Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > Politics And Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2012, 09:27 AM   #1
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Can You Be Fired for Your Genes? The number of complaints about genetic discrimination is on the rise

In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a new kind of discrimination claim: she charged that she had been fired because she carries genes that predispose her to cancer. Fink quickly became the public face for the cutting edge of civil rights: genetic discrimination.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which was passed out of concern for just such cases in the wake of huge advances in genetics testing, took effect in late 2009. GINA, as it is known, makes it illegal for employers to fire or refuse to hire workers based on their “genetic information” — including genetic tests and family history of disease. GINA doesn’t just apply to employers: health-insurance companies can be sued for using genetic information to set rates or even just for investigating people’s genes.

There have not been any landmark cases or huge jury awards yet under GINA, but genetic discrimination is real. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s annual report, released last month, there were 245 genetic-discrimination complaints in fiscal year 2011, up more than 20% from a year earlier. At the same time, the EEOC reported that the “monetary benefits” it helped collect related to genetic discrimination — in damages, back pay and other penalties — jumped more than sixfold, from $80,000 to $500,000.

These numbers will almost certainly increase greatly in coming years. Many people still do not know about their rights under GINA or even what genetic discrimination is. There will also no doubt be more lawyers developing genetic-discrimination practices. But the main reason these claims are likely to rise is that, as biological science advances, there is likely to be even more genetic information available about people. Tests are getting better at identifying those who are predisposed to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Even though this sort of medical information should remain private, employers and insurance companies will have strong financial incentives to get access to it — and to use it to avoid people who are most likely to get sick.

When genetic-discrimination claims start showing up in the courts in significant numbers, they are likely to get a sympathetic hearing. This is just the sort of civil right that there is the most support for. How much? When Congress enacted GINA in 2008, the House of Representatives supported it 414-1, and the Senate backed it unanimously.

There are two major reasons that so many people — even congressional Republicans who are highly skeptical of civil rights laws — like GINA. First, there is the kind of discrimination it is aimed at: penalizing people for strands of DNA and RNA that they inherited from their parents through no fault of their own. Discrimination law is a tricky thing: there are no hard-and-fast rules for deciding what characteristics of a person should be off-limits in deciding whether to hire them, rent them an apartment or set their insurance rates. In general, our society has decided to protect people for qualities that are “immutable” — that is, something about them that is impossible or, at least, very difficult to change.

So we make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, skin color and sex. (And religion: in that case, people can easily change faiths — we just don’t think they have to.) On the other hand, we generally do not protect people who are not hired because they lack a high school diploma or because they wear a beard. Our response to those people is that if you want the job you should get more education or shave. Genes are a classic immutable characteristic: outside of some complicated medical procedures, we’re pretty much stuck with the genes we were born with.

The second major reason genetic-discrimination laws are popular is that this is a kind of bias everyone feels they could be exposed to. If you are white, you may not think you will benefit from a law against racial discrimination, and if you are straight you probably do not worry about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But none of us has perfect genes — and for the most part, we have no idea what is lurking in our DNA and RNA. Our genes are complex enough that we all have some negative information encoded in there — and none of us wants to lose a job or be denied insurance over it. When juries begin to hear these cases, they are far more likely to identify with the plaintiffs than with the companies that discriminate. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be plenty of companies looking to benefit from genetic information, but if they use it, they may well have to pay.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/20/can...#ixzz1nPKx0WRD
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 11-26-2012, 08:33 PM   #2
DapperButch
Roadster Guy

How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
 
DapperButch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,919 Times in 5,773 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
DapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST ReputationDapperButch Has the BEST Reputation
Default Ironic

It is ironic that I came across this thread today.

This afternoon I went to meet with a genetics counselor to determine if my colon cancer was a result of hereditary or based or due to environemental factors. Really I should have gotten this testing done prior to now, but knowing that my sister went and had a colonscopy, "just in case" after I was diagnosed, I wasn't as motivated as I could have been to get this done. I knew she was "safe" at this time, regardless to her possible genetic predispostion.

Anyway, the fact that I was 39 years old when diagnosed, plus my grandmother dying of colon cancer, points squarely towards heredity as the reason for my illness. I learned today that the usefulness of knowing if it is genetic is not just information for my sister and her children to have. It will also tell me how much of a greater chance I have of getting other cancers if indeed my cancer was genetic. Additionally, if my cancer was due to genes, I will be approved for certain cancer screenings that others my age/lack of symptoms would not be approved for (or something like that...).

Anyway, when the counselor was talking about confidentiality and discrimination, she told me of the change to where employers nor insurance companies can discriminate due to genetic markers for cancer (as Kobi's article states). However, long term care insurance, can discriminate based on this.

Last year I went through a long and somewhat arduous process of learning about long term care insurance in order to assist my mother in her decision about whether or not purchase it. Since she was paying the entire premium up front (rather than monthly), it was a big decision. Needless to say, she did get it and in the process, I decided that part of my retirement plan included purchasing this product 15-20 years from now.

