Gov't doing something right?

Discussion in 'Politics and other "Messy" Stuff' started by TGS91, Nov 16, 2009.

Tags:
  1. TGS91

    TGS91 New Member

    May 8, 2009
    1,593
    17
    0
    Sales Dude
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0
  2. BlimeyCabrio

    BlimeyCabrio Oscar Goldman of MINIs
    Lifetime Supporter

    May 4, 2009
    3,532
    2,896
    113
    Professional Facilitator and Alignment Consultant
    Holly Springs, NC
    Ratings:
    +2,896 / 0 / -0
    If you're the person who gets denied insurance coverage (or might have) because you personally are a ticking time bomb with the genetic predisposition to have some horrific and expensive condition, then this is certainly a good thing.

    If, on the other hand, you're a healthy person with no 'genetic skeletons' in their closet, then how do you feel about paying more in premiums to cover the increased risk inherent in now not being able to exclude individuals - or charge them more - based on this information?

    How is having a genetic disposition toward heart disease different than having high bad cholesterol? Is it OK for an insurer to know one of these things about you, but not OK for them to know the other? Is it OK for them to charge you more for insurance if you smoke? What about if you don't smoke, but you have a genetically high likelihood of developing cancer?

    What will the unintended consequences of this be?

    How long until we read a story that goes something like this:
    "Doctors attribute the increased mortality rate of breast cancer to the reduction in preventive screening that occurred, following the prohibition of collecting family medical history from the insured. Because they were no longer able to collect this information, programs they had instituted to target preventive care to those most likely to contract diseases were discontinued."

    Or
    "The unprecedented climb in healthcare costs was attributed to the requirement that healthcare providers provide the same comprehensive diagnostic and preventive care to all patients, independent of genetic or family history indicators that they may be likely to contract a disease"

    Or
    "Waiting times for diagnostic and preventive procedures have increase 500% in the past 6 months, attributed to shortages in supply created by government requirements that the same comprehensive services be provided to all patients, independent of their family history or genetic predisposition to contract a disease."
     
  3. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    #3 Deviant, Nov 16, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
    While a genetic predisposition is no guarantee you will or won't actually develop a condition in no way should it be used by insurance companies to determine rates since a genetic condition is one that is outside your control. That being said if you're genetically predisposed to obesity but not obese, your rates are the same, if you're predisposed and obese, then the consequences stand. I know that the whole insurance industry is about risk but there are some things that I don't think should be held against people if it's outside of their control.
    A person has no control over their genes so instituting changing standards based on them is basically equivalent to discrimination on the bases of skin color.
     
  4. TGS91

    TGS91 New Member

    May 8, 2009
    1,593
    17
    0
    Sales Dude
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0
    Paul,

    Those bastard providers will find any way they can to reduce risk and raise premiums. Thats their jobs.

    See the one about several pharmaceutical co's are raising prices on the speculation that health care is changing in it's current form?

    We can speculate on how healthcare will work around this to reduce risk but this *appears* to slow them down.
     
  5. BlimeyCabrio

    BlimeyCabrio Oscar Goldman of MINIs
    Lifetime Supporter

    May 4, 2009
    3,532
    2,896
    113
    Professional Facilitator and Alignment Consultant
    Holly Springs, NC
    Ratings:
    +2,896 / 0 / -0
    Why are they "bastard providers"?

    Should a tailor be able to charge more for extra tall suits than they charge for "normal" ones?

    If you're allergic to peanuts, should certified non-peanut food be able to cost more?

    If you have diabetes from birth, should the government guarantee that will have no economic impact on you personally?

    What about if you're born blind and mute?

    What if someone is a natural introvert with Asperger's Syndrome and no people skills - should they be guaranteed to make the same thing as a movie star? Or a high-performing sales person? Or a CEO? Or President of the US?

    All these are things "outside your control"...

    Should you be able to get together with 99 of your healthy friends and mutually decide to self-insure? So everyone puts the same amount of money in the self-insurance account each month, and uses the money to pay "claims"? No profits, no evil big corporations - just 100 healthy friends deciding to help watch out for one another and mitigate each others' risks.

