The Instigator
theman27
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kayleethegreatest
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Medical Coverage Insurance for Genetic Disorders

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 921 times Debate No: 52031
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

theman27

Con

Medical Insurance consistently becomes a major problem for people who are not able to afford it, and finding help with people who have genetic disorders also doesn't make the situation any better. Many people are debating on the fact that by adding genetic disorders as a category or a requirement for health insurance can only increase this problem and add even more or help people who are not qualified to understand the topic and do not need to know much about medical insurance. What good intentions or possible problems can arise if medical insurance requires coverage for genetic disorders?
Sources:
actuary.org/files/genetic
ndsu.edu/pubweb

kayleethegreatest

Pro

There is no questioning if medical insurance should require coverage to people with genetic disorders because the Affordable Care Act states that issuers offering health insurance must provide coverage for all individuals who request it, and they are prohibited from discriminating against patients with genetic disorders by refusing coverage because of "pre-existing conditions". You also stated that "many people are debating on the fact that by adding genetic disorders as a category or a requirement for health insurance can only increase this problem", when in fact the Affordable Care Act promotes prevention, wellness and public health, and supports health promotion efforts at the local, state, and federal level. Some with genetic disorders only have DNA that make them more likely to develop diseases and such, but there is never a guarantee they will develop it. Health insurance helps to find the problem and find ways to slow it down, or prevent it, so why would you deny them coverage to help prevent such health issues from occurring because of the way their DNA is set up?
Debate Round No. 1
theman27

Con


Your argument features the Affordable Healthcare Act, however, people who have more complications than other people will have to pay more for their insurance and for their treatment/medication. People who are unaware of these possible challenges will be filed with lawsuits and certain treatment will be questioned if those people who have unusual/rare conditions that will be brought up to their medical records. How can the AHA benefit the common individual who do not have genetic disorders than ones who do and if what of any further complications that will come to pass?

Sources:

ndsu.edu/pubweb

breastcancer.org

kayleethegreatest

Pro

previous sources: www.genome.gov/10002077
www.medicaid.go/AffordableCareAct/Affordable-Care-Act.html]
Its known as the Affordable Care Act, and it is not limited to one person. The ACA is meant for every person who is seeking health insurance, so benefits are same across the board. Someone who does not know these changes would be at fault of their issuer, because they re suppose to cover their plan in full. Some people worry that having a genetic risk factors for a disease will be considered a "pre-existing condition", and that their health plan might deny them coverage or make them pay higher fees which is against federal law. Without coverage, costs for treatments will be extremely high, while people who don't have genetic risks are perfectly covered and saving their money. Its unjust t leave someone out of coverage because of genetic factors, things out of their control.
source:
http://www.cedars-sinai.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
theman27

Con

Although this act does its best to accommodate the public, certain people can also be denied coverage or at least have only certain implications to the medical needs. Genetic tests are being frequently studied in order to increase funds for Medical insurance along with the studies of lowering the risk of developing genetic disorders or at least decrease the progression of the genetic disorder to the point of being a complication that either ends in death or in serious long-lasting difficulties that only a certain amount of people experience. If medical insurance were to include genetic disorders, what will certain hospitals do to accommodate these new strict guidelines, detect at certain disorders/stages, or provide help to individuals who recently realized their current condition(s) that involve economical and/or emotional needs?

Sources:

healthcare.gov

breastcancer.org

kayleethegreatest

Pro

People with genetic disorders often need tests to get these results. These genetic tests can range anywhere from $100 to $2,000 depending on the complexity of the test, but costs can go up if more than one test is needed or family members need to be tested in order to receive an accurate result. Some people simply cannot afford to get these tests, it is entirely unjust to exclude them from coverage when people without genetic complications can get coverage for tests for things such as glaucoma and pelvic exams, which result in no cost to them. Those tests are meant to better the health of a person, so why wouldn't you allow people to better their health just because of genetic complications? Even people who have recently realized their conditions can get help, its never a case in where help will not be provided because of your lack of knowledge before hand, there may be limited help, but there are still things that ca be done, or provided to help their condition in some way.
Sources:
ghr.nih.gov/handbook/testing/costsresults
medicare.gov/coverage/pap-tests-pelvic-exams-screening.html
Debate Round No. 3
theman27

Con

Modern medical research can only do so much and along with the economical points to fund for it. Typically, there are no cures for genetic disorders for there are only treatments- and for some, treatments are not enough. There are lawsuits out for facilities from people who are attempting to obtain more than what their coverage can apply so what then can medical insurance provide that it does not before adding genetic disorder restrictions?

