More DNA Day Fun: To Test, Or Not to Test?
April 25th, 2008
Everybody’s favorite fillibusterin’ Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has been delaying the bill, but it looks like it’s about to shake loose. Coburn says he was worried about a new lawsuit boom as people with genetic conditions sued employers, insurers, or any body who looked at them cross-eyed. Some additional legal protections for employers have been added to the bill in the form of a "firewall" between insurer and employer sections of the bill, so it will mostly affect people looking to get individual health insurance plans.
We’re bound to see more debate in this area as the science improves and the price of genetic testing comes down–this particular legislation took 13 years to make it through Congress. On one hand, people are afraid to do (potentially lifesaving) genetic tests right now because they’re worried about future insurabiity–surely a suboptimal state of affairs. On the other hand, employers will discriminate on certain conditions, no matter what the law says, and in many cases, they ought to be able to. Why should we demand, for example, that a company invest in training an employee that it knows will likely to be out of commission due to illness in the near future?
And then there’s this slippery slope:
[The bill] does not prohibit discrimination once someone already has a disease, and some experts said such protection would have to be the next step.
“You don’t want to be denied health insurance when you are at risk for breast cancer,” said Sonia M. Suter, an associate professor at George Washington University Law School. “But it seems to me you really don’t want to be denied health insurance when you have breast cancer.”
T | April 25, 2008, 12:38pm | #
Strange. I had this exact conversation with my doctor about the possibility of testing for a degenerative disease that is at least partially hereditary which I may be prone to. His point was threefold. 1) The test only determines susceptibility, not whether I’ll get it, 2) No cure or effective treatment exists yet, so if I get it I’m screwed no matter what and 3) Kiss my chances of future insurance coverage goodbye if it comes back positive. His recommendation was avoid the test and deal with it if it arises. There’s literally no benefit and some downsides to the test.
Tags: fun, school
April 25th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Actually if you have integrity to your beliefs (karl marx is your hero) then you would move to North Korea or China. Good luck.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I’ve read about that, I’m just going off of accounts of people saying he existed. There have been many false prophets before that existed like joseph smith and other guys like that. doesn’t mean they spoke to god or were the son of god or anything, but they could have physically existed on earth for a few years.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
And the American public NEVER has anything going in its favour. Oops, it does every once in a blue moon. That proves the USA is a democracy. Fucking moron.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Lets start with the fact that I’M NOT SICK. I have a couple chromosomes that, left unmanaged, can make me sick. But they are known and managed.I have hereditary hemochromatosis (HHC) which is a genetic condition that causes me to absorb more iron from my food than I need. It isn’t a disease - just a metabolic abnormality. The iron overload will eventually result in organ damage and early death. HHC typically onsets at about age 40 for men or at menopause for women (because they stop shedding iron monthly).Iron overload can be prevented through treatment. Treatment involves removing blood regularly. Like a blood donation. HHC people on maintenance typically need to dump a unit about every 1-2 months.Unfortunately, because there is no expectation of universally provided health care (unlike places with single payer health care for all plans), the procedure has a monetary value in the US. In Canada and Europe - blood removal is free - so the procedure has no value and there is no motivation to donate when compromised. The blood centers will not accept blood from people with HHC. Not because they believe the blood is unsafe. It is very safe. Even the NIH agrees.http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sep2001/nhlbi-25.htmThey believe HHC people will lie about their risk factors. It turns out that they don’t lie anymore than anybody else though. When compromised (have a cold or whatever) I pay for my treatment. I’ve tried shopping around for the best price. This is impossible. There is no set price for any medical procedure - the current crazy quilt of coverages means that nobody knows what anything costs and what gets billed depends as much on who covers you as where you go. You cannot simply ring up your local outpatient center and say “how much to remove a unit of blood”? They don’t know. It turns out that I have paid as much as $160 for this service. I pay because I am denied affordable insurance coverage solely based on this condition.Meanwhile, the blood centers mount traveling blood drives while screaming shortages. There need be no shortage. If the blood centers changed their model and provided free phlebotomies to anyone who wanted one, regardless of fitness for donation, then asked people if they would donate the blood after the fact, there would be enough high quality blood (HHC is higher quality in that it has more young red cells than ordinary blood) to cover most needs without troubling the non HHC population.http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/970901/archive_007716.htmAnyhow, there’s another cost to you I pass on. Your failure (you as in - you people in this stupid short sighted society - not you personally) to provide me with free care costs you in terms of a less safe blood supply. I, along with all the other HHC people I know, donate blood as a means to get free treatment. Sometimes using a collection of aliases to get around the 8 week donation frequency. Your analysis should explain why health insurance should cover people who are already sick, but car insurance should not cover cars which are already totaled.No, this isn’t about people who are sick. I’m not sick. People with genetic markers aren’t sick (yet). They may not get sick. This is a dangerous area because if you allow insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis of genetic information - then you sanction genocide and corporate genetic engineering.I believe the solution is single payer health care and the elimination of private profit driven insurance companies.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Economic liberty == liberty, because economic action == action. Money is just an intermediary. “There is more to this reality than money” but economic action makes that possible, and economic freedom makes it choosable (versus imposed/denied).
April 26th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Wow, this sounds so much cooler with a name like “genetic underground” than “private test results”.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:22 am
You are protected by the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 in the UK, so they would be on really dodge ground to ask for a medical report from your doctor unless it is required for the job.
April 26th, 2008 at 2:13 am
What are they going to compare the DNA to. The Shroud of Turin hoax?
April 26th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Yeah, cause we all know how well the American court system works. Moron.
April 26th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Bad genetics is an individuals’ own fault.
April 26th, 2008 at 4:44 am
On the basis of this need, the NHS will see that they get an appointment with a phrenologist.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:35 am
This is something straight out of the movie GATTACA.
April 26th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Admittedly, I wasn’t sure if that was sarcasm at first or not. I had a feeling it was, given your stance in previous discussions. As for bad habits and will vs. circumstance, I can’t claim to know the interaction between the two, but I think people are lacking in basic compassion regardless. The “pick yourself up by the boot straps” mentality seems quaint.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:16 am
So then if I have more money than you and can hire some thugs I am free to take your house and your wife?According to your statement there is no built in check on my wealth. If you are poorer than me you become completely subject to my whims.I can see fairly well how this system gives me, the rich man, all kinds of freedom. But I’m real confused about where yours would come from.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I don’t think either american political faction can be relied upon to protect any US citizen’s privacy.It all depends on which lobbyist gets to which senator/rep first. Ideology is bought and paid for in this land.Your putting your loyalty and faith in an organization that does not deserve it or reciprocate it.