SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/health/fda-genetic-tests-23andme.html
For the first time, the Food and Drug Administration said it would allow a company to sell genetic tests for disease risk directly to consumers, providing people with information about the likelihood that they could develop various conditions, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
The move on Thursday is a turnaround for the agency, which had imposed a moratorium in 2013 on disease tests sold by the company, 23andMe, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. The decision is expected to open the floodgates for more direct-to-consumer tests for disease risks, drawing a road map for other companies to do the same thing.
If you could take such a test, would you? Or would you rather just take things as they come?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 09 2017, @02:59AM (6 children)
But, I'm going to Obamacare Romneycare and Hillarycare you anyway.
The insurance companies shouldn't BE able to pick and choose. When they started their industry long ago, insurance was a gamble. Despite their actuary tables and various other risk tables, the insurance company had no idea WHO might be the short lived and who might be the long lived customer. Providing insurance was a gamble, and they stacked the odds as best they could in their favor.
DNA tests promises to remove many of the risks, and help to insure the profits. Not for you or me, but for the insurance companies. Consequently, the insurance companies are going to drive the next eugenics wave. Which might not be all bad, except, few of us are likely to agree with the insurance companies about "desirable" traits.
Although Obamacare was a total flop, there were a couple good things in it. Forbidding insurance companies from rejecting you due to pre-existing conditions was one of those good things. People need more protections from arbitrary decisions made by the insurance companies.
Of course, if we start down that road, I'll soon be explaining why I think the insurance companies should all be reworked, from top to bottom - then be forbidden from ever lobbying at the capitals again. You owe a lot to insurance companies, and it isn't all good.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:39AM (3 children)
I bet American medical insurance would be a hell of a lot better if we kicked out all the illegals with 9 illegitimate babies each, illegals with smallpox and zika, and eliminate handouts for the elderly who could otherwise afford to pay for whatever treatments they need.
But where would the Democrats get their votes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:27AM
The elderly? Vote Democrat??? lol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:28AM
Or if we kicked all those chain-smoking lardasses that constitute the GOP out and made them cover the costs themselves. It's astonishing how fat those fat fucks in red states are.
Here's a hint, chipmunk cheeks are not actually attractive. Get your fat asses in a gym every once in a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @02:19PM
I'm an elderly, illegal, illegitimate baby, and I voted Republican nine times this past election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)
Yes, but consider this: if insurance companies eliminate the source of risk completely, they have no business model any more.
They may make a sure buck by not insuring high risk clients, but if I find out I have a low risk, I won't need them!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 10 2017, @05:09PM
There are still accidents, and communicable diseases. So - you're immune to cancer, diabetes, and alzheimer's, and very low risk for another half dozen diseases and conditions. Along comes rubella, and it really kicks the shit out of you. Or, you travel to Fuckistan, and despite all the prophylactic measures, you get malaria. At age 20, the insurance companies loved you - at age 23, you're untouchable. Sux2BU, huh?