke.

analogy, although there are some similarities as you suggest.  First credit is something you earn, or acheive, or fail to take responsibility for and thus get a negative credit record.  DNA is not something you earn or develop it is in major ways who you are.  A better analogy is to "race" (I know we've had this discussion before, but we can all agree that a group of people who today we call African Americans was discriminated against based on "racial" identity.).  You can't change your race, or exercise to become more white, or behave very responsibly to acheive more whiteness.  You are born into one group or another and discriminating against one of these groups is wrong even if there is anecdotal or statistical evidence for a difference--Let's say Asians perform better on standardized tests for mathematics than whites.  Does that mean that we should exclusively train and hire Asians for positions that use math?  Of course not.

Second, as to the free market providing a class of insurers who are willing to insure these second class citizens, it's possible but it is definitely unfair.  A free market racist (I'm not calling anyone racist here.) would have said the same thing about racially discriminatory hiring practices in the 50s and 60s:  

"Well we don't want to hire them because they don't ___(fill in the blank:  work as hard, know as much, have the intelligence, have the honesty,...) that white people do.  Someone else can hire their kind, and to make it worth their while to hire those people they can pay them less than we pay our white people."

If any of these reasons might be true for a percentage of the group who is being discriminated against, is it right to discriminate against everyone who belongs to the group?

In your credit example would it be okay to refuse credit to a "racial" group if it was shown that that "racial" group tended to have late payments more often than another "racial" group?  Or would it be better to look at each person applying for credit as an individual and determine their creditworthiness based on their record:  income, assets, debts, past payment history,...?

Similarly in health insurance or employment insurers can and do evaluate individuals based on their health history.  This bill does not try to prevent them from continuing to do so.  Insurers can look at weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate, smoking,...  and determine an individuals likelihood of suffering a heart attack.  They then charge premiums according to this individuals actual health status and history just like creditors do with credit history.  What this legislation will do is prevent discrimination against those with certain DNA sequences that may or may not lead to disease.  For instance, there are genes associated with high blood pressure, a risk factor for heart disease.  Should a man who carries these genes be discriminated against in health insurance and employment if he jogs five miles a day, never eats red meat, has normal blood pressure, maintains an ideal weight, never eats fried foods or salt?  While some guy with the right genes who does none of these things gets to buy health insurance and take any job he wants?

People should be evaluated as an individual, based on their performance and record, be that in education and employment, or credit, or health.  They should not be evaluated based on a group that they happen to have born into and have no control over or ability to change.

No, no one should consider race in hiring (unless, for example, law enforcement is looking for someone of a particular race to go undercover with MS-13).

But if it happens, then a smart entrepeneur can hire all of those smart minorities (or, in your example, those non-Asians who are good at math) and make a killing.

The free market prevents unjust discrimination unless the discrimination is true of the entire society.  Almost every actual or potential business owner would have to discriminate against non-Asians in order for your nightmare to come true.

It just won't happen.

I am more knowledgeable about the science of this issue than I am about the legislative wrangling as dpcleary pointed out in #2.

The legislation has been in the house for I think five years without ever coming to a vote.  I have heard from a friend involved with an advocacy group for a genetic disorder that Hastert is primarily to blame for preventing this legislation from coming to a vote.  Many of the reports I have seen generically blamed "Republican leadership in the House" which I felt probably wasn't the right way to present the issue on a Republican blog, so I decided to single out Hastert.  Other than that I have seen news reports that briefly indicate Hastert as part of the hold-up.  This one also directly attributes some type of hold to Delay.

My point in choosing to single Hastert out is to direct any pressure possible towards getting him to bring this legislation to the floor.  It has passed unanimously numerous time in the Senate.  I don't think anyone has ever cast a vote against it, so it must be pretty decent and a majority of Representatives have been in favor of the legislation every year from as far back as 2001.  This legislation should be passed and I think if serious effort was exerted on Hastert and possibly Delay it would pass.  I also tried to offer a strategy for using passage of this bill as a way to deflect criticism of the GOP for being anti-science which sort of sweetens the pot for the party leadership to support this bill.

