|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:49 pm
One article of many on the topic....This bill came to my attention yesterday as I was listening to last week's science Friday podcast. I couldn't help but to think that some aspects of this bill were not fully thought through or what this says about the American moral sensibility. Quote: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 493) would prohibit employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions. It would make it illegal for group health plans and health insurers to deny coverage to healthy individuals or charge them higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to a disease. On the one hand, it sounds completely logical to charge someone more for health coverage if they are more of a liablity to the company. Insurance agencies already do this based upon factors like sex, use of substances, or other lifestyle factors. Charging men more than women, even if based on statistics, is the same as genetic descrimination isn't it? So how would the law play out here? Would it also make it illegal to hire someone because they're beautiful (and it has been shown in numerous studies that 'attractive' people get hired more often)? How would one even go about proving that the descrimination was based on genetics? Should we be treated equally regardless of our genetic roll of the dice under the law?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:34 pm
First of all, hardly anyone is not biased, and most of the people are little kids.
That said, I'll move on to the subject. People will always get hired because of their looks; its human nature. Same thing with all the other factors; if someone is different from another person, they have less of a chance than a person that is the same. Its just how the world works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:06 am
ffdarkangel First of all, hardly anyone is not biased, and most of the people are little kids. That said, I'll move on to the subject. People will always get hired because of their looks; its human nature. Same thing with all the other factors; if someone is different from another person, they have less of a chance than a person that is the same. Its just how the world works. What about characteristics that are not visible to the eye? Like someone's predisposition towards addictive behavior, heart disease, or something like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:05 pm
I can already see loopholes. In Colorado, it's written into law that you don't have to disclose the reason when firing someone, not even to the employee being fired. But isn't this law somewhat similar to the Equal Opportunities Act? I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I got. In what ways would you say it differs and/or is similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:40 am
A Murder of Angels I can already see loopholes. In Colorado, it's written into law that you don't have to disclose the reason when firing someone, not even to the employee being fired. But isn't this law somewhat similar to the Equal Opportunities Act? I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I got. In what ways would you say it differs and/or is similar? I think it is an extension of the EOA, but it also covers things the EOA wouldn't such as denying someone insurance coverage because they're genetically disposed to some form of cancer or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:29 pm
Now, wouldn't it be interesting if, in the future, this might be amended to include a racist affirmative-action-esque provision that would force employers to hire a tweaker for every 2 model family men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:54 pm
Son of Axeman Now, wouldn't it be interesting if, in the future, this might be amended to include a racist affirmative-action-esque provision that would force employers to hire a tweaker for every 2 model family men. I agree that affirmative action can be bullshit for the very example you cited, but I don't think people should be charged more for insurance just because they may or may not be "at risk" for some disease. My mom has diabetes and kidney failure, and my dad has heart disease, but I work out and watch my diet. If I didn't have free insurance through work, I'd be pissed as hell to have to pay more cause my heart might asplode, even though I'm at much less risk than the general public due to my lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:58 pm
A Murder of Angels Son of Axeman Now, wouldn't it be interesting if, in the future, this might be amended to include a racist affirmative-action-esque provision that would force employers to hire a tweaker for every 2 model family men. I agree that affirmative action can be bullshit for the very example you cited, but I don't think people should be charged more for insurance just because they may or may not be "at risk" for some disease. My mom has diabetes and kidney failure, and my dad has heart disease, but I work out and watch my diet. If I didn't have free insurance through work, I'd be pissed as hell to have to pay more cause my heart might asplode, even though I'm at much less risk than the general public due to my lifestyle. What I think is most bizzare about the policy is that it is somehow not okay to descriminate on some genetic risk factors but okay to descriminate on ones like sex, age, and other behaviors. It seems somehow... I don't know... hypocritical?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:43 am
Starlock One article of many on the topic....This bill came to my attention yesterday as I was listening to last week's science Friday podcast. I couldn't help but to think that some aspects of this bill were not fully thought through or what this says about the American moral sensibility. Quote: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 493) would prohibit employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions. It would make it illegal for group health plans and health insurers to deny coverage to healthy individuals or charge them higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to a disease. On the one hand, it sounds completely logical to charge someone more for health coverage if they are more of a liablity to the company. Insurance agencies already do this based upon factors like sex, use of substances, or other lifestyle factors. Charging men more than women, even if based on statistics, is the same as genetic descrimination isn't it? So how would the law play out here? Would it also make it illegal to hire someone because they're beautiful (and it has been shown in numerous studies that 'attractive' people get hired more often)? How would one even go about proving that the descrimination was based on genetics? Should we be treated equally regardless of our genetic roll of the dice under the law? What I'd like to see is how the modeling agency figures around this. xd I mean, they're entire industry is based on being beautiful, even the people who work with them like regular staff must be held to scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:01 pm
I would be in big trouble if genetics were judged. I have the genes for Autism, addiction, cancer, and diabetes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:45 pm
incubo-amore What I'd like to see is how the modeling agency figures around this. xd I mean, they're entire industry is based on being beautiful, even the people who work with them like regular staff must be held to scrutiny. And a limited conception of what beauty is at that. I get so sick of looking at models. I really do. Enough that when I see them I almost start thinking to myself 'how ugly!' xd Show me a model who looks... well... real, perhaps instead of made of plastic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:05 pm
Here's a novel idea: let the market decide. If people will pay more for skinnier girls, in the model example, then more skinny girls will be hired.
Same goes for this genetic nondescrimination idea. People are free to discriminate against whomever they please. However, the market will hold them accountable. And there are plenty of market niches to accomodate any kind of person, regardless of genetic makeup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
