From: Scott Badger (wbadger@psyberlink.net)
Date: Tue Nov 17 1998 - 16:26:17 MST
Brian wrote:
>I was refering to socio/politically, but you raise a good point
>Ken. While I believe it will be longer than "early next year"
>before we have genetic screening it won't be much longer.
>
>Should people be treated the same biologically/economically?
>
>Should those with pre-existing conditions pay more?
>
>Should those with genetic predispositions pay more?
>
>Smokers? drinkers? meat-eaters? over/under counter drug users?
>
>count me (1) no (6) yes's
>
>Brian
>Member,Extropy Institute
>www.extropy.org
I listened to an interview on NPRs Diane Rehm
Show dealing with this issue. The insurance
executive on that show suggested that most
insurance companies will try to sell the idea that
the higher costs of insuring genetically *at-risk*
groups will be spread out across all of those
insured. Then he said that what will really happen
will depend on the market. Competitive forces will
cause an insurance company somewhere to offer
lower rates to the more *genetically pure*. He said
that if the general public is willing to allow this, then
it will happen.
BTW, Diane Rehm's show tomorrow (Wednesday
AM) will focus on the recent research on stem cells.
She often has very informative guests.
Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:47 MST