The objections to it I have seen come from the insurance industry and employer organizations.  But even large swaths of the insurance industry are in favor of legislation prohibiting Genetic Discrimination because they know they can be quite successful doing business the way they always have.  The problem is if one of them starts to discriminate based on genetic information then all the others will have to follow suit and it becomes a race to the bottom to eliminate people with bad genes as fast as possible.  If nobody ever starts using Genetic Discrimination then everybody can continue to compete the way they always have, rates won't go down and they won't go up the status quo will be maintained.  As Maximos and TS pointed out healthcare costs associated with these conditions are already effectively distributed among all of the insured by the insurance market.

Employers are concerned about the possibility of lawsuits for Genetic Discrimination.  I view that as a very stinky red herring.  If you don't want to get sued for Genetic Discrimination, then don't look at people's genes.  It's pretty easy to avoid actually.  To the extent that employers will get involved with genetic information, say through administering health care plans etc.  those records should be kept strictly confidential and not be accessed by anyone involved with the hiring, firing, promotion process.  Employers, like insurers, already bear the costs associated with these conditions.  If no employers start to discriminate based on genetics then no others need to follow suit and we can maintain the status quo which is evaluating people based on individual merit.

can tell me how to look into the history of legislative maneuvers in the house with this legislation over the past few years I'd be happy to look into the specifics with more detail.

I just don't know how or where to find that information at this time.

"...then a smart entrepeneur can hire all of those smart minorities..."

that's not what my history books tell me about the South.  So I guess all African Americans should have  just moved north of the Mason-Dixon line (as many did) back in the day.

Maybe your thinking of Oskar schindler I suppose such a system works for a few members of the discriminated group.  All in all however, I think we would be better off to try to prevent the unfair, un-American, and unjustified discrimination in the first place.

(Incidentally, what is it with you complete free-market guys?  Is that a religion or something?  You do realize there are no real free-markets don't you?  Whenever there are they are always abused as soon as someone gains market or information power.  It's certainly no way to run the world, even if it is the best way we have.  Free markets still need a rule or two to try to keep the playing field level and thus really free.)

It would help, if you are going to whine at dKos about how you are ignored over here, that you would not reference a diary that got promoted to the frontpage. I'm sure it's confusing for you as to which one you will choose - having your message heard, or getting to play the victim at dKos.

I will help you resolve this personal quandary by never promoting one of your diaries again. That way you can focus all your energies on the one you are better at (playing victim). However, I can't promise that one of the other editors won't slip up and put you in this strait again.

Glad to have helped.

Good analogy.  I love free markets, but we do need to constrain the excesses from time to time.

The implication of this bill -- one that I am willing to accept -- is that the rest of us would pay more.  So be it.

-TS

But let me point out, we don't have to pay more than we are already paying.  

As you said about drivers in NJ, those who do not have damaging genetic information in their genomes are chipping in a little (say 10%) more than they would if Genetic Discrimination were widespread.  But we don't have to increase premiums for anybody they are already set so the system works pretty well for everybody who has insurance and insurance companies can make a buck or two as well.

I didn't mean we'd have to pay more than we do now; sorry about the confusion.  I do mean that we'd have to pay more than we would otherwise, were we to allow insurance companies to discriminate.

The social cost of allowing that is too high; as a society, we'd likely accept subsidizing the "Genetically Challenged" (LOL -- a new interest group?).

-TS

about being ignored over here, I whined about being ignored over there.  I also whined about being called a Narcissist over here.  I'm feeling a little whiney today.

I posted this diary over here with a strategy that I think can be exploited effectively by the Republicans precisely because I felt said message would at least get a fair hearing over here.  I am not as interested in winning Republican elections in 2006 as I am interested in getting this legislation passed in 2005.  Ditto for Democratic elections.  That's the thing about being an independent, I dislike both parties more than I like either.  Unfortunately there's not a lot of politics that gets done without one or both parties.  So here I am, trying to present the case as best I can to an audience I thought might listen.

