Canadian Genetic Non-Discrimination Act Upheld (www.cbc.ca) 57
Long-time Slashdot reader kartis writes: Canada's Supreme Court upheld the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) which prohibits under criminal penalty, employers or insurers from demanding or using genetic information. This was a result of a private member's bill in Parliament, which meant it passed without the government's support, and in fact both the Federal government and Quebec government (which had gotten it declared unconstitutional as outside federal powers) argued that it extended criminal powers into a provincial jurisdiction. Well, the Supreme Court has surprisingly upheld it in a 5-4 decision, which means great things for Canadians' privacy, and also suggests a wider ability for federal privacy legislation than many jurists had thought.
Re:It is a terrible law (Score:4, Informative)
It's either that or asking insurance companies to actually do their jobs and take a bit of risk instead of just giving them money for nothing!
Re:It is a terrible law (Score:5, Informative)
The whole point of insurance is to
... make a ton of money by never paying out anything if possible, but still spend a shitload on terrible ads.
Re: (Score:2)
... make a ton of money by never paying out anything if possible, but still spend a shitload on terrible ads.
Hip, hip. Cheerio!
Re:It is a terrible law (Score:5, Interesting)
Preventing an insurance from using more sophisticated parameters would not mean they "take a risk": it would mean they produce less sophisticated tariffs which operate on a more broad demographic.
As example, here basic health insurance tariffs cannot use the sex of the insured to discriminate the premium. Statistically, females have a lower risk, but since sex cannot be used as parameter, males and females pay the same premium, meaning that effectively females have to pay a relatively higher premium compared to their actual risk, whereas males pay a relatively lower premium.
From the point of view of the insurance, the premiums/coverages it's still zero-sum, but from the point of view of the two groups, effectively females subsidize slightly the males in the name of artificial equality.
If the issue is corporate greed, just regulate them properly. E.g. here basic health insurance is forbidden from operating under profits: insurance companies have to distribute previous years' profits back to the policyholders if they happen to have made more money that they need to pay coverage and keep reserve.
Re: (Score:3)
What you suggest only works if: a) you have no competitors; b) you have no regulation.
If you have competition, there is no way you can keep artificially inflated prices without soon or later getting undercut by a competitor.
If you have proper regulation, spotting a non-zero-sum tariff is trivially easy. Usually under regulation actuarial tables are mandated, technical interests are limited, required reserve is mandated etc...
I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you live in a situation without competition
Re: (Score:2)
make a ton of money by never paying out anything if possible, but still spend a shitload on terrible ads.
There's a limit to how bad they can be, when there is competition and potential competition.
But golly, it's so highly regulated that starting a new one is immensely expensive.
Anyone who says that businesses always hate regulation isn't aware of this phenomenon. (Or they're lying.)
Re: (Score:1)
Gattaca was a fine movie, but if you're implying it portrayed a simple story of genetic prediction being bad you didn't actually watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what's the solution? Do you want to surrender even that most intimate privacy toman insurance company?
Utter nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
It just means that they have to stick to actuarial calculations for the population as they do now. They make money the same way that casinos do by staying on the profitable side of event probabilities for an aggregate customer base. They can't tilt things even more in their favour by weeding out individuals through technology.
It isn't as if they were allowed to genetically discriminate that savings would be passed on as lower rates for the genetically blessed.
Re:Utter nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
It just means that they have to stick to actuarial calculations for the population as they do now. They make money the same way that casinos do by staying on the profitable side of event probabilities for an aggregate customer base. They can't tilt things even more in their favour by weeding out individuals through technology.
It isn't as if they were allowed to genetically discriminate that savings would be passed on as lower rates for the genetically blessed.
^ no mod points today but that sums it up well.
Insurance companies have been doing just fine for a long, long time without the need to know anything about anyone's genome. I expect they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Nothing good would have come from allowing genetic discrimination even as we work to lessen all the other kinds we already have to deal with.
As a Canadian I can appreciate the jurisdictional argument, and that certainly explains the 5-4 decision, but I'm good with the result. Approximately no provinces would have ever brought in legislation like this at their own level. It's a win, by a hair.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies have been doing just fine for a long, long time without the need to know anything about anyone's genome.
No way! I thought they were all about to go broke and we'd all be without insurance!
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't as if they were allowed to genetically discriminate that savings would be passed on as lower rates for the genetically blessed.
Why not? E.g. if there is proper competition in the market, it would drive the premium down since trying to keep the premium artificially high would mean a competitor would be capable to offer the same coverage for less money and win customers.
