BS: Bush gets it right!

Subject: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:13 AM

this story is I think the first time I've seen the Resident quoted as saying something I totally agree with. And I'm not being sarcastic.

"To deny employment or insurance to a healthy person based only on a predisposition violates our country's belief in equal treatment and individual merit," stated President Bush.

"Just as we have addressed discrimination based on race, gender and age, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information."

I only hope politicians in other parties and other countries would say the same, and that nobody will allow their disagreement with the man and his general political views to get in the way of that.

As they say, even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day. (Though maybe that's a little ungracious to Bush, or whoever writes his speeches.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:52 AM

You're so right, Kevin, but it'll be difficult to prevent. In a few years, just a hair you left in the office while you were there for presentation or a used cup of coffee might be enough to gather the information about future threats to your health. First, it is difficult to prevent, second, it is difficult to use for suing the employer for unfair hiring practices.

It is easy now to point to an employer who never hires black persons or males, fopr ths inforamtion about skain colour and sex and age is there for everybody to see. But imagine you are on a risk for colon cancer and are not hired. You'd have not only to show that the employer has gathered that information about you but also that he has used it for discrimination.

How could you show he never hires people with a risk for colon cancer? You'd have to know the risk status of the hired and of the not hired polulation to be able to use that in a court case. That could be done if the helth and risk status of all of us would be known. But that is not what we want to, I wouldn't for one.

Your point worries me a lot, Kevin, and I see no (easy) solution.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: GeorgeH
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:35 AM

Accuse me of being cynical if you will . . (you'll probably be right), but it sounds to me as if the "business interests" have yet to "explain" their case to him . . let's see if he's still saying the same thing when he needs the bucks to try to secure re-election.

But - credit where it's due - here's two cheers at lesast for the guy . . .

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:20 AM

Talk is cheap. I'm glad that the current holder of the office (or someone writing for him) is willing to step out and say the obvious - bad things can happen when science places tools in the hands of unethical people. But we know this; so why state the obvious in a national address, anyway? Unfortunately, based on this administration's developing record for saying one thing and doing whatever the hell they please, I can't help but wonder if Mr. Bush's people are truly concerned with discrimination based on genetic testing, or if they are using this argument to build a case against genetic research for other reasons.

Anyone can use the "what might happen" form of argument against almost anything. If you don't like the Star Wars missile defense you might point out a lot of bad "what might happens" if we continue to pump money in that direction. I consider it a specious, self-serving and pointless form of political posturing, even in the rare case that the practitioner and I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 11:07 AM

It might possibly be hard to prove that an employer was discriminating on the basis of suspecting that someone might have a hereditary condition of some kind.

But so far as information obtained through genetic testing, is concerned, it wouldn't be hard to make any information of that sort totally confidential to the people involved - penalise anyone who sought to obtain that information against an individual, or anyone who supplied it. Especially insurance companies. Close them down automatically if it was proved that they had engaged in it. Treat it under laws against conspiracy.

But getting the political will to introduce legislation like that might be harder, since the insurance companies have a lot of loot to pass around to their friends. That's why, however cynical people might feel about Bush in this case, this is something to be welcomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Ringer
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 12:11 PM

In the UK (and I would guess in most other countries), if you want life insurance, you are typically required to have a medical examination. If that examination turns up a heart murmur (or other problem) you may find that the insurance company declines to offer cover, or whacks up the premium. Is that wrong?

Because young men are a notorious high-risk group, a young man (eg 18 years old) may find it difficult and will certainly find it expensive to get insurance for his first car. Is that wrong?

I have worked long and hard setting up and running a business which at last gives me a reasonable living, though it will never make me rich. I resent being told who I can and who I can't decline to employ. Is that wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 12:31 PM

Information about your health should be confidential. Any attempt by an employer or an insurance to find out that kind of information should, in my view be a serious offence. Any medical personnel who cooperate in breaking that confidentiality should be severely penalised.

That's not the law at present. If it isn't made the law soon it's going to make for enormous hardship for individuals, and I predict it will be very damaging to society as a whole. I'm pleased, and surprised, to see Bush coming out in favour of that kind of thing.

As for Bald Eagle not wanting there to be any restrictions on his ability as an employer to discriminate against people, I'd say yes it is wrong. Depends on why the discrimination. If it was on grounds of race it would clearly be wrong. I'm just saying that on the grounds of somebody's genetic make-up, it would still be wrong. And if this applies to everyone right across the board, there is no hardship to individual employers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Ringer
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:12 PM

If you've had three accidents and a drink-driving conviction in the last two years, McGrath, would you expect to get the same insurance terms as a 40-year old with a clean record? Would you have it made illegal for the insurance Co to ask for that sort of information? What's the difference? Insurance companies aren't charities (perhaps you think they should be?).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: GeorgeH
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:18 PM

I think McGrath's final point is the essential answer to Bald Eagle's concerns . . . plus the fact that small businesses are not the focus of what little enforcement is done (it's damn hard to prove that a business employing half a dozen staff has discriminatory recruitment policies).

If and when genetic screening is an exact science Insurance Companies may weight policies according to the actual risk (as BE says, that's the way they work). It's easy to see why the US might want to restrict their ability to do so. But it would be particularly invidious if those with an increased disposition to a particular illness were to be disadvantaged in the job market . . What BE would be being told (were he in the US and should this pass into law) is that there were some information he couldn't have in assessing someone's suitability for employment. Since he doesn't have that information at the moment it hardly amounts to any tightening of the restrictions on him . .

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:23 PM

I guess - if I have a predisposition to something, why it is no business of my putative boss' - who would want to invest in something they didn't know about? And similarly, if I am predisposed, why shouldn't the insurance people know about it and bring it into their calculations? But then again, a predisposition isn't the thing itself - and people should be hired based on qualifications, not anything else... so I guess I'm on both sides of the fence right now... hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:28 PM

You're mixing apples and oranges, Bald Eagle. Insurance companies can certainly adjust rates based on someone's history behind the wheel -- that's not what is being discussed here. What IS being discussed is whether they should be able to raise your rates because your genetic information suggests that you are statistically more likely than others to suffer from certain illnesses.

As for who you can and can't hire, I am sure you realize there are already laws on the books about this -- or, more to the point, about the reasons you can give for declining to hire someone (and about the way your hiring practices can be examined to make sure you are honest in stating your reasons). You are free to resent that, but imagine how much you would resent it if you couldn't get a job because of your race, religion, gender, or some other personal quality.

As for Bush, it still amazes me how much credit this guy gets whenever he says something even marginally intelligent or reasonable. Is he going to continue to benefit from our low expectations for as long as he is in office? I'm with Bartholemew -- I'll be impressed when he actually does something meaningful about this, rather than just getting one of his underlings to write a sound-bite for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 04:42 PM

The point surely isn't that it make Bush look better, but that in going on the record saying this, the effect is in practice to strengthen the case for a badly needed reform, and one where it needs America to take the lead (because if somebody else did, America would be most unlikely to follow).

If that makes Bush look better than he deserves to be, that is a small price to pay. There are some things that are a lot more important than party political squabbles between two branches of what is really the same party.

As for the drunk driving/ family history of (eg)cancer comparison, that's sick - I should be judged on what I have done myself, and only on that. Things that have happened to my family or to me are completely different, unless they've changed me in some evident way (if I've been blinded in an accident I'm not going to get a job involving driving for example.)

A high proportion of people of African decent have sickle cell anaemia, which is genetically linked. If you decided to make sure you didn't employ people with that disease you could do it by making sure you didn't employ people of African decent. Or you could rely on tests that indicated people who might have it. Both ways of doing it seem fundamentally the same to me, and fundamentally wrong.

Sharing some risks between us all rather than trying to hive them off onto a minority of high-risk people seems to me the only honourable and decent way for us to organise ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 05:01 PM

One of Florida's fine cities just decided they will not hire smokers; period. If you work for the city and smoke you are subject to termination. They claim this is correct because smokers increase the cost of health premiums for all employees, smokers have a higher incidence of sick days, and smokers take frequent breaks (and are therefore much less productive).

Smoking is an unpopular and, some would say politcally incorrect practice - but it is still legal in the US, and practiced by millions of healthy/productive people.

Why is this employer able to strike at so capriciously at this personal freedom? In deed Bush's leadership in the issue McGrath brings to us I this thread is exactly conflicting. Personal freedoms as protected by Bush's stratgey and as denied by the Florida city policy must be protected!

