genetic discrimination. so this is how it's gonna be?

jverne

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
0
Most cases were found to relate to life insurance. In one instance, a man with a faulty gene linked to a greater risk of breast and prostate cancer was denied income protection and trauma insurance that would have let him claim if he developed other forms of cancer.
Click to expand...


http://www.smh.com.au/national/aust...ause-of-poor-genes-20090309-8tc6.html?page=-1


like i've said...capitalism (i.e. profit based society) doesn't mix well with modern technology. at least not for the "not rich enough".

seriously, we need a system overhaul/reconstruction. i don't know precisely how, but i have some ideas.
 
jverne said:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/aust...ause-of-poor-genes-20090309-8tc6.html?page=-1


like i've said...capitalism (i.e. profit based society) doesn't mix well with modern technology. at least not for the "not rich enough".

seriously, we need a system overhaul/reconstruction. i don't know precisely how, but i have some ideas.
Click to expand...
The problem is health/life insurance.

If used for the good of the people, rather than increasing profit margins, such technology could help identify risk in people of getting said disease and avoiding/treating it.

This would entail however a state run health system as we have in the UK, of which I am very proud.
 
Solaris said:
The problem is health/life insurance.

If used for the good of the people, rather than increasing profit margins, such technology could help identify risk in people of getting said disease and avoiding/treating it.

This would entail however a state run health system as we have in the UK, of which I am very proud.
Click to expand...

nooo...but communism is evil...they make you eat babies



/end sarcasm
 
Uh what jverne?

I actually agree with Solaris here, though I do see why companies would take this kind of action in order to maintain their profit margins.

Edit: i don't agree with companies that do this btw
 
What's the name of that one country where many of the citizens have had their genes mapped? I wonder if it'll get horrible like that there, because that information is all available.

They did it to be helpful, so people could see into the future whether they and their offspring might have health issues, being predisposed to them.

It's one of them northern countries... norway, sweden, finland, iceland... **** if remember.
 
Evo said:
Uh what jverne?

I actually agree with Solaris here, though I do see why companies would take this kind of action in order to maintain their profit margins.

Edit: i don't agree with companies that do this btw
Click to expand...

you know i'm kidding right? i also agree with solaris on this one.
 
genetic eugenics are next. they'll find out that some humans have a different gene pool and try to destroy them using viruses that attack only specific genes
 
No, it's the other possible explanation.
 
Also several of the biggest insurance companies and emplyers who give health benefits commissioned a study several years ago as to determine what kind of extra risk genetics would give overall. It was concluded that overall the impact was very slight, and if they were going to charge groups of people extra at all it should be higher premiums for smokers.
 
jverne said:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/aust...ause-of-poor-genes-20090309-8tc6.html?page=-1


like i've said...capitalism (i.e. profit based society) doesn't mix well with modern technology. at least not for the "not rich enough".

seriously, we need a system overhaul/reconstruction. i don't know precisely how, but i have some ideas.
Click to expand...
Human nature is a big flaw in the progression of technology and civilization.

Humans, on a personal level, do not give a shit so long as whatever research at hand is making them money. Furthermore, if research into a particular subject only costs money vs. profit margin, expect no further studies to be conducted.

^ This is capitalism's Cleveland steamer.

On the other hand, if the government takes absolute control of many of today's current research project's instead of third-party contractors (the total opposite of free trade) there will be no competition, therefore less pay. Human nature dictates that if researchers don't get to reap the benefits of their hard work and study, expect a crappier effort put forth into research projects in this type of government.

^ This is socialism's Cleveland steamer.


No type of government will ever provide a sound foundation for the advancement of mankind so, what is the "next-gen" future solution to world hunger, efficient energy, space exploration, etc. for you obsessed sci-fi geeks who love scientific progress? Start War World III, pollute the Earth, and destroy all of our natural resources! After all, necessity is the mother of inventions. A peaceful perfect world would not have yielded even half of the technical advancement we've made over the past century. Why do you think the military always has the latest and greatest of almost everything scientific? Necessity.

Let's face it, consumer technology that's actually worth a damn like satellite, GPS, wave radio, medical, computer technology, etc. is all table scraps from those who need it out of necessity in order to have an edge over their enemies. Left field I know, but just think about that when some of you complain about military spending in the future. We ARE actually getting benefit from the research.

BTW, a cure for cancer is not out of our grasp. It's merely a matter of numbers and researchers couldn't care less about a cure.
Chemotherapy is too lucrative.

I wish you guys would stop thinking these highly-paid grads are in it for the sake of helping others or the advancement of mankind.
 
Saturos said:
On the other hand, if the government takes absolute control of many of today's current research project's instead of third-party contractors (the total opposite of free trade) there will be no competition, therefore less pay. Human nature dictates that if researchers don't get to reap the benefits of their hard work and study, expect a crappier effort put forth into research projects in this type of government.
Click to expand...
Are you fugging kidding? Most scientists don't get paid impressively... at all.
Only the few who start their own company and manage to be very successful - but the majority are either in academia or working for the multi-nationals.

Scientists generally aren't in it to become millionaires. The pay is hardly astronomical (http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Research_Scientist,_Biotechnology/Salary)

Saturos said:
BTW, a cure for cancer is not out of our grasp. It's merely a matter of numbers and researchers couldn't care less about a cure.
Chemotherapy is too lucrative.
I wish you guys would stop thinking these highly-paid grads are in it for the sake of helping others or the advancement of mankind.
Click to expand...
"A cure for cancer" is a bit of a pipe dream, believed in mainly by those who have little understanding of cancer. It isn't one diseases, no two cancers are exactly alike. You won't be seeing a single cure for all cancers anytime soon...

A large proportion of researchers are in it to advance mankind. It's Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Promega etc. corporate suits who are the amoral bastards, not the scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top