Comments on: Genetic Discrimination Saves Lives

By: Amy

Amy — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:24:57 +0000

Insurance companies offering incentives for you allowing them to pay for your preventive medicine – seriously? What country do you live in? Certainly not the US. And furthermore, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world we sure are a greedy bunch. My family is filled with people who have a shared genetic disease. Over 3/4 of us have been discriminated against and not been able to pay for coverage. But I guess that’s just the American way – Look out for yourself and don’t look back at those who are left behind so you don’t have to feel guilty…

By: Owen

Owen — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:47:56 +0000

“If the government completely outlawed discrimination based on all risk factors…As the young and healthy jump ship, insurance companies would have to increase rates, accelerating the trend. Without further government interference, the health insurance business would disappear completely, shortly after millionaires on their deathbeds became the only people able to afford policies.”

Sorry but this is the situation in Netherlands.

Therefore you are wrong.

By: InteractMD

InteractMD — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:10:38 +0000

This is great, and articulates the inherent fallacy of a genetic nondiscrimination law. I tend to see the problem from the perspective of “singling out” genetic risk factors for non-discrimination, while leaving all other risk factors as “fair game.” Why should genetics get special treatment by the law?
The problem with going against genetic non-discrimination is that some patients are so paranoid, they will not have genetic testing at all, with possible deleterious consequences. I can’t say I blame them.
Companies that don’t bill Medicare, such as 23andme, don’t even have to observe HIPAA, so there’s no government-mandated privacy standards in place there.
I think health information privacy is a good goal, so you have here an ethical dilemma: how do you respect individual privacy and insurance company discriminatory testing? The balance of these two issues is why we haven’t gotten a law yet. Thanks for the comment on interactmd.com, by the way.

By: Nitroadict

Nitroadict — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:01:25 +0000

Caution is prudent, yes, but such nanny state paranoia will indeed continue to heed progress. Being born to a mother who has rheumatoid arthritis (and a more than likely predisposition to related problems sometime in the future), I would be more than grateful to be able to better the outcome of my later years.

It would be ironic if any Statist’s were to bring in a lack of personal responsibility for one’s health as a possible objection to genetic profiles, assuming they’re oblivious to the irony itself!