Date: 2007-01-15 11:43 pm (UTC)
This is posted under Gambit account, but it's actually Garrison again. Sneaky fuckin' Cajun.

You've created an interesting case though. Other less favourable genetic mutations which we refer to as health issues have been repeatedly upheld as criteria for declining medical coverage or charging incredibly enhanced fees. What justification is it to hold our beneficial mutations in some different catagory?

As for inherent risks, there are those who's mutations create regular health issues (like, say, Nate's need to buy stock in anti-migraine medication) and those who pose a potential risk. How many mutants here have accidentially set something on fire, or blown up a room? People in pain do strange things, or react to medication differently. What rights do doctors and health care professionals have? It's a lot to ask a doctor to potentially get fried to a crisp by a fifteen year old just pulled from a car wreck and out of his mind on pain, to perserve a right to genetic privacy.

Ultimately, the bill fails to address the larger issue of mutant liability, and is being applied to, in my opinion, an already broken health care system that is not designed to handle it. I'd rather see a comprehensive bill addressing mutant liability and a progressive approach towards training and registration ahead of a narrow industry focused bill. That and an intelligent universal healthcare system in the US.

And decent damn beer.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

x_alchemy: (Default)
Tommy Jones

May 2013

S M T W T F S
   1234
5 67891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 27th, 2025 07:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios