(no subject)

[x_alchemy]

I apologize that this is a few days later then the initial reaction but I wanted to read further into the matter before making any comment.

I do not see why health insurance companies should not be allowed to ask about the X-gene when deciding whether or not to insure someone. True, it could be said that they would decline people just because of it, but not necessarily for the reasons one would think. I believe the companies should have the right to reject someone if they know they have no facilities to help them if the need arises.

Would one prefer to find out the company has no facility in their network to help with a certain mutation related problem when they apply vice when the help is actually needed? At least if they know about it, then they can inform the applicant of their lack of facilities and thus better their service to their customers. In fact, if they got a lot of applicants and the demand was high, they would then see about adding said facilities to their networks to increase their customer base and thus profits. They can not do this is they are uninformed and they will remain ignorant unless they be allowed to ask. The same could be said of many ‘normal’ alignments that are asked about for insurance purposes.

No doubt many of you will read this and jump down my throat, but I’m disinclined to care. I have said my piece just as I saw many have already said theirs in Forge’s earlier post.

Comments

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

Stupid cold making me miss the rally and consigning me to a state of NyQuil-induced torpor for the weekend.

You've got a really good point. The bill is approaching a different aspect of the problem - the fact that as laws stand now, an insurance company can decline or reduce benefits for a mutant, or someone who refuses to answer the question on their benefits forms.

The actual ability of hospitals, now, is another factor. Some hospitals will turn away mutant patients - I've experienced that firsthand. Sometimes it's due to prejudice from a hospital's administration, but just as often it's due to a perceived inability to treat a mutant patients. While specialized studies have been made into mutation as applied to medicine, those findings have not been adopted as protocol by most private or state-run hospitals. But lack of local facility shouldn't mean lack of insurance. Not every hospital can be equipped to treat certain mutant-related health issues. Not every hospital can do heart transplant surgery either, but insurance companies still pay for that.

Given that there is currently no evidence that mutation presents an inherent health risk (other than in some cases, that of lifestyle), in this case I do feel that this bill is a step forward for civil rights.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

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.

[x-pressive.livejournal.com]

But it's not a question of hospitalization, it's a matter of health care. Not every mutant has uncontrollable blow-shit-up powers. What about someone who needs mandatory immunizations before going to school, or antibiotics for an infection, or just a general check-up? I wouldn't want to pay three hundred dollars out of my own pocket just to have my prostate examined. (Remy, if you're reading this, don't even think about commenting on that. Same goes for everyone else, you sickos.) Or even within the realm of emergency care, what about the mutant kid from Appalachia who gets the snot kicked out of him and needs to go to the ER? Denying anyone health care just because of a genetic quirk is discrimination, plain and simple.

But I do agree that a universal health care system is the best thing, because denying coverage due to finances is classism, and we all know that isms are bad.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

More from Garrison

I'd claim that your system is already discriminatory, but that's another issue. My question is that what right do we have to claim special benefits without disclosure? Yes, the vast majority of mutatation has absolutely no factor on medical care. But the one percent that does makes up for it.

Again, you're asking private hospitals and insurence companies to take the risks in order to protect genetic privacy, irregardless of the potential dangers. Health care records record things like diseases, allergies and health risks for a reason; to protect the care giver and ensure the patient is given the best care possible. Mutation is often very relevent to that, and anti-discrimination legislation is going to go up against the 'right to know' of the hospital and the insurance companies themselves. It sounds like we want it both ways; the right to coverage, the right to privacy, and everyone else gets to assume all the risks for that.

Then again, I wholly support mutant registration in the first place, so I'm likely at odds with people here.