.... and, if a bit more thread creep can be allowed; what if that Florida city stated that their policy said they "will not hire people who are HIV positive. If you work for the city and are HIV positive you are subject to termination. They claim this is correct because those who are HIV positive increase the cost of health premiums for all employees. HIV positive people have a higher incidence of sick days, and take frequent breaks (and are therefore much less productive)."

... we need to diligently guard our personal freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 05:17 PM

Smoking is a matter of free choice. Having parents who died of cancer or heart attack is not.

There might be a case for arguing against people being discriminated against because they choose to smoke, but it's a completely different issue really.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 05:45 PM

Hi Kev:
This actually is an example of why Baby Bush has gotten to the place he has, he throws a bone to those he disagrees with, even possibly has a progressive thought occationally (I don't know if though is the right word, more like a spontanious reflex responce like most simple life forms...) But, well, like the bombing of Vieques Puerto Rico, which I understand has not made much news overseas, where the Navy has used a small island of PR as a bombing range for decades, against the island's wishes, well Baby Bush anounced that the bombing would end... in 2 years! As a result a few people are praising him - not realising the timeing has to do with the reelection, and the Navy is up in arms to the point he probably will not go through with the final implimation, but it gives him the immpression of taking a stand in the middle.
Well, Oh well, I was going to same something mean about him, but I'll just close with...
Best to all, and hope we keep him away from the toys that do the most damage ...
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Grab
Date: 02 Jul 01 - 06:01 PM

Insurance-wise, it goes on the percentages for your group (age, race, sex, etc), not on your own performance. Hence young male drivers find it difficult to get reasonable insurance quotes, regardless of how sensible they may be. Woman are generally less likely to take risks on the road and so get lower insurance quotes, regardless of the fact that my wife drives like a maniac! And a friend who's driven his motorbike without an accident for 15 years had his insurance go up at around 45, since this is when middle-aged blokes get male menopause, buy a powerful bike and smack into the scenery.

This is "normal". Every insurance company follows these rules. And although plenty of ppl will find themselves disadvantaged by these rules, the majority will conform to the percentages. However worrying that sounds, there's enough statistical evidence to show it's true. The trouble is, where we're talking a "first incident", there's nothing to judge you on. Maybe an 18-year-old driver hasn't had an accident yet, but if he drives like 18-year-olds often do then it's only a matter of time. Similarly, if you've got a predisposition to heart disease then if you smoke, drink and eat fatty foods, it's only a matter of time. So for health insurance, this would merely be one more thing to go along with cholesterol count, body mass index, etc.

It's a bit different with jobs though - how can you tell if this is going to affect a person's performance? More important is how well a person works, and that has nothing to do with any physical criteria. Insurance is a percentage bet - over a few tens of thousands of ppl, the results will average out. Most companies don't have access to tens of thousands of ppl though, so this just doesn't hold true - the behaviour of the _individual_ is more significant in this case than the general trend in the population. I would also point out that if someone has a long-term sickness, there is NO requirement for an employer to subsidise them for all that time. At least in the UK, the employer can simply give them the requisite notice and that's that, so long as you've dotted the i's and crossed the t's. It's the i-dotting and t-crossing that's the difficult part, though!

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 01:21 AM

It's called profiling

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 04:39 AM

Of course, an employer will use any information he can get to assess the future performance of a job applicant, from slant of handwriting and type of stamp on the application letter to past work references. Some of them are nearly invalid some are quite valid. But even today the right of the employer to gather information is restricted, at least in my country. Not all questions are admissible. So the decision is to leave the employer a bit in the dark and I think that is good so.

Genetic information gathering will soon be a way to provide a lot of information about a person this person would not like to give when asked. Imagine lots of genetic information gathering small businesses around your country and everyone who sends in a hair or a bit of saliva and kicks up the money will get (no questions asked) all the information about the health status (now and in future) of the person from which the sample was.

If the person asking and the person providing the sample are identical it doesn't matter for me. But imagine your male friend asking this way (without informing you) about your probabilty to get breast cancer before deciding whether to propose or not. Or the father of your bride gathers this information hoping still to prevent the marriage. Or your employer...or the coach at your sports club...or the band leader...

The only chance to prevent this is along Kevin McGraths lines of strictly forbidding getting or delivering this information. Imagine how easy it will be in a couple of years compared to now. This has to be prevented.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: GeorgeH
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 06:27 AM

Don't know about Germany, Wolfgang, but over here there's a big difference between what people are "allowed" to ask and what they actually do ask.

