Yes, I can see it now.
"I'm sorry I have to tell you this Mr. & Mrs. May, but the
genetic tests required by your insurance company have revealed that your unborn
child has a 65% chance of developing an expensive to treat and possibly severely
debilitating condition requiring many operations, doctor visits, therapy,
special equipment, round the clock nursing. etc.
Since we have already passed this information on to your
insurance company as required by the terms of your policy, they are recommending
and will pay you to terminate the pregnancy and to have both you and your
husband sterilized. Otherwise they will not pay for your pre-natal care, the
delivery, or any future treatment of your child.
Of course you can opt for our "High Genetic Risk Policy" at
$XXXXX thousands of dollars a month (which is probably equal to or more
expensive than the cost of paying for the possible medical costs on your own IF
the condition occurs. Which you would, since Medicare/Medicaid was ended in
the last round of "Compassionate Conservatism").
We will be passing this information onto your brothers,
sisters and other relatives insurance companies so they can require their
sterilization. Frankly, your entire family tree needs to be "pruned" to coin a
phrase.
If you disagree with this decision you can appeal by our
completely fair and unbiased arbitration process of course."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:20
PM
Subject: CDR: Re: why should it be
trusted?
On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May
wrote:
At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>On
Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:
>>
Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone
>>
arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some
>> US
states and cities do or periodically propose doing this
>> or
more.
>The
next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance
>companies
and the like use it to justify discrimination against people
>likely to
develop certain medical
conditions.
Are
you claiming that DNA collected by the police is then given to
insurance
companies?
An
audacious claim. Do you evidence to support this extraordinary claim?
I will be
very interested to hear which communities, which states,
are doing this. So
will many journalists, I
hope.
On the
other hand, having heard that even getting a simple blood or
saliva sample
requires court action, I expect you are once again
merely
hand-waving.
In the UK? I heard that
in one community in the UK, in order to catch a
rapist or somesuch, the
police went around collecting DNA samples
and arresting anyone who refused.
After all, only someone with something
to hide would refuse. Of course,
this was television.
As for insurance companies
"discriminating," this is what I hope for.
Those of us who
don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky
diving, anal sex,
whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do.
This is the beauty
of "opt out" plans.
Yes, only the
genetically pure deserve health care. And you are sure
that the insurance
companies won't opt you out when they get a good
look at your
DNA?
But the first order of business is for you to
support your claim that
DNA is collected by
the police and then shared with insurance
companies.
Actually,
that's your claim. But I'm surprised that you'er so ignorant
of cooperation
between government and corporations. Maybe you
don't actually work for a
living. You are aware of drug testing in the
work place, aren't
you?