BREAKING: U.S. Senate REVERSED Major Obama Law. He’s Reportedly FURIOUS!

[EC]

That's not how it works.   Completion of a health risk assessment earns a reward under the employer's health care plan.   That makes the HRA subject to the rules regarding medical privacy.   Don't be concerned - the employer doesn't know the results of any employee's HRA.   Just whether or not the employee completed one and earned the reward.   

You've never had a target obsessed manager, have you?

[Suppressed]

Not crap.  I continue to question 'free will'.  God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will??  I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.

@libertybele @Bigun

A bit old now (2010), but I think you might find this short video interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ0BP9JCz_I


And research from last year...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/

[verga]

That's not how it works.   Completion of a health risk assessment earns a reward under the employer's health care plan.   That makes the HRA subject to the rules regarding medical privacy.   Don't be concerned - the employer doesn't know the results of any employee's HRA.   Just whether or not the employee completed one and earned the reward. 
 

@Jazzhead Yeah you are wrong again. Years ago I worked for a company that brought a health assessment van around once a year. The company had full access to our medical records from it. I stopped going once I found that out.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead Yeah you are wrong again. Years ago I worked for a company that brought a health assessment van around once a year. The company had full access to our medical records from it. I stopped going once I found that out.

The company justifies it by virtue of their remittance of their share of the Insurance price.  I expect someone to come along and rubbish all that because the great government we have will protect us (from what we've already seen happen).

[bolobaby]

Not crap.  I continue to question 'free will'.  God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will??  I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.

@libertybele

I used to be an atheist, and this was one of the questions that bothered me.

There is actually a very reasonable answer for this:

Let's say ten minutes ago you made a free will choice. At the present, with perfect knowledge of the past, I say "Libertybele will pick the purple jacket in that choice ten minutes ago."

Does my knowledge of the present result of your past choice *necessarily* cancel it as a free will choice? Of course not. It could very well have been free will that led to that choice at that time.

Now, here's the rub when it comes to God...

God is an *eternal* entity. That doesn't actually mean that he exists forever, as we view time in a linear fashion. It means that God exists *outside* of OUR time. He exists in the past, present, and future all at once relative to us. If you'd like, you can think of him being in a parallel dimension where all points of time between the two dimensions exist simultaneously.

This makes sense, right? Because time is a function of space and/or movement/change in space. If God exists beyond our space, time would not exist for him in a linear fashion. In fact, he would look at our universe and see all points of time at the same moment.

So, like me in the prior example, with perfect knowledge of YOUR past, I can say what free will choice you made without eliminating the "free will" component of that choice.

God knows the future because he exists in it! And exists now. And exists in the past. You need to put aside your causal thought process when dealing with eternal concepts. Causation does not exist for God like it exists for us.

This, of course, is how "God's plan" works. Being an eternal being, God has already seen all possibilities, and knew that - under the current creation - the combination of our free will choices would lead to the GREATEST GOOD... the best possible outcome. That's an important concept to grasp. The internals of the plan may include suffering, but the end result is the greatest good possible. For those that are faithful, and get to experience eternity - which is an *infinite* concept - all of the finite sufferings of this world will become infinitesimally small relative to the infinite joy in Heaven's eternity. It will be like sacrificing a penny to receive a trillion dollars. Except "times infinity." Heh.

There is more, of course, but that should be enough apologetics to chew on for now.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead Yeah you are wrong again. Years ago I worked for a company that brought a health assessment van around once a year. The company had full access to our medical records from it. I stopped going once I found that out.

No, they didn't.   But paranoia is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to complete an HRA.   It's voluntary,  and if you don't want the reward,  then fine.     

[Cyber Liberty]

No, they didn't.   But paranoia is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to complete an HRA.   It's voluntary,  and if you don't want the reward,  then fine.   

Nice.  You don't agree with someone's argument, and it's because of paranoia, mythology or just outright lies.  How tidy your argumentation is, a thing of wonder.

[Jazzhead]

Nice.  You don't agree with someone's argument, and it's because of paranoia, mythology or just outright lies.  How tidy your argumentation is, a thing of wonder.

What argument?  He says he refuses to fill out an HRA because he's afraid his employer will then have access to his health records.   I'm saying he's mistaken about that.  But why should he listen to me?  (My clients generally do, but then again, they pay me.)   

 Paranoia's as good a reason as any other to refuse to complete an HRA.  It's voluntary!   

[Cyber Liberty]

What argument?  He says he refuses to fill out an HRA because he's afraid his employer will then have access to his health records.   I'm saying he's mistaken about that.  But why should he listen to me?  (My clients generally do, but then again, they pay me.)   

 Paranoia's as good a reason as any other to refuse to complete an HRA.  It's voluntary!

