Deseret News | Reader comments: End genetic discrimination

Reader comments
End genetic discrimination

Jude Law | 1:19 a.m. April 28, 2008

What is this, Gattaca? Maybe men are not created equal after all...

Spanish Fork | 8:55 a.m. April 28, 2008

Why should I have to pay higher insurance premiums because somebody else has bad genes? It's their problem, not mine. If an insurance company is forced to cover a bad risk, everybody's premiums go up. The last thing we need is to preserve bad genes for the next generations.

Insurance | 10:04 a.m. April 28, 2008

Insurance is intended to protect against unforeseen events, NOT to be a form of welfare. Now, once a policy is purchased the insurance company should not be allowed to cancel it or raise rates simply because the risk of an event has increased. But neither should individuals expect to buy a policy at the same rate after a risk is known as they might have when the risk was not known. We might just as well suggest people be allowed to buy fire insurance for their homes AFTER the home has caught fire.

The solution is NOT massive amounts of new laws. Rather, it is to decouple health insurance from employment. We tend to buy auto and home and even life insurance privately. No good reason to tie health insurance to employment over than really bad tax policies dating to WWII.

We also need to alter our laws encouraging the use of health insurance as legalized money laundering. My auto insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. Why should health insurance cover routine, and expected health care costs?

Welfare, needs to be in the open where we can see the costs, not hidden as more mandates on insurance companies.

Comments continue below

Frank | 11:03 a.m. April 28, 2008

Well one thing we dont have to worry about are the wealthy and powerful. Genetics or not they will always be taken care of, especially when the first of new expensive gene specific drugs are available.

New drugs, new diseases, make sure your rich enough to survive.

GWB | 12:04 p.m. April 28, 2008

To Spanish Fork: when you say "The last thing we need is to preserve bad genes for the next generations" this is right out of the Eugenics movement.

Should we be proactive and sterilize people who test positive for the "bad genes" to which you refer?

I guess allowing for medical discrimination will make it so these people die quicker (yes, preventing someone from being able to obtain medical insurance to make healthcare affordable is discrimnation) and reduce your insurance rate.

Your whole premise is very Christ-like. I mean, after all, I know when he said blessed are the meek, he surely could not have meant the genetically weak.

I love today's conservative, who only thinks of things in relation to what it might cost them personally.

Atlas Shrugged | 12:15 p.m. April 28, 2008

Everyone seems to feel entitled to get something for nothing nowadays. I understand how financially crippling some diseases can be but why should the rest of us have to pay for your illness? You talk like you have some entitlement to my money. Why should I be obligated to work my tail off so that you can have a nice life? Some people are born without arms, but that doesn't give them the right to take mine.

All you can do is play with the cards that are dealt to you. It's no one's fault that you got dealt a bum hand. Learn to deal with your problems. That's what the rest of us do.

GWB | 12:35 p.m. April 28, 2008

To Insurance: You said "Insurance is intended to protect against unforeseen events, NOT to be a form of welfare" and then "But neither should individuals expect to buy a policy at the same rate after a risk is known as they might have when the risk was not known."

Using your logic, we should just kiss away the business of a good local company, Myriad Genetics, as well as much of the research into disease genetics at the U, where they helped discover the genes for breast cancer, Cystic fibrosis, and others.

If genetic discrimination by insurance companies stands, why would anyone ever risk genetic testing?

It might save the money on medical costs to know that I am at risk so that I can get tested early and to modify risks, IF and only IF the risk is known. But, on the other hand, finding out I have breast cancer when it is full blown may require expensive surgery, chemotherapy, and other medical costs.

But, if insurance will pay if I don't get tested, and I have to pay if I get tested, why get tested and face the financial burden?

Back to the dark ages we go!!!

Re: GWB | 12:40 p.m. April 28, 2008

Is it more Christ-like to convince the government to force all other members of society to pay for your affliction? Doesn't that kind of take away my free will?

Your statement that conservatives only think of things in relation to what might cost them personally is a little ironic. Isn't it the whole purpose of this bill to alleviate medical costs of the unfortunately afflicted? So, it's ok for a cancer victim to say, "hey government, I can't afford my medical costs so I need my neighbor to pay for them." But if the neighbor complains when the government steals the food off of his table, the neighbor is being un-Christlike. Got it.

Fred | 12:56 p.m. April 28, 2008

Wow, a bunch of compassion here today.

GWB | 1:23 p.m. April 28, 2008

To "Re: GWB": You say ""hey government, I can't afford my medical costs so I need my neighbor to pay for them." But if the neighbor complains when the government steals the food off of his table, the neighbor is being un-Christlike. Got it."

Problem is, you seem to think that the choice is the government requiring insurance companies not to discriminate based on genetic makeup versus people being able to eat.

That certainly may be the case when we give huge giveaways to corporations ($6 billion to Exxon last year, the company with the highest profit ever in the history of the world) and to the wealthiest among us.

Taking a bit of the profit of the big insurance companies will only take profit from the company. Last time the US Open Golf tournament was at Pinehurst #2, Blue Cross of NC (a non-profit Insurance Co.) spent $5 million on the event for executives, friends, and government dignitaries. Other Insurance companies have larger lobbying budgets.

It is not a choice of healthcare vs food. It is a case of letting people die because they were unfortunate genetically.

I hope none of your kids end up getting a genetic disorder.

