genetic tests

Help Support CattleToday:

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
3
Location
Middle Georgia
boondocks":ijbdur7j said:
True Grit Farms":ijbdur7j said:
An employer having to pay more for an employees health insurance because of their lifestyle is not right. Those folks that cause damage to themselves through drugs, drinking, smoking, sex or any other know health issues should have to pay a premium for their health insurance. To me it's no different than automobile insurance, those with tickets, crashes, and DUI pay more than those that are safe drivers. Those with a higher risk pay higher prices, and some folks are just un - insurable. Life insurance is a good example of that.

I agree with you, up to a point. There was a book out a few years ago called NUDGE, about the psychology behind trying to encourage people to do the "right thing" rather than forcing them to. For example, have new employees auto-enrolled in the company's 401k plan unless they choose to opt out (rather than the other way around). I believe this showed that the number of people enrolled and saving for retirement went way up, when employers made the "right thing" the easy/default choice. A lot of people seem to not like this, but to me it's just common sense. I have no problem with treating health care the same way. But I think it gets a little harder, because we know many medical conditions have weak links to lifestyle. You mention sex. How would an employer possibly monitor that to know whether you practiced safe sex or not? I don't really think you mean to say you'd agree with Uncle Sam having a tracking device on, well, ya know....
Other cases are (to me) easier (smoking, e.g). Any smokers on here want to argue that an employer (or Uncle Sam, if you're on a gov't plan) shouldn't be allowed to charge you more for your health care?

The sex deal was testing positive for HIV, herpes, gonorrhea and the likes. Let me be clear I'm not for ANY government intervention into a person's personal life. If you want to talk about saving the employee, employer and government money, make every form of birth control available to everyone. To me this is very ironic, and hypocritical, just look how we set up to AI, and test our cattle through DNA for genetic defects and family lineage.
 
OP
B

boondocks

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate NY
True Grit Farms":28qd55c3 said:
The sex deal was testing positive for HIV, herpes, gonorrhea and the likes. Let me be clear I'm not for ANY government intervention into a person's personal life. If you want to talk about saving the employee, employer and government money, make every form of birth control available to everyone. To me this is very ironic, and hypocritical, just look how we set up to AI, and test our cattle through DNA for genetic defects and family lineage.

I want to make sure I'm following you correctly, TG. Are you saying that one's insurance premiums should go UP if you test positive for HIV, herpes, gonorrhea etc? Wouldn't that discourage people from getting tested, and we'd end up with a real public health crisis on our hands? Besides which, gonorrhea is treated with antibiotics. Doesn't seem to lead to a greatly increased health care burden. Would you also raise premiums for people who got injuries working their cows? That's often preventable too. And you'd need a whole new bureaucracy just to decide which cases are subject to an increased premium....

Point is, (as I recently heard someone else say), who knew this stuff was this complex?
 

hurleyjd

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
5,237
Reaction score
153
Location
Yantis, Texas
Been a long time since I was married. At the time we marred in 1961 we had to be blood test for STD,s before a marriage license would be issued. Do you still have to meet that requirement.
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
hurleyjd":1vm8ud02 said:
Been a long time since I was married. At the time we marred in 1961 we had to be blood test for STD,s before a marriage license would be issued. Do you still have to meet that requirement.

Not in Georgia but you have to pay the fine in cash because they won't accept a check.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
19,921
Reaction score
779
Location
Cleveland Tx
Wouldn't that discourage people from getting tested, and we'd end up with a real public health crisis on our hands?

What kind of ignoramus would be discouraged from being tested?
'We' wouldn't have a crisis--'they' would. Ya can't fix stupid, thru legislation or any thing else.
 

Nesikep

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,495
Reaction score
920
Location
Lillooet, BC, Canada
Absolute overreach... If I can get fined and jailed for growing Roundup ready seed without 'permission'.. darned rights my own DNA is mine... I can't believe there's even a debate about this HERE among mostly conservative people.

Obesity costs health care as much as smoking does.. Obesity is on the rise, and yet junk food is PLASTERED all over TV ads... We could start with banning junk food advertising like tobacco advertising if health care costs were in fact really a concern and not a ploy to just put more money into insurers pockets.

How about an insurance scheme like auto insurance in some places... your premiums only go up if you have ACTUAL accidents... I've had dozens of speeding tickets, but never an accident related to speed... RISK and RECKLESSNESS are two different things.

There's also the slippery slope of introducing something as 'voluntary', later to be made into law... You volunteer some information about you now, many people accept it, so the next thing is they have to make it law, it's already evident that most people accept, so force it on the rest
Gun control is another... it might save some lives.. lets force it on everyone now
 

Ryder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Messages
5,851
Reaction score
41
Location
Southeast Louisiana (Rep. of W. Fla.)
Nesikep":3psnc1rn said:
Absolute overreach...
There's also the slippery slope of introducing something as 'voluntary', later to be made into law... You volunteer some information about you now, many people accept it, so the next thing is they have to make it law, it's already evident that most people accept, so force it on the rest
Gun control is another... it might save some lives.. lets force it on everyone now
Very good illustration.
I remember way back in high school being very happy that I lived in the freedom of the USA which meant I could choose my career and educational path and not be subject to some government making decisions for me.
For sometime it seems I have seen freedoms being eroded in the so-called interest of the common good.
We had good and true Americans fight and many died to preserve our freedom. But now it seems that all to often a lot of people are ready to give away freedom for the 'big brother' protectorate.
In the end 'big brother' is more interested in power over you than in your welfare.
 
OP
B

boondocks

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate NY
greybeard":u2tn9f86 said:
Wouldn't that discourage people from getting tested, and we'd end up with a real public health crisis on our hands?

What kind of ignoramus would be discouraged from being tested?
'We' wouldn't have a crisis--'they' would. Ya can't fix stupid, thru legislation or any thing else.

If you have an "itch" or whatever and you know your insurance will get hiked up just for having an STD, an awful lot of people will not get tested. 1 in 6 people age 14-49 have genital herpes in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes.htm
Ask any public health nurse if it's a good idea to raise people's insurance rates based on a positive STD test.
 

Nesikep

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,495
Reaction score
920
Location
Lillooet, BC, Canada
I guess taking things to the n'th degree for big brother, we're going to have to install surveillance in peoples homes... you know, to make sure they don't engage in promiscuous behavior, and also in case there's a break in, the intruder could be captured more easily.. in case someone has a heart attack...
So even if this is 'optional'.. you're forced to accept it if you want that job.. so it's your values or your livelihood.. guess what 95% of people will choose!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
30,668
Reaction score
198
Location
Heart of Texas
hurleyjd":1guzlj4r said:
Been a long time since I was married. At the time we marred in 1961 we had to be blood test for STD,s before a marriage license would be issued. Do you still have to meet that requirement.
We had it too but it was to check for the Rh factor not STD's. They weren't that big of a problem back then.
 

hurleyjd

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
5,237
Reaction score
153
Location
Yantis, Texas
Science
Biology
Q:
Why were blood tests required before marriage?
A:
Quick Answer

Premarital blood tests have been used to check people getting married for syphilis, rubella, HIV and sickle-cell anemia. The objective of such tests was to ensure the infected person got treated prior to infecting his or her partner or child. In the United States, premarital blood laws were enacted during the 1930s and 1940s when syphilis was considered a potential public health concern. Continue Reading
 

True Grit Farms

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
9,453
Reaction score
3
Location
Middle Georgia
Well anyone that has ever had a blood test or hospital stay is in the system somewhere. No different than buying a gun or getting a CC permit. I'm sure DNA has been collected on most of us already and someone somewhere knows you by a number. Believing anything less is naive. IMO
Do you think all immigrants seeking US citizenship should be DNA tested?
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
Ate breakfast with my primary physician this morning and we discussed this topic and he said its bullshyt and a complete government over-reach. He said this genetic testing can already be done whenever someone is in their care if they fear the patient might have a problem with medication so the way they are selling it is a ruse for some other agenda.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
19,921
Reaction score
779
Location
Cleveland Tx
boondocks":2we4maru said:
greybeard":2we4maru said:
Wouldn't that discourage people from getting tested, and we'd end up with a real public health crisis on our hands?

What kind of ignoramus would be discouraged from being tested?
'We' wouldn't have a crisis--'they' would. Ya can't fix stupid, thru legislation or any thing else.

If you have an "itch" or whatever and you know your insurance will get hiked up just for having an STD, an awful lot of people will not get tested. 1 in 6 people age 14-49 have genital herpes in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes.htm
Ask any public health nurse if it's a good idea to raise people's insurance rates based on a positive STD test.
As I said, "they" will have a healthcare crisis--due to their own stupidity, which can't be fixed.
Stupid, simply can't be fixed. If they wish to suffer the consequences over a few buck$, that, i$ their problem.
 

Son of Butch

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
7,076
Reaction score
834
Location
Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota
TexasBred":p3qxzbpx said:
hurleyjd":p3qxzbpx said:
Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.
The only request the OP made was "no politiking" and you just couldn't resist.
An unfair request when the OP linked the entire basis of discussion to an article from a politics section of the news.
 

Son of Butch

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
7,076
Reaction score
834
Location
Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota
True Grit Farms":32j7qj4l said:
An employer having to pay more for an employees health insurance because of their lifestyle is not right.
There's no law requiring employers to pay for any health insurance.
So there should not be a law requiring employees to submit information.

Solution:
Instead of a $ penalty (a fine) for not submitting the information a $ incentive (a discount) for submitting it.
That way an individual can't claim a violation of rights bcs they chose to receive compensation for complying.
If the information isn't worth payment, then it isn't worth collecting.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
30,668
Reaction score
198
Location
Heart of Texas
Son of Butch":1uygwwc7 said:
TexasBred":1uygwwc7 said:
hurleyjd":1uygwwc7 said:
Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.
The only request the OP made was "no politiking" and you just couldn't resist.
An unfair request when the OP linked the entire basis of discussion to an article from a politics section of the news.
True but you'd think in a small group like this one could get just a wee bit of respect for a request made. There are ways to do it right as others proved. One decided to politicize it.
 

Latest posts

Top