You may have missed where he said he's already seen it done.  But why should I point a thing like that out to you?  Your faith in government and laws is almost child-like.

[verga]

No, they didn't.   But paranoia is a perfectly valid reason to refuse to complete an HRA.   It's voluntary,  and if you don't want the reward,  then fine.   

@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.

He has his theories, and those trump any facts you may care to present.  I'm finished talking to him today if he won't clarify what he means by "mythology."  Sounds like he's making fun of peoples deeply held faith.

[Smokin Joe]

You make me chuckle, because you're always up in arms about the government taking away any of your precious "freedom".   Yet you excuse an employer sacking employees for a drink or a toke while on their own time on the weekend.   I understand that an employer has the right to set the rules,  but you seem so docile about employers impinging on private lives with "no tolerance" policies because they're "easier" for the employer. 

Man or mouse?   Smokin' Joe, you're one of the mice.

Mouse? Hardly. Wash the blood and brains of a friend off the floor of an oil rig some time because his crew mates are too sick to. Help bandage a mutilated hand because the guy who reached out to steady himself just happened to grab a cable in motion and get his hand sucked into a shiv. If you want to work in an environment where a half second of inattention can be life changing or life ending, go for it. Just let me know where that is and I won't go there and I'll tell my friends.
Your presence on that job is optional, not required. You can always go flip burgers, but if you want to work somewhere that people's limbs and lives can be forfeit, not to mention the possibility of the 'billion dollar effup', you'd better have your feces consolidated and stacked by the time you break tour, or your ass will get sent down the road with the rest of your stuff.

I have worked at five different jobs which were on the 'top ten most dangerous job' list. Not one of those do I want some jackass on my crew or working around me who isn't alert and aware. Drunks and druggies need not apply.

[Smokin Joe]

It seems to me that our liberty means little if we cannot be ourselves on our own time, so long as we're not harming others.   We zealously oppose intrusions on that liberty by the government,  and act like docile mice when liberty is denied by our employers.   

You may have read my other comment. Your presence on that job is optional. Your being intruded on by the government is not.
If 'being yourself' involves drug use, and you would assert that that harms no one else, it must be lonely being a friendless orphan on that remote island. Weren't you the person contending there were 'community obligations' and here you would blow those off for your high of choice just because you think that has no effect when you are on the clock.
You see, I saw the difference when pre-employ drug testing started in the oil patch. Rig accidents went down. Fewer people got killed or maimed in the course of their employment. Less stuff got broken, too. Not all employers require a level of performance around inherently dangerous equipment that is required in that workplace. Not all employers require pre-employment or random drug testing, either.
Go work for one of them.  Why, you could be a congressman! (One group I'd really like to see tested).

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.

How many years ago was this?   The situation you describe would be illegal under current law.   

[Jazzhead]

You may have read my other comment. Your presence on that job is optional. Your being intruded on by the government is not.
If 'being yourself' involves drug use, and you would assert that that harms no one else, it must be lonely being a friendless orphan on that remote island. Weren't you the person contending there were 'community obligations' and here you would blow those off for your high of choice just because you think that has no effect when you are on the clock.
You see, I saw the difference when pre-employ drug testing started in the oil patch. Rig accidents went down. Fewer people got killed or maimed in the course of their employment. Less stuff got broken, too. Not all employers require a level of performance around inherently dangerous equipment that is required in that workplace. Not all employers require pre-employment or random drug testing, either.
Go work for one of them.  Why, you could be a congressman! (One group I'd really like to see tested).

Drug and alcohol testing make sense for dangerous jobs.   No argument there.   But for most of us,  what we do on our own time,  that doesn't harm others, ought not to cause us to lose our jobs.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@libertybele

Not crap.  I continue to question 'free will'.  God is all knowing, therefore he knows what we are going to do and the choices we are going to make; therefore, how can that be free will??  I have asked this question of several clergy and have yet to receive an answer that is definitive.

I personally resolve that one by noting that God punished Adam and Eve for their conduct in the Garden of Eden.  But if there is no freewill, then God actually made them disobey him, then punished them for the actions he made them commit.  How stupid is that?  Additionally, imposing a punishment for an action that He compelled would be immoral as far as I'm concerned, and would mean that God is not worthy of being worshipped.

More broadly, doesn't having (or not having) faith require freewill?  Because if there is no freewill, then we cannot choose to have faith, but rather that is dictated to us by God.  In which case, we get sent to heaven or hell based on what God forces us to think/believe.   So again, I'd see that as a fundamental immoral position that would make God unworthy of being worshipped.

And you couldn't blame me for thinking those blasphemous thoughts .   After all, I have no freewill, therefore it is God who is compelling me to be blasphemous.