(Actually, converstations with our German friends suggest they do "follow the rules" rather better in Germany.)

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 07:00 AM

They try, George, of course, but (nearly) everybody knows that you may lie to them on those questions and they are not allowed to blame you for lying if the question was illegal. That helps a bit.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: GUEST,jayohjo
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 07:10 AM

Bit of a thought on this - to get a visa to go to Russia, amongst a whole heap of other things, I had to provide a certificate stating that I was not HIV positive, ie go and have a test. I had this done anonymously, as if you have an AIDS test on your medical records (this is the UK) it can cause serious problems later on for life insurance, mortgages, loads of things - these companies presume that if you have had an AIDS test you are necessarily a 'high risk' type-person, despite the fact it could hav been done for, say, visa purposes. Grrrr.
Jayohjo XX

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:26 AM

As George said, people doing interviews can ask questions they have no right to ask, and get away with it. The person being interviewed is not in a position to object, unless they've decided they don't want the job - and in any case, their objection doesn't normally carry any weight.

Some employers are bound by agreements under which a staff representative is required to sit in on appointment interviews with the job of observing that fair procedures is carried on, and the duty of blowing the whistle there and then if it isn't. Which it isn't, because of their silent presence.

The effect of the nonsense about blood tests that jayohjo was up against is to make people more reluctant to have blood tests, and that has very dangerous consequences for the community as a whole.

I think it would be a very wise thing to have legislation that would take account of this. Anybody asking for results of blood tests of third parties - for example potential employers or insurance companies - or discriminating against people who have had blood tests is in effect involved in a conspiracy against the health of all of us, and should be punished accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: LR Mole
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:56 AM

I think the answer is to hire hackers to make such an ungodly hash of medical records they aren't dependable--and then give all the people in power files full of disease verifications. You can't uneat the apple (hee, hee), and privacy is an illlusion, so one might as well flood the files with lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Grab
Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:21 AM

LRMole, that's fine in theory for privacy concerns for the minority of ppl affected, but it's not very helpful from the point of the majority who want effective healthcare. If you found a relative's heart surgery had been cancelled by some hacker, you'd not be very happy...

This kind of information MUST stay on your medical record so that doctors can treat you effectively. The question is just whether employers and insurers have rights to access your medical records, and how much they're allowed to access. I'd say employers have no purpose in being allowed access - you should only be judged on your performance at work, and that's it. Insurers should be allowed partial access to judge your current medical condition - exactly how much they should get is up for discussion.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 10:29 AM

You know, the interesting thing is that, so far as I can see, the people who generally think Bush is a good egg d not seem to have posted on this thread.

I wonder if there might be a feeling that he's blotted his copybook by saying something the dreaded "liberals" might agree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: JedMarum
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 10:54 AM

McGrath - I am Bush supporter and I believe that Bush made the right call here. I suspect there are other points-of-view that Bush and liberals share, as there are probably points-of-view that Bush and some conservatives don't share. I suspect many of Bush's younger supporters (the under 40 crowd) like Bush's points-of-view on these personal freedom and privacy issues ... these are the issues that are basic to my support for the so called conservative politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 10:57 AM

"the people who generally think Bush is a good egg" ?????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: GeorgeH
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 11:12 AM

McGrath, what are you doing teaching these yanks English public-school expressions??

(BG)

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 01:41 PM

P.G.Wodehouse spent most of his life in America, and wrote most of his books there, so I think some of them will have come across the expression before...

Actually the more appropriate eggy term here might be "curates egg" - you know, he didn't want to offend the Bishop so he insisted that the egg he had been given to eat "Is really quite good in parts." Which I do not think for most of us would qualify as a "good egg".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: DougR
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 01:48 PM

Yep, Jed, you said it, and I agree with what you said.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 03:51 PM

there are probably points-of-view that Bush and some conservatives don't share. says Jed.

Is this one of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: JedMarum
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 06:57 PM

I suppose many conservatives would support Bush in this issue, assuming that other road blocks to real parity in health care were removed. Conservative business owners, especially those who carry the cost of medical care would disagree with Bush on this one.

The fact is, we have a real false economy around health care issues in the US. We don't really have choices, as an individual, when choosing health care plans. We cannot create our own tax-deferred health savings plans, we cannot pick and choose plans that make sense to our own family needs no matter what our 'employment' satus. We are already at the mercy of huge health care professionals, who are primarily profit motivated.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:27 PM

Now that's talking about real issues. A lot of the time we seem to get sidetracked into squabbles over party labels. The interesting divisions, I believe, tend to be within parties, and very often they cross party lines.

