4 ms·

Cant wait till insurance drops people based on this gene

by throwaway2048 10y ago

ajross 10y ago
I know it's a joke, but it's important to point out for those who don't know that the ACA as it stands right now disallows discrimination on the basis of any pre-existing condition (which obviously includes genetic makeup), and even the AHCA disaster currently failing to pass in the house doesn't change that. The dystopia might arrive someday, but not now, and not in the near future. Democrats (yes, it was all democrats) got it done seven years ago.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > The dystopia might arrive someday, but not now, and not in the near future. Democrats (yes, it was all democrats) got it done seven years ago. Fortunately most people (or someone they care about) are likely enough to suffer from a genetically-linked, costly health issue that it seems unlikely that discrimination would find much support.
  - thebooktocome 10y ago
    Strange, then, that the Republican-dominated House just passed a bill weakening protections against discrimination on the basis of genetic information. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/03/genetic-discrimination-law-gina/519216/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/03/genetic-d...
    - grandalf 10y ago
      I think this is just due to a misunderstanding of how genetic traits and risks work. Insurance companies may be angling for the government to be the insurer of last resort for the most costly genotypes. If there is anything that it makes sense to utilize a risk pool for, it is the random chance associated with heredity. Aside from a small number of well known, highly hereditary genetically-linked conditions, most people just reproduce without thinking much about the probability that their offspring will end up with an unlucky genotype. This is mainly because there is so much chance involved and a low probability of the child getting a "costly" genome, at least the cost impact of drawing a 99% probability genome is far less than the impact of an additional year of maternal age, etc. Even for the most strongly hereditary diseases, random chance still dominates the impact of heredity on the chance of the offspring getting the disease. Also, evolution ensures that most "harmful" genes are also helpful in some way... so while there is likely an expected dollar cost of a given allele, I don't think there's enough variation in overall dollar cost to make it worth the hassle for anyone (including insurers), which points again to the notion that they are simply looking for corporate welfare. For comparison, post 9/11 the insurance industry extracted a big handout when the US Government became the insurer of last resort for terrorism related claims > $1B. My take is that genomes that are highly likely to cost more than a standard deviation greater than average are rare enough that it wouldn't even make sense from a competitive perspective for insurance companies to try to evade issuing policies to such people.
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  I believe it is central to progress in health care in the U.S. that discrimination on the basis of human genetic composition (including resident microfauna/microflora) be fundamentally outlawed, with personally attachable criminal liability for breaching said law. We could be learning a lot from population studies, but said population needs to be assured that participation -- willing or otherwise -- will not result in a personal negative outcome. Such as being denied insurance, employment, credit (yes, you bet financial institutions will use such data if they can), etc. Those would be the real "death lists". Unlike the fear-mongering we've seen to date about e.g. end-of-life discussions. (Having just spent time and caregiving with an old friend going through their own end-of-life experience, I feel fairly confident in saying that most people would prefer to have those conversations and an understanding with family and friends as to what they do and don't want. This person was suffering at the end and basically pleading with her deity to take her and end that suffering. We made her as comfortable as possible; nonetheless, she didn't want that condition to continue -- e.g. through exceptional medical intervention -- longer than necessary.) If you want my genetic make-up, guarantee me it is not going to be used against me in terms of equal participation in society. I didn't "choose" it, and I'm doing the best I can to work with and take care of what I have. Help me do that, instead, on an equal footing with my fellow citizens. Note that I am not saying, 'Guarantee me equal outcomes.' I am saying guarantee me equal access to participation, including and especially in health care. Also, don't pattern-match me against every piece of crime evidence, when such testing has repeatedly been shown to have limits to its accuracy and the courts shown to have no understanding nor accommodation for such inaccuracies nor the very real limits of the technology and attendant crime scene and evidence management.

Cant wait till insurance drops people based on this gene

I know it's a joke, but it's important to point out for those who don't know that the ACA as it stands right now disallows discrimination on the basis of any pre-existing condition (which obviously includes genetic makeup), and even the AHCA disaster currently failing to pass in the house doesn't change that. The dystopia might arrive someday, but not now, and not in the near future. Democrats (yes, it was all democrats) got it done seven years ago.

grandalf 10y ago
> The dystopia might arrive someday, but not now, and not in the near future. Democrats (yes, it was all democrats) got it done seven years ago. Fortunately most people (or someone they care about) are likely enough to suffer from a genetically-linked, costly health issue that it seems unlikely that discrimination would find much support.
- thebooktocome 10y ago
  Strange, then, that the Republican-dominated House just passed a bill weakening protections against discrimination on the basis of genetic information. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/03/genetic-discrimination-law-gina/519216/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/03/genetic-d...
  - grandalf 10y ago
    I think this is just due to a misunderstanding of how genetic traits and risks work. Insurance companies may be angling for the government to be the insurer of last resort for the most costly genotypes. If there is anything that it makes sense to utilize a risk pool for, it is the random chance associated with heredity. Aside from a small number of well known, highly hereditary genetically-linked conditions, most people just reproduce without thinking much about the probability that their offspring will end up with an unlucky genotype. This is mainly because there is so much chance involved and a low probability of the child getting a "costly" genome, at least the cost impact of drawing a 99% probability genome is far less than the impact of an additional year of maternal age, etc. Even for the most strongly hereditary diseases, random chance still dominates the impact of heredity on the chance of the offspring getting the disease. Also, evolution ensures that most "harmful" genes are also helpful in some way... so while there is likely an expected dollar cost of a given allele, I don't think there's enough variation in overall dollar cost to make it worth the hassle for anyone (including insurers), which points again to the notion that they are simply looking for corporate welfare. For comparison, post 9/11 the insurance industry extracted a big handout when the US Government became the insurer of last resort for terrorism related claims > $1B. My take is that genomes that are highly likely to cost more than a standard deviation greater than average are rare enough that it wouldn't even make sense from a competitive perspective for insurance companies to try to evade issuing policies to such people.
pasbesoin 10y ago
I believe it is central to progress in health care in the U.S. that discrimination on the basis of human genetic composition (including resident microfauna/microflora) be fundamentally outlawed, with personally attachable criminal liability for breaching said law. We could be learning a lot from population studies, but said population needs to be assured that participation -- willing or otherwise -- will not result in a personal negative outcome. Such as being denied insurance, employment, credit (yes, you bet financial institutions will use such data if they can), etc. Those would be the real "death lists". Unlike the fear-mongering we've seen to date about e.g. end-of-life discussions. (Having just spent time and caregiving with an old friend going through their own end-of-life experience, I feel fairly confident in saying that most people would prefer to have those conversations and an understanding with family and friends as to what they do and don't want. This person was suffering at the end and basically pleading with her deity to take her and end that suffering. We made her as comfortable as possible; nonetheless, she didn't want that condition to continue -- e.g. through exceptional medical intervention -- longer than necessary.) If you want my genetic make-up, guarantee me it is not going to be used against me in terms of equal participation in society. I didn't "choose" it, and I'm doing the best I can to work with and take care of what I have. Help me do that, instead, on an equal footing with my fellow citizens. Note that I am not saying, 'Guarantee me equal outcomes.' I am saying guarantee me equal access to participation, including and especially in health care. Also, don't pattern-match me against every piece of crime evidence, when such testing has repeatedly been shown to have limits to its accuracy and the courts shown to have no understanding nor accommodation for such inaccuracies nor the very real limits of the technology and attendant crime scene and evidence management.