As long as the GOP is in power, I'm not afraid, since they seem to have a thing for voters of a certain set of genetic predispositions that would be worth eliminating.  

Given the GOP's corner on the Hate, Ignorance, and Stupidity Vote, it wouldn't help their cause for society to begin running all their base into the turf.

Once the Democrats return to power, it would behoove us to begin studying the nation's genetic base and begin eliminating all the people with a genetic predisposition toward things like deep frying six whole turkeys for one meal to be served while watching a Busch series race and asking "Where's Jeff Gordon runnin'?"

This has the potential to destroy the life and health insurance industries as we know them. These industries require ignorance of how individuals will fare so that they may use statistics on groups to spread out the risk.

Take this fictional example. Assume that 20% of people nationwide who buy health insurance will eventually contract a form of cancer that will cause health costs to be paid for each individual that outstrip what those persons have paid into in premiums. They are unprofitable for the insurance companies but they are allowed to buy insurance because the seller has no idea which particular person will be one of the 20%. Thus, they are allowed to be mixed into the national pool of insured. They cost the company money when they appear but because only 1 in 5 insured have this problem the company can remain profitable.

But imagine if the persons in this 20% could be identified. By denying all persons in that group coverage the company could greatly reduce its costs. For those people, if they are known to insurance companies, there will be no hope of getting coverage because they are known to have a genetic makeup that is unprofitable.

Assume further that once identified, there is a way to cure one in ten of these unprofitable pre-cancerous 20%. If you are one of those people what should you do?

If you get tested for this disease there is a 1 in 5 chance you will be found to have the cancer genes. Luckily, there is a 10% chance you can be cured once you've been found to have the pre-cancerous genetic signature. Since you've been tested you at least have a 10% chance of being cured. So by being tested 1 in 50 people nationwide will end up cured of a fatal disease. Then surely everyone will get tested correct?

Well no. That would be crazy because you have a better chance of being found to have the disease but in an incurable form since 9 in 10 found with the problem can't be cured. The problem is, now you know you have a gene that will cause cancer but because the insurance companies know too you can't get covered. So should you get tested knowing that there is only a 1 in 50 chance that the test will end up saving your life (20% afflicted with 10% of those cured)? By getting tested you risk being in the 18% of people nationwide that find they have the disease but can't be cured and also can't get health insurance.

Do we really want to tolerate people having to deal with dilemnas like this where they are afraid to get tested for disease because they know their data has no privacy and can cost them health coverage, health care, life insurance, and employment?

As Representative Slaughter has indicated, it's necessary to protect the privacy of citizens genetic information.

This month is the 100th anniversary of the extremely important Supreme Court case on individual rights versus collective state interpreted rights, JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).  The April Journal of the American Public Health Association has several articles about the significance of these decision and how that decision would be viewed today.  In my view, during the last 100 years, Conservatives in American society have seen a 180 degree turnaround on the view of the use of state collective power versus individual rights in areas related to health, and now their view of state collective actions seem to jive only when the power of the state is used in their favor, regardless of the individual right versus the community concept benefit involved!!  If a group ever favors state collective actions in religious areas, aren't they setting dangerous precedents when the political pendulum goes the other way?  Can you have it both ways and what are some real world consequences?

In the Jacobson decision, the Commonwealth of Mass. was given the authority to vaccinate everyone against deadly smallpox even against individuals who wished not to be so vaccinated.  The ruling said that the safety of the majority sometimes outweighs the rights of freedom for an individual.  The religious community was more represented by Jacobson here who wanted the power of the state to just leave him alone in his personal healthcare decisions!!  

What do we see happening today. In the Schiavo case, we see the religious community asking for state action/intervention similar to Jacobson but acting for the individual's rights and beliefs to be elevated over the collective states rights benefits.  Such people want the state to keep a brain-dead person alive even if such action is against what is best for the collective social whole.  That is 180 degrees opposite from the Jacobson decision.  

There are a lot of inconsistencies going on with the religious community's views for the use of state power in such health related areas.  In Jacobson, the religious community wanted the state to leave the individual alone, but in the Schiavo case, the religious community wants the state to intervene in the care of Schiavo.  In the abortion area, the religious conservative community wants the state to intervene in the care of individuals to protect an unborn entity.  Also, in areas of individual due process rights related to freedom from state arrest, and in areas of civil rights freedoms, the conservatives now back intervention by the state here as well to limit individual freedoms such as the Patriot Act.

This all leaves me a bit confused about what exactly is the Conservative point of view for the use of State power.  Do Conservatives believe that religion and individual beliefs are best left to individuals free from state power, or do Conservatives really believe their view is the only view and the power of the state is now needed to enforce that view.  These are diametrically opposite interpretations for the use of state power.  When you look at the pro-choice political position versus the pro-life political position, which one best describes the traditional conservative view of individual rights are best preserved by not allowing state power interventions in the decisions of individuals.  How did conservatives feel about state power actions in cases like Roe V Wade and other cases where the state tried to separate religion from everyday political life?  What is going on here?

There are some real life consequences to this schizophrenic view for the use of state collective power by the large conservative population of the US.  For example, many progressives believe that quality health care is a right and should be paid collectively for all. Quality healthcare, as we now see, can be very difficult to define and afford, so for all out there who favor a universal payer system, just what will be paid for and who will decide??  Do you think the conservatives from Jacobson's day would make the same decisions as the Conservatives of today?  In Jacobson's day, the conservatives would likely back a professional driven decision process based on individual desires!  However, the conservatives of today would likely back a political driven decision process with guess whose political views directing what is paid for and allowed in the universal system.  This is extremely divisive stuff, but would need to be dealt with before any universal healthcare system could be accepted and functional.

Also, if you have gone to a doctor in the last five years, you go on a blacklist that makes you essentially uninsurable if you try to buy it yourself.. (say if the crappy job you DO get doesn't offer it..)

WOULD YOUR LAW MAKE THAT ILLEGAL?