Jump to content

Politics 2017 part 4


Recommended Posts

Bill in Congress will allow employers to demand genetic test results from workers

 

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

 

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

 

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill in Congress will allow employers to demand genetic test results from workers

 

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.

 

Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.

 

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

 

 

Holy ****, that is one of the most vile ****ing invasions of privacy I've read yet...

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats to be gained by an employer having this information? Weve already been "graced" with UHC, which cannot discriminate or deny anyone for any reason, and everyone is forced by law to carry, so an employer would have no reason to know any possible medical risk factors you may carry. Its not their problem to pay for. Probably a good program for astronauts and future colonists though. Personally, I would LOVE to be genetically tested to see whats going on up in here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats to be gained by an employer having this information? Weve already been "graced" with UHC, which cannot discriminate or deny anyone for any reason, and everyone is forced by law to carry, so an employer would have no reason to know any possible medical risk factors you may carry. Its not their problem to pay for. Probably a good program for astronauts and future colonists though. Personally, I would LOVE to be genetically tested to see whats going on up in here.

 

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

Because it doesn't bring any additional costs to the company. I'm not saying its a good program, and it violates the hell out of privacy, I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information? Usually the gain would a reduction in insurance premiums or something like that but that's not a concern for them anymore since everyone is mandated to carry health insurance now.

 

EDIT: I supposed lost time and productivity would be cost sinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they'd stand to lose the time and money they invested in training the person, thus making him less likely to get jobs and promotions. It lessens the persons chances of having a good life, just because of chances.

 

If nothing else, the company gains more control over it's workforce.

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another way for them to discriminate against people in hiring I would say.

Edited by Malcador
  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill in Congress will allow employers to demand genetic test results from workers

A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.

murrika.jpg

 

Freedom is a beautiful thing.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i owned a tobacco factory i would sure as hell hire someone with zero percentage to get cancer as my spokesperson. Why do you hate my freedom to hire most competent smoker?

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whats to be gained by an employer having this information? Weve already been "graced" with UHC, which cannot discriminate or deny anyone for any reason, and everyone is forced by law to carry, so an employer would have no reason to know any possible medical risk factors you may carry. Its not their problem to pay for. Probably a good program for astronauts and future colonists though. Personally, I would LOVE to be genetically tested to see whats going on up in here.

 

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

 

Because their qualifications may still warrant hiring them.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information?

Which one? The piece suggests the bill has been influenced by the wellness industry who, unlike employers, get unrestricted access to your test results, name and all. They also sell the data to third parties, which then profile you for targeted advertising. The most direct benefit to your employer is the ability to penalize you financially if for whatever reason you opt out. Indirect benefits would include less risk in hiring and promoting people with genetic predisposition to disease (for example, depression) which may lead to decreased productivity. Win-win for all involved... except you.

 

I'm sure you have nothing to fear about genetic profiles being handed en masse to government agencies in "terrorism" or "national security risk" scenarios.

Edited by 213374U
  • Like 2

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information?

Which one? The piece suggests the bill has been influenced by the wellness industry who, unlike employers, get unrestricted access to your test results, name and all. They also sell the data to third parties, which then profile you for targeted advertising. The most direct benefit to your employer is the ability to penalize you financially if for whatever reason you opt out. Indirect benefits would include less risk in hiring and promoting people with genetic predisposition to disease (for example, depression) which may lead to decreased productivity. Win-win for all involved... except you.

 

Unless of course I have excellent genes in which case this is just weeding out competition.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make Natural Selection Great Again!

Forget nazis and their ideological fumbling; let the market decide what the REAL master race is.

Edited by Namutree

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would they take the risk of promoting/hiring someone that has high risks of cancer/genetic disease or other such things that could be a problem to him in the workplace?

Because it doesn't bring any additional costs to the company. I'm not saying its a good program, and it violates the hell out of privacy, I'm just trying to figure out what the "company" gains with this information? Usually the gain would a reduction in insurance premiums or something like that but that's not a concern for them anymore since everyone is mandated to carry health insurance now.

 

EDIT: I supposed lost time and productivity would be cost sinks.

 

Usually a company's insurance premiums are tied to the amount the insurance company pays out in claims, especially if the company is self insured. So it has a tremendous impact on their costs.

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that having insurance tied to employment is a horrible idea, likewise having insurance not cross state lines.

 

Ideally there would be a mandatory federal payer system that everyone could pay into or, if they wanted to, they could buy private insurance - at least that seems like a better solution than what we have now. The government system will be there to cover anyone who couldn't afford private insurance or didn't want to buy it and then private insurance would be there for anyone who wanted additional coverage. At least that's the solution that I thought of off the top of my head.

 

There needs to be some kind of safety net/option and it seems like a rival program might be more effective than subsidies.

  • Like 1

"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation."
-H. H. Munro

 

"Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum."

-Hurlshot

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would let people buy into Medicare, but Republicans in Congress are dead set against it. It's also ironic that they think letting people buy insurance across state lines would solve all the problems, but that means they would have to get rid of state regulation and have a federal regulatory take over, which is something they're also rabidly against.

  • Like 3

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, that's moronism from the opposite end to the 'muslim ban' or a 'muslim registry' and makes me want to give Mr/ Miss Rose an intellectual atomic wedgie. Completely ignoring the massive disparity in deaths due to the two extremist views is at very, very best facile and specious. There are more incidents of beatnik hippies/ rainbow haired SJWs protesting in the streets and being arrested than there are muslim extremist incidents as well, somehow I suspect that would not be regarded as a 'quantitatively, significantly, statistically' large threat to public peace.

 

A muslim registry is a stupid idea, that's a stupid and counter productive counter argument (particularly so since it can be a good counter) because anyone who disagrees has an instant indication of a - genuinely- bad faith argument being made so can dismiss it and any similar arguments out of hand.

Edited by Zoraptor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would let people buy into Medicare, but Republicans in Congress are dead set against it.

But... but... think of all the lost FREEDOM in the revenue streams of insurance companies and care providers! 

 

(On your latter point, I think the thinking is not to have replacement federal regulations, but instead to allow folks to buy from the state they choose.  Which would trigger a classic "race to the bottom," as one or more "enterprising" states would inevitably strip away all the regulations that insurers hate most to attract them to move their HQ to that state.  Sort of like how every credit card issuer is in either DE or SD.  Costs would likely be lower, but it would also make effective consumer protection regulation very difficult.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...