Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House Passes Anti-Genetic Discrimination Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House Passes Anti-Genetic Discrimination Bill

    WASHINGTON - Companies would no longer be able to use genetic information like a person's predisposition for breast cancer, sickle cell or diabetes to make insurance or job decisions under a bill passed by Congress on Thursday.

    The House voted 414-1 for the legislation a week after it passed the Senate on a 95-0 vote. The bill would bar health insurance companies from using genetic information to set premiums or determine enrollment eligibility. Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions.

    Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was the only member of Congress to vote against the bill.
    Feel the Love Revolution!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/...discrimination
    His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
    Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

  • #2
    Say no to more government regulation....enforcing that kind of stuff is not free ya know...and people wonder how the government got so damn freaking big and expensive. Wow.

    Ron Paul has this figured out.

    No where is this kind of stuff in the Constitution either. BTW - A No vote is not an endorsement of such a practice.
    Go Cards ...12 in 13.


    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah companies should be able to discriminate based on your genetic makeup, Ron Paul is the only one who sees it, how silly the rest of them are.
      Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

      Comment


      • #4
        If we could only have the deep insight of Dr. No, we could solve world hunger.

        As long as it's Constitutional.
        His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
        Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by madyaks View Post
          Yeah companies should be able to discriminate based on your genetic makeup, Ron Paul is the only one who sees it, how silly the rest of them are.
          You missed the point entirely.
          A No vote is not an endorsement of such a practice
          As usual.
          Go Cards ...12 in 13.


          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by moedrabowsky View Post
            If we could only have the deep insight of Dr. No, we could solve world hunger.

            As long as it's Constitutional.
            Its not.
            Go Cards ...12 in 13.


            Comment


            • #7
              I want a government regulatory body to ensure the neighbor's dog doesn't pee on my bushes...
              Go Cards ...12 in 13.


              Comment


              • #8
                Well, TTB is on record as believing employers should be able to fire gay workers, so this is not a surprise.
                Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kah View Post
                  Well, TTB is on record as believing employers should be able to fire gay workers, so this is not a surprise.
                  Read the post...I said no such thing.

                  Then read the Constitution. It will do you some good.
                  Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TTB View Post
                    Read the post...I said no such thing.

                    Then read the Constitution. It will do you some good.
                    Memories...from the corners of my mind...
                    Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                    "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                    Comment


                    • #11

                      Right to Work state dipshit.."don't need a reason". I'd hire ALL gays if they were the best at the doing a job...and pay them well with great benefits.

                      Anyone with half a brain knew what I meant. You're lying and distorting again but to those who know you this is not a surprise.
                      Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TTB View Post
                        Anyone with half a brain knew what I meant.
                        Yes. They knew you meant employers should be able to fire homosexuals for being gay.
                        Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                        "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TTB View Post
                          You missed the point entirely.

                          As usual.
                          I didn't miss it, I disagree with it. You vote to not stop people from doing something, you are in fact allowing them to do it.
                          Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kah View Post
                            Yes. They knew you meant employers should be able to fire homosexuals for being gay.
                            Not even close...and we have several gay employees and they makes tons of money for us. You see I like money and I don't give shit about people's sexual preferences in making it. I would fire you though for fucking around so much on company time.
                            Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by madyaks View Post
                              I didn't miss it, I disagree with it. You vote to not stop people from doing something, you are in fact allowing them to do it.
                              No you aren't. Your're merely saying its not the federal government's role to have agency or regulatory body with an agency to prevent it.

                              Pay attention Yaks. The state government could do it...they have the courts to use, etc.
                              Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X