From the Liberal Bastion of Massachusetts

[Razor]

So, in an effort to reduce healthcare-related costs, we're all ok with taking detailed family medical histories and genetic samples to test for one's potential to contract diseases as a condition of employment, right? "Sorry Ms. Jones, you may be healthy now, but since the last three female generations in your family had some form of breast cancer, we can't hire you and remain fiscally responsible to our shareholders."

[Wiseman]

Razor,

This also raises the issue that genetic histories have to be made private in order to prevent insurance companies from denying you insurance since they will consider you expensive if there is a chance that you might be predisposed to something. You can get yourself genotyped for significant amount of money. The question is, do you want to know what is possibly in your future. It would be illegal for them to acquire such information forcibly. For instance I know that when I worked at MSKCC, my intellectual curiosity wanted me to test for some other markers for cell cultures that were deemed not useful. I was instructed to throw them out. I could not do anything else to them. Insurance companies cannot use any blood that the hospital took during the physical in order to find out how much you pay potentially cost.

[Razor]

I guess I'm confused regarding your position on the topic at hand, then. Earlier you seemed to support the hospital's right to refuse employment due to the lifestyle choices one made:

Originally Posted by Wiseman

What is the problem here? The hospital has rules. Cigarettes have carcinogens that contribute to oncological maligancies. Most people who smoke get diagnosed with adenocarcinoma which is more aggressive as opposed to squamous lung carcinoma which occurs in non smokers due to possible genetic reasons. They probably want to prevent their employees, some of whom can be more susceptible to developing cancer, so they don't have to pay for their treatment.

However, now you seem reluctant to allow private companies (insurance) to gain access to information that has a direct impact on the company's earnings and their ability to remain solvent. This is especially confusing when one considers that people (arguably) have the ability to modify their behavior, while they have little to no ability to modify their genes. Why can a hospital ban smokers, but an insurance company can't mandate a genetic test before covering someone that could be high risk for expensive medical treatment over the course of their life? Aren't they both private entities that should have control over how they run their business?

[1stindoor]

Another side of the business opportunities of the smoking ban...in New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ny..._r=1&src=twrhp

[MVP]

B-Bob,

What is the Palliative care for my malaria? The only thing I know of is a cold shower followed by sleep when I have a bout.

MVP