It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:49 AM

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: UKTruth
Mixed feelings about this...reading the article it would appear that the process would be voluntary and may mean cheaper insurance costs. To that extent it's not much further than being charged less if you don't smoke, or conversely being charged more if you do.

Smoking is a personal choice, your genetics are not. A BIG difference.

Yes, I get that. However, I am not so sure there is anything wrong with paying more for insurance if you are more prone to health issues naturally. Life isn't fair. Insurance is concerned with risk, otherwise it doesn't work, and if you consider that the effect of paying the same even though your risk is higher is that other people's prices go up, through no fault of their own... in other words a penalty because of THEIR genetics. Why should one person pay more just because someone else's risk is higher?

Genetics offers people advantages in many walks of life, advantages that enable them to make more money and be more successful than others. There is nothing wrong with 'good' genetics offering benefit over others.

As for smoking, yes it's a choice, but young people get drawn into smoking when they are is very addictive. What about fat people? Is that a choice too? I'd say yes.

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:37 PM
There is only one use for that info. Discrimination.

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:39 PM
a reply to: Black_Fox



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:02 AM
a reply to: UKTruth

What if your genes showed an array of potentials for, say, cancer or heart disease and YOU had to pay significantly more because people decided risk-sharing was going to raise their insurance rates. You would then enter a "risk class" with more out of pocket costs up front, regardless of your current health, because you MIGHT get sick. You might even be further discriminated against by your employer who might not give you that promotion because of your "risk class" and potential sick days, etc.

Put it in terms of how it might directly make your life worse without you even being sick, and see how fair you think it is.

It's like punishing someone because you think they MIGHT commit a crime.
edit on 13-3-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 02:09 PM
a reply to: UKTruth

Why should one person pay more just because someone else's risk is higher?

Why should insurance companies be "for profit" organizations?

How 'bout everyone pays the same - the same in PERCENTAGES (translated to dollars). I pay 1% of my income per year, so does The Donald. When one of us gets sick, the money is there to pay for the treatment.


That's a bunch of bullshtit
edit on 3/13/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: ack.

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 02:14 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Blue Cross / Blue Shield began as a charity, to help poor people by pooling smaller amounts of their resources together, and paying out from that big pool when someone got sick.

It was a simple concept -- protect yourself and your family with less money.

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 05:51 PM
I personally think everyone should have a DNA test so the government can hunt down all the dead beat parents and send them a child support bill.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in