Re: Re: why should it be trusted?

[Neil Johnson]

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."   Neil M. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7  CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Ethridge To: Cypherpunks 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?