Congress has now passed legislation to forbid employers and insurance companies of "discriminating" against people on the basis of information gleaned from tests of their genetic proclivity for disease. I haven't studied this in depth, but forbidding the marketplace to use valid information rubs me the wrong way.
Wouldn't the use of such information allow people with fewer genetic risk factors to obtain less expensive (and more accurately priced) insurance? How is this different from charging smokers more for health insurance? Is just that smoking is voluntary but we refuse to use information caused by involuntary factors?
Calling it genetic "discrimination" is in itself discriminatory/conclusory. Perhaps offering discounts to those without known genetic risk factors would serve to encourage people to get the tests -- and if they tested positive, they'd be better prepared to take protective action where possible.
I guess I'm in minority on this issue, though: No Senators voted against the bill, and the vote in the House was 414-1, with only Rep. Ron Paul opposed.
Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