Not to mention, regulation can prevent insurance companies from operating at too high a profit, or any profit at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With enough regulation, it does: e.g. the Swiss health care system [wikipedia.org] is provided by multiple private insurances competing under very strict regulation. It is somewhat expensive, but also because everything in Switzerland is expensive and because the quality provided is among the best in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
if there is proper competition in the market
LOL.
Yes, and if CO2 wasn't partially opaque to long-wave radiation, we could emit as much as we wanted.
The fact that it is, means we probably shouldn't, just as the fact that the insurance market isn't anything approaching a free market, and thus arguments regarding competition are inane on their face.
The large insurance companies are publicly traded- you can check out their financials.
You go find me one that runs anywhere close to actuarial zero-sum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally disagree with your conclusions but I don't think you should be modded down. You are out to lunch on the topic but you have a legitimate point of view and you definitely aren't a troll. I don't even know what "redundant" is. If anything, you should have been modded up as "interesting" or "insightful"
So... cheers mate.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be constitutional but it is bad policy. It means someone can get tested for a genetic disease and if they find they have a predisposition for it they can then get life insurance for it without telling the insurance company.
Won't someone think of the insurance companies?
If it stands expect the life insurance in Canada not to cover death as the result of ovarian cancer or other diseases that have a high genetic component.
If there is demand, someone will cover such.
Re: It is a terrible law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It is a terrible law (Score:2)
On the other hand if the genetics suggest you have a risk for something in the future, then that is not the same as a pre-existing condition. Also genetic expression can be highly dependent on the environment, so just because genetics says there is a possibility it is not the same as saying you will be impacted by it.
Re: It is a terrible law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much more useful for most younger people is insurance against being unable to work due to injury or illness, particularly with the astronomical cost of healthcare in this country, and the extremely limited availability (you can't even get health insurance most of the year unless you have a very specific qualifying exception. What kind of bullshit is that?!).
Hopefully Biometrics will be next (Score:4, Informative)
Hopefully they will be adding the collection of bio-metric data as well. People may not realize it now, but that has the potential to become the same problem. Your bio-metrics will change based on illnesses as well, they will certainly be able to track down your medical history the same way with bio-metrics.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Your bio-metrics will change based on illnesses as well,"
I think that depends on which biometric. For example, your fingerprints, and vein patterns in your eyes or palm are not typically going to change based on your heath. It depends on what is being collected. If you collect only the patterns- those are stable. But if, during the collection of a fingerprint, you also measure pulse, bloodflow, oxygenation, skin resistance, temperature, etc, THOSE could reveal health data. And I can certainly see
Re: (Score:2)
This is purely hypothetical but maybe it will be/is possible to determine health related changes based on the change in those bio-metrics. For example, the basic pattern of your finger prints may not change but if you are retaining liquids the spacing of the fingerprints would widen (very slightly but detectable?) and because of this widening of the pattern it could be deduced that you are at a greater risk for health insurance. The same may be applied to retinal patterns. The actual pattern may stay the sa
Gender is genetic information (Score:2)
The EU passed a similar law, and their courts interpreted it to mean no discrimination based on gender, since X and Y chromosomes are genetic information.
So young men and women have to pay the same for car insurance (even though men have more accidents) and health insurance (even though men don't get pregnant).
If you assume the point of insurance is to pool unavoidable risk, that's probably working as intended.
Re:Gender is genetic information (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU passed a similar law, and their courts interpreted it to mean no discrimination based on gender, since X and Y chromosomes are genetic information.
So young men and women have to pay the same for car insurance (even though men have more accidents) and health insurance (even though men don't get pregnant).
If you assume the point of insurance is to pool unavoidable risk, that's probably working as intended.
And that sounds about as fair as you can get. Not all men are driving like idiots and not all women get pregnant, so you shouldn't be punishing them for others lifestyle choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you consider fair. As example, health insurance for somebody born with disabilities or chronic illness would be ridiculously expensive if said individual had to pay its "fair" share according to his/her individual situation.
In most modern countries the concept of "fairness" is more like "everyone has right to reasonably affordable health insurance", meaning that the collective pays as a group so that even those with preconditions have their fair chance at getting insured at a reasonable pric
Re: (Score:2)
In most modern countries the concept of "fairness" is more like "everyone has right to reasonably affordable health insurance",
You’re American aren’t you? In most modern countries, you simply get your medical care covered through a public health system (be it single-payer insurance like Canada, or other systems). it’s only in the US where you pray that you can get “affordible” health insurance for a reasonable price.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not American.
I actually fail to understand what your point is: public health care is the most egregious way to provide everyone with reasonably affordable health care. It's not that since the premiums are paid through taxes that they are ultimately not paid and taxes are typically determined to be affordable depending on income.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand. You're not even allowed to sign up for health insurance except for a few weeks each year.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glo... [healthcare.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
That seems some speciality of the US universal health care system which is quite a bad system and would be wary to use as "representative" of how an universal health care system should operate.