Sources:

http://www2.le.ac.uk...

breastcancer.org

kayleethegreatest

Pro

It is unfair to exclude someone from insurance or coverage just because there is no cure, treatments are meant to lengthen someone's life. Medical insurance should allow treatments, even when there is no cure, for people who are attempting to lengthen their life span. An example of a genetic disorder would be Leukemia. On average, the cost for treatments are $55,196 -- $166,039 per patient. Insurance should cover a good portion of the costs, because expecting a person to pay it all on their own is unjustifiable, and gives the patient every right to sue their issuer for not providing them with medical coverage, which is the entire reason the plan is in place.
Debate Round No. 4
theman27

Con

In order to understand a common person’s perspective, there is no better than the person’s themselves. If parents were to find out that the child within the mother will have a genetic disorder, the parents can mentally prepare what the child can have or what side effects the child may demonstrate. The medical professionals can then provide the parents with options on what their future decisions must rely on and detail them with the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (2008) to prevent health insurance deduct certain medication/treatment or any other categories of provisions in which patients have the law beside them. The majority however, in which most people do not like to admit it, do not have genetic disorders and would only take into consideration if they have complications themselves. Yet, there are people who take advantage of the Health Care Act, and is limited to, those who win their rights that are not within standards of law. Therefore, these said people have an advantage over the rest and all applicants will not receive the same amount of compensation or use the appropriate system for any potential lawsuits or real medical converge without being caught.

Sources:

genome.gov

actuary.org/files/geneticmono

kayleethegreatest

Pro

[previous source: aflac.com/individuals/realcost/source/#leukemia_children]

Those with insurance still have to pay a certain amount of their treatments, insurance usually covers 50% of the cost for mental health issues, and 80% of the cost for those with physical complications. But those with genetic disorders are expected to pay for all of their treatments, and wont get the coverage that the others do. Lawful actions are completely just because they aren't getting equal coverage. Only those who don't have genetic complications say that it is unfair because they receive "larger compensations', when in reality they want coverage just like those who have it already for non-genetic reasons. The Equal Pay/ Compensation Discrimination law states that you cannot put compensation discrimination in place because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Health care providers are discriminating people because of their disabilities, and not allowing them to receive equal compensation, so the patients take actions with the law in order to gain this compensation that they were deprived of to begin with.

Sources:
www.apa.org/helpcenter/federal-parity-law.aspx
www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Craigsgirl 3 years ago
Craigsgirl
I actually feel that the con side did a better job. I was undecided but now lean more towards the con side. But that's just me.
Miriam L
Posted by Kaystarz 3 years ago
Kaystarz
I agree with the pro side. Like Jayla said below, people deserve coverage for something they did not cause to happen. Each side had a lot of good supporting ideas. However I felt that the pro side just explained better and got to the point.

Kayla S
Posted by Jayla_Clayton 3 years ago
Jayla_Clayton
I agree with the pro side for medical coverage for genetic disorders, because i believe everyone should have a right to be treated for something that they did not cause to happen. People with genetic dsorders often a lower self esteem because they are held to a lower standard than everyone else. If people with genetic disorders want to take steps to improve their health through medical use, then that is their choice.
Jayla Clayton Period 4
Posted by thiskidthou 3 years ago
thiskidthou
Hannah Hays p5 comment right below
Posted by thiskidthou 3 years ago
thiskidthou
I agree with pro. I believe that there should be medical coverage. I believe this because everyone deserves medical coverage no matter what. It just seem fair and right. I believe that no matter a disorder or disease people should get coverage and financial help.
Posted by ryan_gomez13 3 years ago
ryan_gomez13
With this subject my opinion stayed the same. I choose the pro side to confirm my opinion because of the stated facts and hard evidence This proof seemed to always counteract the points brought up on the con side real well. So for this argument I would most definitely choose pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.