    Should these 100 friends be able to base their decision for inclusion in the "club" on whether folks are healthy or not? What if there's one person who wants in, but they're monthly medical expenses are already 10x what the standard monthly contribution to the "club" is? Should they be allowed in? What should happen to the club's standard monthly contribution?

    What if all 100 of the friends agree to genetic testing, to ensure they can keep their risk and cost down by excluding those who are more likely to become ill? Should they be allowed to do this? They're all willing to agree to it.
     
  6. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    You're talking about conditions that people have, genetic testing reveals conditions people might have at some point in their lives. Should you pay more for health insurance than a vegetarian, even if you maintain a healthy diet and are not overweight, just because you eating meat predisposes you to certain health risks?
    I can't very well help that between my grandparents I'm predisposed to Cancer, Diabetes, and heart disease but I work out, stay active, eat right (well, mostly) and avoid unnecessary risks. I'm probably healthier than 85% of the people on this site but my genetic makeup would indicate I'm a ticking time bomb, should I pay more for this reason?
     
  7. minimark

    minimark Well-Known Member

    Jun 24, 2009
    5,146
    1,300
    113
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Ratings:
    +1,300 / 0 / -0
    #7 minimark, Nov 16, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
    Lest we forget that the present admistration just said they were going to ask for an increase in the US debt ceiling of almost 2 TRILLION dollars and that isn't expected to hold up through next year.....Wonder why Obama's in Asia kissing Butt, so we can borrow more money from them...

    ...and we haven't even started this government Healthcare....

    Find a way to help those folks you talk about without changing it for the 85% of the people who have health insurance.... Oh if ya don't count the illegal aliens, then the amount of AMERICANS with, is even a higher percentage...


    PS: If Obama, Pelosi, Reed and Franks took a crap in the middle of Times Square, the New York Times would all stand around admiring it.....
     
  8. TGS91

    TGS91 New Member

    May 8, 2009
    1,593
    17
    0
    Sales Dude
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0
    TGS91 over and out
     
  9. goaljnky

    goaljnky New Member

    Apr 7, 2009
    3,105
    392
    0
    LaLaLand, Left Coast, Overpopulated and Underfunde
    Ratings:
    +392 / 0 / -0
    I wish my car insurance would stop asking me what kind of car I drive and how far I drive it.
     
  10. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Mine doesn't ask me that, they also don't ask what kind of cars I've looked at or for a list of cars my parents and grandparents own or owned in the past and if they had any accidents in the past.

    Closer to the issue, what if car insurance rates were higher for people who needed corrective lenses, contacts, glasses, etc.?
     
  11. BlimeyCabrio

    BlimeyCabrio Oscar Goldman of MINIs
    Lifetime Supporter

    May 4, 2009
    3,532
    2,896
    113
    Professional Facilitator and Alignment Consultant
    Holly Springs, NC
    Ratings:
    +2,896 / 0 / -0
    We're talking about a few different things...

    1) Should an insurance company be able to charge more for anything that actually makes you a higher risk?
    2) Does having a genetic predisposition actually make you a higher risk? (even if you wish it didn't)? To what extent do lifestyle decisions mitigate these risks? If an insurance company can charge you LESS for your risk-lowering lifestyle decisions, why shouldn't they be able to charge you MORE for anything that increases your risk?
    3) Should the insurance company, your employer, or potentially any healthcare provider be able to ASK you for genetic testing data? Even for the purpose of providing BETTER CARE?
    4) Why should other people have to pay MORE for YOUR genetic predisposition? It that within their control?

    As for the meat question - any company I do business with can choose to charge me less or more for any reason they like, as long as there is true unfettered competition in the marketplace. I have choices.

    With the current system, we don't have true unfettered competition - due to factors including the employer-linked insurance system, lack of competition across state lines, and existing regulations restricting what policies can/can not / must / must not cover. So my employer-provided insurer telling me what they will and won't do is a BIG deal. It shouldn't be.
     
