Hey, this is a good stand! I bumped into this and just had to share! And I said I would anyway:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/05/0 2/discrimination_in_the_genes/

Essentially, this bill would prevent insurance companies from keying rates to ones DNA makeup. This has important ramifications in other areas of policy as well. Would be good to take this stand now and build on it.

Given where we are headed, information technology wise, I fully support this position.

does the president know democrats are fully infavor of this?

He's got to. I don't know that it matters though, and that's an interesting quality this guy has. A given issue is either in, or out, of the scope. If it's out, then it gets handled by the will of the people period. If it's in, then it gets handled by his administration, and it's extended partners. I don't think there is middle ground. At least I've not seen any.

This has not yet been made a partisan issue. In this, I think the thought process is not tainted with the need to serve greater goals. IMHO, it's highly likely, for matters where this is the case, Bush is perfectly happy to let Congress do it's thing.

If it gets signed, he will have done good.

Now dammit, I go and post a good Bush thing and get this?

Seriously, good move or bad? Why? Don't care?

Perhaps it's the latter. He can take a good stand because nobody really cares about it?

It's a good move that I fully support.

Anything Bush touches, good or bad, is tainted. While this appears to be a good thing for all Americans, the fact that Bush supports it has set off alarms -- whats the catch? What's he not telling us? Is Dick Cheney involved with this at all? Were secret insurance company CEO meeting held in the White House?

Who wants to go on record of supporting something Bush supports only to have it turned into another embarassing non-wmds mess.

Whats the difference in using genetical markers, and normal blood tests, either of which can predict that your a low health risk? for setting insurance rates?

The blood tests vary, depending on a lot of things.

The genetic markers are constant. So, get tagged as being likely to tip over at age 40, when you are 10 years old and not get hired, pay gross insurance rates, etc...

The difference would be that blood tests would indicate you currently are afflicted with something and genetic markers would indicate you are prone to suffer from something in the future.

Nicely done.

Yeah, what Deane said.

Genetic markers could also be used as a basis for discrimination. Diseases that traditionally affect minorities -- like sickle-cell anemia -- would be a solid scientific basis for rejection, making institutional racism a very simple matter.

I know, the shrub is the fecal version of King Midas, but this is solid.

Northern europeans get more skin cancer, so it probably evens out in the long run.

Herb

Skep, I understand that conviction. Share it actually.

So I only offer this. If we cannot come out and say what is going well, we really don't have the high ground in the discussion as a whole.

I frankly dug hard for something that was just good. Came up short --repeatedly. Did this in response to my own hard query posted here many times, "where are the good stories?" and the follow on, "that make it all ok." A friend sent this my way, after some discussion on the whole topic and how it's played out here. Ended up worth sharing.

This isn't in the make it all ok catagory, but it's clearly in the good story territory. Could yet go bad, but we aren't there yet.

Herb, you are kidding right?

Thank you for finding something positive KSKD. A broken clock is right twice a day, and it is nice to see -- if only for a day -- that our leadership is at least half as good as a broken clock.

Those of northern european descent are at higher risk of skin cancer due to the sun.

Herb

for example, the above post COULD be true, but since it was made by the troll, like things mentioned by the president, we remain skeptical.


kskd, another thing to consider that something that would benefit all Americans might get vetoed or Bush uses some kind of excutive order to circumvent it . . . thus maybe we're sitting around waiting for things to actually become law before we get excited about it. After 6 years, we're simply BUSHED!

true enough.

Hey, Bush Sucks! That's not changed one bit. But nobody can say I didn't go digging hard in an attempt to make absolutely sure. To me, that's important because I know I looked hard, really hard. Given the long chain of poor decisions, this is above and beyond the call.

It's actually quite difficult to engage in a positive conversation. I think you've nailed why too.

Sort of like the same hard to grapple with feelings one gets when a close person does untrustworthy things over and over. At some point the harm adds up and that point of no return is reached.

I'm totally there with this clown, make no mistake.

He could hose it up yet...

(Maybe he won't though)

Along those same lines....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/11/1214/44837

Very interesting perspective on where the GOP has gone, and the damage done by that Bush fellow...

I can't believe the cynicism from a couple of people in here. Do you truly believe that George Bush is in favor of nothing that benefits America? Really... nothing? He is never, ever motivated by the common good of society? I'm sure we'll all agree that Bush has his convictions, and his acting upon them so stubbornly is the cause of a lot of resentment towards him. But you'd have to think he was Satan in the flesh (as Hugo Chavez does) to believe that he never, ever makes a good decision, even on a small scale.

I think he makes very few good decisions.

This is not caused by him being evil, etc...

It is due to a misalignment between physical realities and his life experience, combined with a poor understanding of world dynamics.

He may well have solid motivations, but it's moot because of the above.

Now, I posted this thread to show him looking to do the right thing, on path toward getting it done, and that's all good.

He could still hose it up. The law of averages is on my side in this.

Sorry.