Why advances in molecular genetics make universal health care "inevitable"

he seems to be basing his prediction on a demonstrably false premise --- that the market for health insurance is individually based.

Of course, most people with health insurance get it through their employers, the primary consequences of the availability of genetic testing will be legislation prohibiting employment discrimination based on ones genetic makeup, legislation prohibiting insurance companies from using genetic testing to determine group rates, and requirements by insurance companies that individuals with predispositions for medical conditions be tested for those conditions on a regular basis.

Testing for genetic propensity to diseases would be a waste of time. Almost everyone has some genetic trait that makes them a likely candidate for some disease. If insurers used genetic propensity as a criteria for coverage, the health insurance industry would cease to exist. There are an infinite number of diseases out here, some genetic and some contracted. Just because a person is likely to catch a disease does not mean that that person will catch it. The insurance industry is one of speculation. It is even worse than the stock market.

Stephen Cechetti argues in “A future of public healthcare for all” that the advances in genetics and that will be able to provide for better individualized projections of expected health costs will translate into a market failure that will force the private health insurance system into the arms of the public sector. Actually it is not a market failure that will do so since in fact the market could only benefit from knowing more about the risks, it is the market results that will be unacceptable, or at least let us hope so, since if those prognosed as much healthier sneak out from sharing the risks, society could turn much much nastier. For instance, there is nothing to stop a good health prognosis to also influence such variables as the admittance to universities.

Before we put any new safeguard system in place, which will certainly only happen when it is much too late for many, what we most need is an insurance that covers the risks of whatever extra costs we could suffer because of what they discover in our genes, and have everyone subscribe such an insurance, before they are allowed to take any genetic samples

"...what we most need is an insurance that covers the risks of whatever extra costs we could suffer because of what they discover in our genes..."

Like I said, this is a waste of time and resources. Having certain genes does not necessarily indicate that a person will suffer from a certain disease. A lack of certain genes does not mean one will be any healthier either.

"Like I said, this is a waste of time and resources. Having certain genes does not necessarily indicate that a person will suffer from a certain disease. A lack of certain genes does not mean one will be any healthier either. "

no, but the genetic coding can tell the insurance company if you are a 7-2 offsuit or pocket aces in the Texas Hold'em of health insurance...

I think Cecchetti makes a very valid point. Health insurance is not a normal market situation. We are probably headed for a single payer government-run system but this will be fought tooth and nail by those who feel the present system benefits them personally.

Justin, did you know that John McEwan, a New Zealand genetic expert, has analysed James Watson's detailed Y-chromosome code (recently published) and determined that he is the same Haplogroup as you and me, R1b1c9? Deciphering the genetic code is not something that we can stop.

Dad, while I agree that we're headed toward a single payer system, "genetic coding" will have nothing to do with that decision. Rather, the failure of the current system, and the relative simplicity of "single payer" will make it the inevitable solution

IMHO, "genetic coding" will result in new, and comprehensive, anti-discrimination legislation (perhaps even a constitutional amendment) because our genes don't determine our behavior, but may provide evidence of the likelihood of certain behaviors within a genetic subgroup.

Paul, while there is no question that genetic testing and genetic manipulation will raise all sorts of new moral issues, my point is that there is nothing we can do to stop it. Nor should we try. We are still in the early stages of understanding what we are seeing and the possibilities therein. When we know more then perhaps some controls will be necessary.

Stephen Cecchetti is correct.

Health care has no choice to become public since our very private genetic profiles will no doubt become public. When one combines this inevitability with all the market research and profiling (Google anyone?) of human behavior; business will know to exact buttons to press to get you to buy their products. These marketers will learn how to appeal to the strongest motivators in your behaviour profile. For most people that would be fear of one sort or another.

I've read comments about how statistical probabilities don't guarentee outcome. I agree. However, I'm not heading out to Vegas to blow my paycheck on a hunch that I'll win a million dollars.

As far as the letting the market act, unless we get serious about reigning in allowing behavioural research to be used in marketing; a market in which free will will cease to exist.

Given the the extremely high probabilty that these things will determine the state of the market for health care, the only sensible thing is to create non-taxable private health care savings accounts. One would only need use their earmarked money in the case of real need and by the time they are old the savings in their account would be substantial. There would also be a marked decrease in people seeking health care when it really was unneccesary.

In this way, money spent on health care is 99% devoted to just that: health care. That is a better use, by far, of your dollars. For many in this debate, these free market dollars are actually just a euphemism for 'I make undeserved and ridiculously obscene amounts of money under the current system and I will fight to keep your money.'.

Of course the government would still have to subsidize health care for the poor and for truly catostrophic cases but most people are ignorant of the fact it already does a quite good job of that already. Those poor who are suffering from lack of good health care now are suffering because they haven't been educated as to what is available and leading a lifestyle in which they abuse and neglect their health.