I appreciate the consideration by those who have read my thoughts here.  The response has been positive here so I thought a re-worked diary at dKos might also be well received there.  My intent is not to play games with either site or either Party my intent is to get support for this legislation so that it can be signed into law.  (I know I have heard someone here express feelings similar to my own about taking help where they can get it to acheive their goals regarding a matter that begins with an A- and ends with -bortion.)  

I could have written this diary from a Democratic perspective with a strategy for attacking Republicans and posted it at dKos but the phrase "Don't cast your pearls before swine." kept running through my head.  

(No offense to Armando or anyone at dKos, I just see a lot of diaries disappear over there with nobody reading or commenting while a Rove did whatever conspiracy theory spawns dozens of idiotic diaries that make it to the recommended list.)

(Oh and I hope that neither Trevino nor anyone else thinks that using a quote that analogizes my diary to a "pearl" is further evidence of my Narcissism.  But perhaps it is.  I don't have time to think about that now I'm going to touch up my lovely coiffure. ;)

Also, I am aware that playing the victim here will gain me very little sympathy.  If I rework this diary for a Democratic audience one of the things you might expect to see is the use of "victimhood"   for the purpose of provoking sympathy.  (They call that framing over there.)

To conclude, I think you may have misread this sentence in my post at dKos:

"It seems like when a small fish like me posts a diary over here it just swirls around the recent diaries list for a while and then disappears."

You see the here means there it is not a there meaning here.

ps.  Thank you for promoting this diary Leon.  I appreciate it and am flattered.  Yours is one of the names I was most happy to see had recommended it, (also Streiff with whom I have had dust-ups in the past but whom I further respect for being able to ignore those occassions and recommend something he thinks is worthwhile).  I hope you will not let this misunderstanding color your opinion of me or cause you to not promote or comment on something else I write if you feel it merits it.  

If I rewrite this and post it at dKos, I hope nobody thinks me dishonest to write a diary using certain language and appealing to one party in one way only to rewrite the diary using different language and appealing to the other party in another way but my goal is to get things done.  This is after-all politics.

For the misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification.

posted first over here because the diary posting rules explicitly said not to repost things already put up on other blogs unless they were your own personal blog.  Just trying to play by the rules.

No hard feelings.  I can understand where either side might be confused by someone who is as seemingly schizophrenic politically as I am.  

I think they call me a swing voter.

The South is not a valid test case, for various reasons that I'm sure you can understand if you try.

If you mean that no nations currently have completely free markets, then you are correct so far as I know.  That proves exactly nothing, however.

Especially since no one has advocated a purely free market in this thread.

However, I did see that you needed to have someone explain market forces to you lest you leap to legislate something that doesn't need legislation.

We need to constrain the excesses?  With legislation?

That way big government liberalism lies, my friend.

Like I said, I was very much torn on this issue as I believe the free market usually makes the correct choice on most things.  But this issue... it seems relatively clear to me that the rules of the free market would in fact lead to serious social dislocation and external costs that the free market itself cannot correct.

Insurance companies are not evil; they're just rational, self-interest seeking economic actors.  Even if they are constrained by legislation from genetic discrimination, they'll run their own numbers and estimates and actuary tables, and figure out how they have to charge everyone, genetically challenged or not, in order to spread out the costs and make a profit.

It is a step towards big government liberalism (or big government conservatism), and I regret that, but I think the original poster makes a pretty strong argument that in this case, we need to make an exception.

-TS

But, asking this question in the simplest possible terms, and recognizing that we're both aware of the back issues here, why is this different from ESCR? The science is out there, and there will undeniably be benefits for the majority of humans, or this would stop now. Why not use it?

completely.