I thank God that at no time in my life have I had to worry about whether I can pay a medical bill for myself or my family, or worry about insurance running out or what'll happen about medical bills if I lost my job or whatever. And you don't get much disagreement about that being how it ought to be in Britain, regardless of what party they vote for.

But you do get disagreement about how it should be organised, and the battle lines don't coincide with the parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jul 01 - 01:39 AM

McGrath, I'm not at all familiar with your health plan in Great Britain. Would you enlighten me? Can you folks go to an emergency room any time you feel you need to? How often can you see a doctor for a check-up? Can you go to any doctor of your choosing? What about dental? Is that included in your National health plan? Also, if you want to see a specialist, are you free to do so? Do you have to purchase your medications, or are they supplied by the government?

Lots of questions, I know, but I'm truly interested.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: BlueJay
Date: 05 Jul 01 - 04:37 AM

Bush is playing a safe one here. I feel it is ridiculous to equate a "genetic predisposition", with job performance.
I have diabetes in my family, so I am presumably at higher risk than average to contract the disease, but I'm almost 50 yrs old and am not diabetic.
The health of the human body is complex. Many at risk for diabetes do develop the disease, but many, if not most, do not. Many other people considered "low risk" for the disease become diabetics for no clear reason. And many people become diabetics in response to lifestyle choices.
Genetics is only one piece of the puzzle. I think it's wrong to deny a job or insurance based on that factor alone. What's next? Getting turned down for a job because of where you were born? (Higher than average risk of cancer of the nuts in that region)!

I think the big insurance companies and large employers have us by the balls. I predict that this bullshit will prevail, no matter what they tell Bush to say. Money talks, and unfortunately I don't have any.

This gathering of information is insidious, and our privacy is being stripped away, no doubt. In the United States, there is also a controversy about linking a person's credit history to automobile insurance rates. (You guessed it- the worse the credit history, the higher your rates).

I feel this is also wrong. My credit is not very good, but it has no influence on my driving. I haven't had a ticket in probably thirty years. I have worked as a professional driver on and off for years with no accidents. Once again, the insurance companies are focusing on one small piece of the puzzle in an effort to raise rates and increase profitability.

With my apologies to my conservative Mudcat brethren, if American conservatives were really the "protectors of individual liberties", which they strongly profess to be, then they would be the first ones objecting to this bullshit. I am sure many conservative individuals would agree, but you have given your power over to the Republican party which is consistent in favoring the profitability of huge corporations above all else.

Watch carefully, and see if you still feel the same ten years from now when your grandson can't find work because his great-grandmother had a heart attack, he has a few late credit card payments, and his father once owned a pit bull. BlueJay

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 01 - 07:01 AM

There's a website nhsdirect which is maybe the best way of answering those questions, Doug.

You can go you to casualty any time you need to; there is no formal limit on the number of times you can see a doctor; you register with a practice, and can see any doctor in that practice - you can shift to another doctor who'll register you; the dental service has ben badly run down over the years and people often use private dentists because of this; there are presctription charges but exemptions for many people - children. over 60s, people with chronic illnesses, unemployed.

It's not perfect, and various changes are on the way. But the point I was making is that in Britain any politician who tried to abolish the central element of the service, free universal provision at the point of use, would be cutting their own throat, because they'd be slaughtered in the polls. The most effective attack on a political opponent is that something they are proposing would threaten this element. Arguments are about how best to provide it, and these take place within parties as much as between them.

If we had a formal constitution here I think the right to universal free medical provision at the point of use would be incorporated as a fundamental right.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jul 01 - 09:03 PM

Thanks, McGrath. I'll check out that blue clicky.

BlueJay, I'm a conservative and I don't approve. I also believe in a woman's right to choose. Not all Republicans think lock-step with the Party leaders.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush gets it right!
From: BlueJay
Date: 05 Jul 01 - 10:36 PM

Doug R- Thanks for pointing that out. No offense intended, and I did state that many individuals of conservative mind probably don't like this trend. To me, these are true conservatives, quite different than how the Republican Party appears. Folks like you, and other conservatives I know, are probably what keeps the party viable. Thanks, BlueJay