Re: GWB | 1:54 p.m. April 28, 2008

You're right. It's not health care versus food, but it is someone trying to compensate their paycheck using mine. I don't care how many billions of dollars of revenue they have, all health insurance providers count the pennies and are going to increase premiums across the board to pay for the genetically unfortunate.

I don't necessarily object to the assertion that the more fortunate should help the less fortunate. What I strongly object to is the assertion that the government wants to make it obligatory. With each one of these bills, I get less and less of a paycheck.

Some people are genetically unfortunate enough to have manic-depression. It is well documented that one of the symptoms of manic-depressives is a tendency to be very poor at money management and to acquire huge amounts of debt. So, should I have to pay a manic-depressive's credit card bill because he is genetically unfortunate? Soon everyone will have themselves declared genetically unfortunate so they can get a free ride off of the rest.

What about gender discrimination for auto insurance? Why should men have to pay higher auto insurance premiums than women? That's just genetic, right? Where will it end?

Unclear on the concept | 2:50 p.m. April 28, 2008

Does anybody here understand the concept of insurance? You take a large group of people, they all contribute premiums, on the understanding that a few of them will have big problems (auto accident, cancer, get sued, theft, fire, whatever), and most will not. Those premiums get pooled, the problems get paid for, and everyone is protected in the event that they are unlucky enough to be the one with the problem. The insurance company gets paid to take the risk - not to exclude the possibility of risk. Those companies who want to dump people with bad genes are looking to pad their bottom line, and are forgetting what their business is all about.

As for bad genes - we've all got them. Just not the same ones. Wouldn't it be better to figure out who has which ones? so each person can do what they can to prevent their particular cancer/heart/Alzheimer/whatever? Get screened and treated at the cheaper, earlier stages? If we start excluding bad genes from insurance, where do we stop? How do you choose who or what gets covered, and what doesn't?

To Atlas Shrugged | 2:55 p.m. April 28, 2008

Read the book, she makes some good points. But there are some serious holes in her philosophy. She makes no allowances for those who truly are in need through no fault of their own. What are we supposed to do for the less fortunate in such cases? Turn our backs? Walk away? You'd better hope, as she believed, that there is no afterlife.

GWB | 3:30 p.m. April 28, 2008

To "Re: GWB" once again, you are close but miss out on one thing. You say "I don't care how many billions of dollars of revenue they have, all health insurance providers count the pennies and are going to increase premiums across the board to pay for the genetically unfortunate."

Problem is, right now your insurance premiums already pay for the breast cancer patient that has a genetic predisposition. With this bill, they will still be paying.

Your premiums have nothing to do with it. Their kicking genetic testing people out is merely a way to squeeze more money out of some people.

Think about it this way, they are already paying for genetically compromised people, do you think they will cut your premium when they can get away with cutting them? or will they simply keep the extra as profit to give their CEOs bigger bonuses?

Atlas Shrugged | 3:44 p.m. April 28, 2008

The biggest problem is determining who is truly in need through no fault of their own. Everyone will start making a case for why it's not their fault. I'm all for having compassion on the needy but making broad all-encompassing laws like this one make us not a compassionate people but an enabling people. We provide people with the opportunity to take advantage of the system. It's not that I have a huge problem with this bill in particular but it is a small step in a very dangerous direction. The United Order only works in an ideal society where everyone at least tries to be honest and hard-working. Our society is far from that point. Too many people in our society are greedy money grubbers who will take advantage of any flaw in the system to get a free ride. When the Lord comes down and commands us to live the United Order again, I'll be happy to do so, but until then, I think it will only do more harm than good.

Frank | 5:46 p.m. April 28, 2008

I'm fine with excluding people based on attributes resulting from birth, but only if we exclude people with attributes resulting from race and sex as well. Why judge someone based on birth and be PC in other areas?

To Frank | 6:15 p.m. April 28, 2008

Ok... well certain diseases like cystic fibrosis are far more common in African Americans. So on which basis did they get excluded? race or genetics? And what is your moral basis for excluding anyone period?

GWB | 8:25 p.m. April 28, 2008

To Frank: when you say "Why judge someone based on birth and be PC in other areas?"

So as I read that statement, not discriminating against someone based on gender or race is PC rather than the moral way?

And to Atlas Shrugged, when you say "Too many people in our society are greedy money grubbers who will take advantage of any flaw in the system to get a free ride" I assume you are talking about the rich who move their money to off shore accounts and who use their money to lobby for laws that protect them from being held liable for practices that enrich them while hurting others.

Bryan Kingsford | 9:13 a.m. April 29, 2008

I'm against legislation banning discrimination based
on genetics for the following reasons:

- buyer and seller should be free to create business transactions where both buyer and seller understand and agree to the risks
- insurance should not be welfare -- it's designed
to be sharing the risk among a group of individuals
- welfare should always be voluntary -- forcing it
is harmful to giver, receiver, and society
- government interference in what transactions are
allowed stifles innovation

I'm well aware of insurance discrimination. My family currently doesn't have health insurance because my wife and I are considered uninsurable. I still prefer for government to stay out of the picture. Right now I believe government is the reason I can't create my own system -- the regulations are too complex and limiting.

correction to (to Frank) | 5:15 p.m. June 4, 2008

Check again "to Frank" Cystic Fibrosis in not more common in African American People. On the Contrary, this is far more common in people from European back ground. I feel bad for all of you who think that people with genetic diseases are taking something from you. What a shame, do you know what kind of genetics you have and know that you don't have bad ones that you are passing on? Get a heart!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.