But at the most basic level:  we both recognize people who have traversed the birth canal as deserving the same rights and protections as everyone else.  (We also recognize those rights are conferred prior to traversing the birth canal, we just disagree on whether they should be conferred 9 months prior.)

I want the science available, ie:  I want people to be able to have genetic testing done to see if they are likely to get a disease so that they can make lifestyle changes that may save their lives.  I just don't want their employer to be able to fire them if the results of that test suggest the possibility of future serious illness.

I don't think the small savings on the cost of health insurance for those few with "pure" genomes will outweigh the societal costs of discriminating against all of those who do have genes associated with disease.

Also, basically all of us have genes that are going to be associated with some disease or another.  The inevitable outcome of this is that we will eventually socialize all health insurance because nobody can afford private insurance anymore.

In summary, this is different than ESCR because we are talking about people that we both recognize are people.  Ill treatment of people through discrimination is wrong.  There is little to nothing to be gained from allowing Genetic Discrimination.  And the long term societal and economic impacts will be disastrous.

(If I didn't answer the question, let me know and I'll try again.)

me is a motive.  WHY is Hastert doing this (if in fact it is him doing it)?  You attack him, but never let him speak for himself.  Surely at some point over the years he has issued a statement of some kind defending his position and indicating his motives. Since this is obviously your bugaboo, I leave it to you to track down such evidence.  I'm not saying I disagree with your overall position, but before I e-mail my congressman about any legislation I want to know both sides.  

As a bonus, if you dig something up that answers my question, I promise that I WILL e-mail or call my congressman.

Let me clarify, by way of noting that, respectfully, I think you're working under some misconceptions about how insurance works.

Insurance is fundamentally about pooling risk. That's how it protects individual insureds: Everyone puts in their chunk of change so that, if push comes to shove, there are far larger resources on which to draw.

Insurance companies set premia based on two things: The nature of the risk and the size of the risk pool. The premium for one member of a risk pool of one thousand seventeen year old drivers is going to be much higher than for one member of one million twenty five year old drivers.

When an insurance company evaluates you for risk, i.e., gets your application for insurance, what they're really doing is seeing how much risk they, and those other insureds who will be members of your pool, are taking on relative to the premium you'll be charged. Insurance companies are not evil; they are trying to make a profit and to spread risk. If your risk is too high relative to the premium offered, then they will decline coverage.

However, note that caveat. There are many, many, many insurance companies. Some prefer to deal in low risk consumers. Some spread their risk. Some prefer to deal with high risk, high premium customers, because there is assuredly a market out there for them.

However, all but State-run insurance companies are profit-driven enterprises. Someone, somewhere, will insure you at some rate if they can turn a buck off of it.

That leads me to this:

I don't think the small savings on the cost of health insurance for those few with "pure" genomes will outweigh the societal costs of discriminating against all of those who do have genes associated with disease.

Also, basically all of us have genes that are going to be associated with some disease or another.  The inevitable outcome of this is that we will eventually socialize all health insurance because nobody can afford private insurance anymore.

Actually, no. Because here is what will happen: Insurance companies will sort out new risk pools. Those with genetic disorders tending toward high cost, high risk diseases will be either dropped from coverage altogether (I concede this), or, more likely, will be assigned to a new risk pool, either in the same company or another, at a higher premium. Those with lower risk genetics will actually benefit by dropping these large risks from the pools in which they're currently sitting in the form of lowered premiums, better copays, better coinsurance requirements, etc. The net savings for the majority of Americans will be incredible.

Yes, we all have "bad" genes. But insurance companies are not fools: They want to make money. They will compete in each risk pool that they can profitably underwrite, and will assess risks rationally. And those they cannot will either be shifted out of the pool or will have to buy higher cost insurance.

In other words, the danger of socialized medicine is less with this sort of testing.