  12. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Which is why, if we can't have a completely free market, we need some things in place to keep companies from getting retarded. That and there's absolutely no reason for a business or government to have a breakdown of my DNA, that's purely between me and the health-care provider directly (not the insurer). I'm heated enough that there's a sample of me in a vault in Hawaii right now, I don't need more making my life more difficult.

    Also, not having restrictions like this, combined with this disturbing trend towards more socialized health-care, lends itself a direct path to a Eugenics movement. I'm sure if DNA testing and mapping were around in the 30's Hitler would've used it to institute a better Holocaust. I know I'm sounding like a right wing wacko talking about socialized healthcare and Hitler in the same breath but this is one of those unintended consequences you were talking about.
     
  13. BlimeyCabrio

    BlimeyCabrio Oscar Goldman of MINIs
    Lifetime Supporter

    May 4, 2009
    3,532
    2,896
    113
    Professional Facilitator and Alignment Consultant
    Holly Springs, NC
    Ratings:
    +2,896 / 0 / -0
    By the way... I'm probably in general agreement with you on this issue.

    I'm just feeding the dialog. :p

    But I'd be more in favor of a regulation that says insurers must offer a genetics-blind offering. And still give them the flexibility to take the information from anyone willing to provide it. And offer more cost advantaged offerings for those who don't mind being profiled.

    IMO, that would be not much different than some auto insurers charging lower premiums for those who are willing to have their driving data monitored...
     
  14. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    I could agree with that, although it is strictly forbidden in this new legislation. I just am afraid of being perfectly healthy but uninsurable because of either the side of my family I'm aware of, or worse yet, the side I'm not familiar with and can't give any information about. I have a feeling that if we really looked at it nearly everyone is predisposed to something or another to some extent so in a completely free market something like this would be pushed through by the consumers refusing to accept this behavior from the insurance company (kinda like how we don't want big brother in our cars).
     
  15. BlimeyCabrio

    BlimeyCabrio Oscar Goldman of MINIs
    Lifetime Supporter

    May 4, 2009
    3,532
    2,896
    113
    Professional Facilitator and Alignment Consultant
    Holly Springs, NC
    Ratings:
    +2,896 / 0 / -0
    Exactly.

    I pretty much agree that in an imperfect market, some kind of restriction on this is probably necessary. But I'd always rather spend energy trying to make the market work vs. trying to "outsmart" an imperfect market - the unintended consequences ALWAYS trump "good intentions".
     
  16. BlimeyCabrio

    BlimeyCabrio Oscar Goldman of MINIs
    Lifetime Supporter

    May 4, 2009
    3,532
    2,896
    113
    Professional Facilitator and Alignment Consultant
    Holly Springs, NC
    Ratings:
    +2,896 / 0 / -0
  17. istara

    istara New Member

    May 21, 2009
    90
    3
    0
    Tucson, AZ
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Not much in the mood to talk politics (think I'm in general agreement with both of you anyway).. but the story in that link.... :frown2: that's disgusting!
     
  18. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    What an original pickup-line though.
    "Excuse me, I have a medical condition and will die without sex, could you please come with me right away?"
     
  19. JC55MINI

    JC55MINI New Member

    Sep 13, 2009
    49
    0
    0
    Hartford, CT
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Should a tailor be able to charge more for extra tall suits than they charge for "normal" ones?

    They Do

    If you're allergic to peanuts, should certified non-peanut food be able to cost more?
    It Does

    Just sayin...
     
  20. Deviant

    Deviant Banned

    Apr 23, 2009
    578
    2
    0
    Student
    Southern IL
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Again though, these are conditions that are present, not conditions you're susceptible to. Should a child of normal height who's parents are tall have to have more expensive clothes because he may some day hit a growth spurt and be above average height?
    Like I said before, this is a slippery slopes where your DNA could be used for a sort of Eugenics movement where you are penalized in advance for something that may or may not occur. They could find you're genetically predisposed to a severe mental disorder and decide to institutionalize you in advance so you don't hurt yourself or others.
     

Share This Page