Senate outlaws genetic discrimination

The US Senate has unanimously voted in favour of a bill to ban genetic discrimination by insurance companies and employers in a bid to speed up research on inherited diseases. Senators backed the bill 95 to none in a ballot yesterday. It's not the first time Congress has tried to ban DNA discrimination, and the bill still …

[Anonymous Coward]

genetic discrimination by insurance companies

Does that include car insurance*?

Or is gender considered non-genetic? There'll be problems with that one.

(*Yes, I know, life insurance for the ladies)

[Anonymous Coward]

Define genetic discrimination...

Does this mean they can't ask questions about history of heart (etc) disease in the family?

[Ken Hagan]

Re: car insurance

There's no particularly good reason why insurance companies couldn't be banned from discriminating against any customers in any way that the customer couldn't reasonably have avoided.

There would still be money to be made selling insurance. Insurance companies would still benefit from knowing their market better than their rivals. Their customers would still have an incentive to avoid risky behaviour.

[Tim Maidment]

Hmmm...

...as a diabetic with good control of my condition I would be less than happy at the insurers poking around in my offspring's genetics.

Its bad enough I have to justify my continued driving every three years due to my injecting insulin every day - though I can (with my rational side) understand why it so important to keep a check on it. (Cue the joke about wanting to die peacefully in my sleep, not screaming and crying like my passengers). I wouldn't want my kid(s) to be marked for higher insurance on the off-chance they developed the condition.

Watching this issue with guarded interest...

[Edward Miles]

@JonB

Gender is probably classes as a present disease that was inherited, making them able to discriminate on it :P

[Paul Buxton]

Insurance and discrimination go hand in hand

Surely the entire insurance industry premiums system is based on discrimination. If you happen to be a part of the demographic that claims the most - regardless of your own lack of claims - you're stung.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be pedantic, but...

...the Senate itself can't outlaw anything. I guess the mixup makes sense; you guys in blighty would never have seen that "How does a bill become a law" cartoon. I wonder if they're still using it... that rocked. The most important thing it taught me was not how congress worked, but that the US government always uses hand-written rolled-up parchment for its official business.

Come to think of it, maybe people would take things a bit more seriously if that's what they did... also, it would be a great way to tighten up the wording on those omnibus defense bills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure nonsense.

This is nonsense.

You're allowed to discriminate by gender.

You're allowed to discriminate by social class.

You're allowed to discriminate by physical condition.

You're allowed to discriminate by family history.

But you're *not* allowed to discriminate by genetic profiling.

So *if* my grandfather had a hereditary disease that affects overweight males living in poverty, and I am an overweight poor male living in poverty, then the insurance company can legitimately charge me more.

If I have conclusive proof from a reputable DNA screening agency that I do not carry the gene -- so what? Inadmissable.

Meanwhile, an overweight male living in poverty has no family history of the disease, but has conclusive proof from a reputable DNA screening agency that he *does* carry the gene. But he is charged less than me.

This scenario makes a mockery of this legislation as "consumer protection" or "civil rights". It is purely a matter of development -- and if there's no intention to protect the consumer or the rights of the population then we can be bloody sure it'll be repealed as soon as it can.

The only solution is to have a compulsory insurance scheme at fixed rates for all citizens that takes no account of any individual factors, except perhaps ability to pay.

I call this revolutionary idea "National Insurance".

[John Savard]

What is Insurance For?

Originally, purchasing insurance was a private commercial transaction between two parties.

If I wish to ensure the cargo on a ship bound for Japan, I will have to pay a higher rate of insurance if there happen to be pirates operating on the coasts by which I intend to sail.

It isn't discrimination for an insurance company to base its rates on any real risk factor that I am aware of when I make my decision to purchase insurance.

What happened when some states passed laws saying that health insurers could not discriminate against people who were HIV-positive is that you could no longer walk into an insurance office and purchase health insurance for yourself; only averaged-out employee health insurance continued to exist.

Of course people with inherited genetic problems ought to be able to receive medical care at other than exorbitant prices. But the answer to that is for the government to pay for medical care, not to try to make voluntary individual purchases of insurance do what only taxes can do: redistribute resources from the more fortunate to the less fortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance?

Insurance is edging toward a position where it's no insurance at all.

At its core, insurance is a risk-sharing mechanism - a number of people set up a way to distribute the risk among them, so nobody in the group is destroyed completely in a disaster.

But once the insurance organization starts deeply defining insurance rates by risk, you end up with no insurance at all.

So, with car insurance, my premiums go up when I have an accident. And they go down when I don't.

And, over the past 50 years (correct me if I'm wrong), the trend more or less has been to increase the rise and fall - the same with medical insurance.

If you take this to its conclusion, you insurance is free until you have an accident, at which point the premium is the same (or probably the same plus 20%) as the accident cost. Then, immediately after, you're not having an accident, so your insurance goes down to zero.

So, the risk sharing goes away. The drive to 'customize' insurance premiums based on risk completely eliminates the point of insurance in the first place, and turns insurance into a kind of savings account - except it's an account where you pay to put your money in!

Not a terribly good deal.

[Gordon]

Discrimination

Exactly how is it discrimination to give someone a higher premium because they're an increased risk?? I might just as well argue that it's "discimination" that I need to pay more for my motor insurance because I have an Expensiv(ish) fast(ish) car!

[Mike Stillion]

Insurance rates go up... but down?

WHEN, sir, has your insurance ever gone DOWN over time, unless you switch to a different company with better rates? That has never happened to me...

The new payment model that ALL businesses go for now is best described this way: Demand goes up, price goes up. Demand goes down, price goes up. For car insurance, it's similar. Have an accident, price goes up. Have no accident, price goes up a smaller amount because of "rising costs". For health insurance, it's like getting an adjustable rate mortgage! Have no claims, price goes up due to "rising costs". Have claims, price goes up due to "rising costs".

It's a better deal instead to try increasing your standard of living - increase your means - and insure yourself. Whatever you do, you GOTTA stop relying on those insurance companies to have your best interests at heart. Insurance companies have a sort of morality that suffers from industrial age thinking, which states that people are just bugs making the wheels of progress turn round. They don't care about you - and they never will! They care about what they can get from you. They only care about that part of you that is capable of signing checks, and that part of you that is capable of carrying the wallet.