My point, then, is that the science is here anyway. There is a massive societal benefit to be had here if we just let the science go where it will. Why not this, too?

understanding of the way insurance works, but I still don't agree that there will be massive benefits for the majority of the insured.  Also I think many people with various genes will rapidly be priced out of the market.  Those people will likely be shuffled back into some societally subsidized market.  The net effect, private insurers shuffle out all people with the greatest genetic risk factors and society pays for them through medicaid or whatever.  If we are going to pay for them anyway, why not just continue to pay for them the way we have been?  I haven't noticed insurers going out of business.  They've operated for decades, perhaps centuries, paying the costs associated with insureds who develop genetic disorders.  Where is the need for them to remove these people from the rolls of the insured?

The risk (cost) is spread now throughout employers and throughout the insured.  It adds a little to everyone's insurance premiums, or it costs everyone a little on salary and benefits because employers take the chance of an employee suffering a genetic illness, and it costs investors a fraction on their investments because companies incurr costs associated with employees or insureds who suffer these illnesses.

The system the way it is today works pretty well.

Others have pointed out that insurance is a gamble with you betting you will get sick and the insurer betting you won't.(At least not before they make enough, investing the premiums, to cover the cost.)  Now, by using genetic testing insurers are trying to peak at the cards.

Another problem I have is this:  your genes are beyond your control.  You can't change them, you can't improve them in any way.  Your health is not beyond your control.  Type II diabetes, for instance, has a strong genetic component.  But by following an appropriate diet most individuals at risk can avoid ever developing Type II diabetes.  Should these people, with genes predisposing them to Type II Diabetes, be discriminated against in insurance and employment?  

How is it any different than discriminating against ALL African American males because they have twice the risk of heart disease that Caucasian males have?

You're the lawyer so I'll ask you, is it illegal to discriminate against African American males in access to insurance or employment just because they  may or may not have a greater than the populations average for certain types of illness?     Whatever the answer, should such discrimination be allowed?

Try this:

Genetic testing will allow those with "good" genes to get cheaper health insurance.  Right now everyone has to pay for those who are a higher risk.  (I think I'm probably a higher risk person, FYI.)

Those with "bad" genes could quite conceivably be required to keep in better shape, eat right, etc. in order to get affordable rates.  Which means that they'll live longer.

So in the worst case scenario, some people get the cheap insurance that they should have had all along, and others get cheap insurance if they take care of themselves.  Not much of a nightmare.

And also those with good genes will also have the information from their DNA.  As such, they might just decide to forego certain kinds of health insurance altogether and just get policies that cover catastrophic injuries and forego, e.g., coverage for heart conditions if their DNA says they're at a low risk for a heart attack.

The press office wasn't familiar with the bill.  They are going to have someone send me a reply by mail.  (incidentally, is it appropriate for me to say I am calling on behalf of Redstate.org, when making a call like this?  They asked me if I was calling from a news organization and I said no.)

I found a copy of the CongressDaily article cited by another article above.  It discusses the opposition by business groups a little.

And this quote:

"John Feehery, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the Republican majority would push some version of the bill but questioned the motivation of Democrats supporting the bill.

"Trying to make politics out of this seems to be rather curious," Feehery said."

That was back when this legislation passed unanimously in the Senate in 2000.

http://www.otohns.net/default.asp?id=8791

I'll write something up if I hear back from Hastert's office.

they should only be allowed to discrminate in matters that are voluntary and under the control of their suscribers, like smoking or obesity. And rejecting people outright simply shifst the cost to the public as a whole (meaning of course the taxpayers). No business should be permitted to offload its costs on the taxpayers! And what you propose is a short route to the public clamoring for socialized medicine.

out of healthcare (and I agree with the general principle) then private enterprise is going to have step up to the plate and cover everyone. You can't have a situation where businesses are allowed to profit by offloading their costs on the public. If insurers are allowed to discriminate the end result will be socialized medicine due to public outrage. In isurance companise want to keep tehir lucrative market then they are going to have to take on the costly cases as well as the profitable ones.

Thanks for the clarification. sdpulse