Brian wrote:
>I was refering to socio/politically, but you raise a good point
>Ken. While I believe it will be longer than "early next year"
>before we have genetic screening it won't be much longer.
>
>Should people be treated the same biologically/economically?
>
>Should those with pre-existing conditions pay more?
>
>Should those with genetic predispositions pay more?
>
>Smokers? drinkers? meat-eaters? over/under counter drug users?
>
>count me (1) no (6) yes's
>
>Brian
>Member,Extropy Institute
>www.extropy.org
I listened to an interview on NPRs Diane Rehm Show dealing with this issue. The insurance executive on that show suggested that most insurance companies will try to sell the idea that the higher costs of insuring genetically *at-risk* groups will be spread out across all of those insured. Then he said that what will really happen will depend on the market. Competitive forces will cause an insurance company somewhere to offer lower rates to the more *genetically pure*. He said that if the general public is willing to allow this, then it will happen.
BTW, Diane Rehm's show tomorrow (Wednesday AM) will focus on the recent research on stem cells. She often has very informative guests.
Scott