On 21 May 2008, â€œGenetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008â€ became law. Essentially, the act prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage to someone with negative genetic makeup. This law is good legislation since it guarantees that everyone has the opportunity to enroll in or buy into health insurance to help improve or save peoplesâ€™ lives no matter what their genes may predispose them to.
If the legislation did not pass, many people with genetic issues would have to live without health insurance or live on the emergency room system (the general public). In addition, parents with children with negative genetic makeup would be forced to drop their children off their insurance. Some parents would probably even be forced to abort their children so they (the parents) could have insurance. (So much for safe and rare.)
97% of the US House voted for the Act. Ron Paul, a doctor, was part of the 3% who voted against it. Why would a doctor vote against it? Yes, with this Act the government is interfering in private industry, but with life and death issues, the government must intervene.
FD has suggested to me that the Act may be seen as another affirmative action law. I disagree in part. Yes, it says that the disadvantaged gets special treatment; in affirmative action law, minorities get to get into college. However, with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the disadvantaged get to live. Insurance companies should not dictate that part of society at large must die to win a heavy bottom line (with blood).
What do you think of the Act? Why do you think Dr. Paul voted against it? (I thought he was OTAAC, or pro-life.)