Even said that, the implementation might me crap, but the goal is still to be "fair" in allowing people to obtain health care.
Re: (Score:3)
If you assume the point of insurance is to pool unavoidable risk, that's probably working as intended.
Yes, you can have fewer big pools, or many little pools. The entire concept of insurance becomes more and more diluted as you move further towards the later. At the extreme you are a pool of one and would be better of self insuring that paying someone to do it for you.
Re: Gender is genetic information (Score:2)
Surely if you are a pool of one then the pot only includes your own money, so in many ways youâ(TM)d simply be providing a mechanism for stashing the money away until you needed it?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if you are a pool of one then the pot only includes your own money, so in many ways youâ(TM)d simply be providing a mechanism for stashing the money away until you needed it?
Absolutely. Or even just making sure you have serviceable credit available should the need arise without the need to stash anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I am, the only discrimination for car insurance, besides previous accidents and price of car and location, is how long you've been driving. A new driver pays X amount no matter their age, sex and occupation (besides whether they drive to work or not), with a discount every year without an accident until 8 years later you get a 40% discount.
Pre-existing conditions (Score:2)
From my outsider understanding of Obamacare, disallowing denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions was one of the key points that proponents cheer and opponents hate, but either way, your genetic makeup is just an extension of the same principle. It may not be pre-existing today, but if you are predisposed genetically than that is really just a little bit less pre-existing.
Good thing it wasn't named... (Score:1)
Inaccurate description of the bill (Score:2)
This was a result of a private member's bill in Parliament, which meant it passed without the government's support
This is inaccurate. Firstly, being a Private Members Bill doesn't automatically mean that it's something the Government doesn't support. The Government frequently supports Private Members Bills.
In this case Cabinet didn't support the bill, however backbench members of the governing Liberal Party still voted for it in sufficient numbers to pass. It (apparently) wasn't a whipped vote, and the government allowed members to vote freely for or against the bill.
So it's accurate to say the government wasn't in
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more than that though. Bills can be introduced by Government, or as a Private Members Bill. There is no reason for the Government to introduce a Bill that they don't support and intend to pass. There is also a very limited set of reasons in which a Bill that has the support of Government is not introduced by Government - the process is much simpler for the Government to introduce Bills.
So although technically accurate, it's almost always the case that a Private Members Bill passes without Governm
Re: Inaccurate description of the bill (Score:3)
Governments often refrain from introduce bills that are not part of a planned political program, or which might be used to criticize them.
This bill was sponsored by the now-retired Senator James Cowan, and my member, Rob Oliphant of Don Valley West, ON. It was debated intelligently and was worked on heavily in committee, eventually being passed by the Senate human rights committee unanimously. Similarly it passed second reading unanimously. It was then strongly opposed by the Reform/Conservative party, ev
Re: (Score:2)
It was debated intelligently .....
That doesn't sound like our Parliament at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The DOWNSIDES of non-discrimination (Score:2)
Re: The DOWNSIDES of non-discrimination (Score:3)
Utter nonsense. The bill only applies to insurance and employment. A doctor providing medical care is duty-bound to take all factors into consideration when giving care.
Also, don't forget that in Canada, we all have universal free health care. So this bill mostly applies to life insurance, disability insurance and employment. Health care itself was never an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Utter nonsense. The bill only applies to insurance and employment. A doctor providing medical care is duty-bound to take all factors into consideration when giving care.
Also, don't forget that in Canada, we all have universal free health care. So this bill mostly applies to life insurance, disability insurance and employment. Health care itself was never an issue.
This is another reason I'm glad we have universal health care. While I won't deny it still has some issues that should be addressed, at least it is the case that the doctors work first and foremost in the best interests of the patient, not the health insurance company.
Of course it is Constitutional (Score:2)
Of course it is Constitutional. The two Acts that it mentions as amending are the Canadian Labour Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Those Acts are, of course, only applicable to "Federally Regulated Persons". This means that it is basically binding on the Federal Government and Indians on Reserves, and no one else. For everyone else in Canada, these matters are the subject of exclusive Provincial Jurisdiction. While what the Federal Government thinks and writes down may be amusing, it has almost
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies in Canada are regulated both federally and provincially.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.c... [justice.gc.ca]
This is why the SCC ultimately had to decide this case. It is far from black and white jurisdictionally.
Follow up (Score:1)
Everybody - thanks, I like a lively discussion. If you are interested, I wrote an article for the IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals) examining the decision: https://iapp.org/news/a/canada... [iapp.org]