Hearing that a long term care company could either deny me coverage or offer it to me at a hefty price IF genes were part of the reason for my cancer, gave me pause. I learned that I could find out if I have the genetic marker and choose to not pass this on to the long term care insurance company (but would be lying on any form I signed if this question was asked). However, in order to qualify for the early screenings I spoke of, I would have to get this information sent to my physicians. When long term care insurance will request my records before offering me a plan, they will read these records.

Isn't THAT a bitch? Anyway, I won't have to make a decision until after the testing. I will learn what I will be giving up (early/special screenings, and whatever else), by not sending documentation to my physicians that a long term care insurance company could access later.

So while there may be a new law where genetic information cannot be used in discrimination for jobs or insurance (fortunately), there is still discrimination allowed for long term care insurance.
__________________
-Dapper
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Are you educated or indoctrinated?
DapperButch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DapperButch For This Useful Post:
Old 07-31-2015, 10:01 AM   #3
Tuff Stuff
Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch Woman
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
A Squirrel & Her Nut (me)
 
Tuff Stuff's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the Sticks
Posts: 641
Thanks: 846
Thanked 1,190 Times in 467 Posts
Rep Power: 8641637
Tuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST ReputationTuff Stuff Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi View Post
In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a new kind of discrimination claim: she charged that she had been fired because she carries genes that predispose her to cancer. Fink quickly became the public face for the cutting edge of civil rights: genetic discrimination.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which was passed out of concern for just such cases in the wake of huge advances in genetics testing, took effect in late 2009. GINA, as it is known, makes it illegal for employers to fire or refuse to hire workers based on their “genetic information” — including genetic tests and family history of disease. GINA doesn’t just apply to employers: health-insurance companies can be sued for using genetic information to set rates or even just for investigating people’s genes.

These numbers will almost certainly increase greatly in coming years. Many people still do not know about their rights under GINA or even what genetic discrimination is. There will also no doubt be more lawyers developing genetic-discrimination practices. But the main reason these claims are likely to rise is that, as biological science advances, there is likely to be even more genetic information available about people. Tests are getting better at identifying those who are predisposed to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Even though this sort of medical information should remain private, employers and insurance companies will have strong financial incentives to get access to it — and to use it to avoid people who are most likely to get sick.

When genetic-discrimination claims start showing up in the courts in significant numbers, they are likely to get a sympathetic hearing. This is just the sort of civil right that there is the most support for. How much? When Congress enacted GINA in 2008, the House of Representatives supported it 414-1, and the Senate backed it unanimously.

There are two major reasons that so many people — even congressional Republicans who are highly skeptical of civil rights laws — like GINA. First, there is the kind of discrimination it is aimed at: penalizing people for strands of DNA and RNA that they inherited from their parents through no fault of their own. Discrimination law is a tricky thing: there are no hard-and-fast rules for deciding what characteristics of a person should be off-limits in deciding whether to hire them, rent them an apartment or set their insurance rates. In general, our society has decided to protect people for qualities that are “immutable” — that is, something about them that is impossible or, at least, very difficult to change.

So we make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, skin color and sex. (And religion: in that case, people can easily change faiths — we just don’t think they have to.) On the other hand, we generally do not protect people who are not hired because they lack a high school diploma or because they wear a beard. Our response to those people is that if you want the job you should get more education or shave. Genes are a classic immutable characteristic: outside of some complicated medical procedures, we’re pretty much stuck with the genes we were born with.

The second major reason genetic-discrimination laws are popular is that this is a kind of bias everyone feels they could be exposed to. If you are white, you may not think you will benefit from a law against racial discrimination, and if you are straight you probably do not worry about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But none of us has perfect genes — and for the most part, we have no idea what is lurking in our DNA and RNA. Our genes are complex enough that we all have some negative information encoded in there — and none of us wants to lose a job or be denied insurance over it. When juries begin to hear these cases, they are far more likely to identify with the plaintiffs than with the companies that discriminate. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be plenty of companies looking to benefit from genetic information, but if they use it, they may well have to pay.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/20/can...#ixzz1nPKx0WRD
Somehow this rings true to me.People being discriminated against not only for their skin color,race,religion ect but by their "traditions" no matter how taboo or another word for it "politically incorrect" it is for some people.
DNA is strong and passed down through our traditions.It's been instilled in us from way back to where our ancestors originated.Tribes that battled other tribes...survival instinct.And there's this thing called "evolved",I swear to gawd there's still cavemen roaming this earth,*snort*

My "roots" can be traced back to England,Ireland,Spain,and Mongolia.What kind of genetic human traits/characteristics have I inherinted from these four groups alone..either good or bad.They are who I am and I can't just turn it off like a faucet..or maybe I can and it's my ego that won't let me.

Interesting thread
Tuff Stuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:51 AM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018