So....

It's either all that, or believe that God is so powerful that he could create beings with freewill.  I choose to believe that.

[Smokin Joe]

Drug and alcohol testing make sense for dangerous jobs.   No argument there.   But for most of us,  what we do on our own time,  that doesn't harm others, ought not to cause us to lose our jobs.

You see I have problems with the elasticity of two phrases there.

what we do on our own time. Fine if it begins and ends there, but if the effects linger afterward, it runs over into other time. A beer will be gone. A case might not be. As for a 'toke', I have known a lot of people who smoke, but none did just 'a toke', they got a buzz on, and often refreshed it. The effects of that didn't magically evaporate by Monday morning, any more than getting kneewalking drunk the night before does.

Then there is " that doesn't harm others'. I have heard the 'It's my body, I'll do what I want, I'm not hurting anyone else." argument before. Invariably, it's wrong. It only reflects a will obliviousness to the nature of interactions with others and minimizes the damage in the mind of the person who commits it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@libertybele


I personally resolve that one by saying that God punished Adam and Eve for their conduct in the Garden of Eden.  But if there is no freewill, then God actually made them disobey him, then punished them for the actions he made them commit.  How stupid is that?  Additionally, imposing a punishment for an action that He compelled would be immoral as far as I'm concerned, and would mean that God is not worthy of being worshipped.

More broadly, doesn't having (or not having) faith require freewill?  Because if there is no freewill, then we cannot choose to have faith, but rather that is dictated to us by God.  In which case, we get sent to heaven or hell based on what God forces us to think/believe.   So again, I'd see that as a fundamental immoral position that would make God unworthy of being worshipped.

And you couldn't blame me for thinking those blasphemous thoughts .   After all, I have no freewill, therefore it is God who is compelling me to be blasphemous.

So....

It's either all that, or believe that God is so powerful that he could create beings with freewill.  I choose to believe that.

I'm an agnostic secular humanist so... free will is a given in how I see the world. 

[verga]

How many years ago was this?   The situation you describe would be illegal under current law.

@Jazzhead The company is still in existence and it is still happening, and no it is not illegal.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead The company is still in existence and it is still happening, and no it is not illegal.

HIPPA protects us in the same manner that an Order of Protection protects a beaten wife, IOW it's waving a piece of paper, ala Chamberlain.  Only fools who trust government thinks that piece of paper really protects anybody.

[anubias]

I'm surprised I agree with @Jazzhead on anything, but I agree here.  "Random" drug testing is a tool that employers use to downsize cheaply.  I have personally witnessed this method utilized on multiple occasions as a first round ploy.  The families of the weekend drug users are generally devastated as they receive no severance pay and do not qualify for unemployment benefits.   "Random" is rarely indeed random.

I would advise the occasional marijuana user to refrain if he doesn't have enough cash in the bank to tide him over until he can successfully regain employment.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead The company is still in existence and it is still happening, and no it is not illegal.

Yes, it is illegal (unless you're mischaracterizing the facts, which I suspect you are).   

[libertybele]

@Jazzhead Yes they did have access to the medical records. Don't tell me they didn't, you didn't work for the company and frankly you have your head up your butt. The Vice President of manufacturing told us straight out they had access to them. Thank you for proving once again you have no clue of facts.

I went to work for a hospital.  Part of the hiring process was completing a medical questionnaire which included listing ALL prescriptions drugs, dosage and reason for being on that medication. ALL past hospitalizations needed to be listed and a blood test was administered.  According to HIPPA laws employers are absolutely NOT supposed to have access to medical records, but that doesn't preclude them from requesting medical information as a condition of employment. They can then use those records  as a deciding factor in hiring someone.  Someone who has diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc., may cost the employer more than someone who has no diseases and are on few if any prescription drugs...especially if they are offering health insurance AND they may look at it as someone who will be taking time from work for doctors appointments or sick days.

Any employer/employee who violates HIPPA laws are subject to penalties and fines.

https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/hipaa-violations-enforcement

[MOD3]

Greetings my friends!

This topic been running for days, the Health Care issue is always a hot topic, as it has been since the 90's at least.  We're not going to solve it here, although we've had a good debate.  Since it's so hot, we Mods have been a bit lenient on our rule of "No personal attacks," and you have all been very good sports about it.  Thanks for being lenient with us!  My inbox of reports could be overflowing, but it's not.

This morning I rolled out of bed and checked this thread to see how we're doing, and I think it's time to tighten that rule back up a little.  I saw one Member refer to another as a "moron," and in response that person called the first a "cretin."  You know who you are.

Enough of that!  Stop calling each other names!  I don't want to lock this thread because there's a lot of great discussion going on about a very important topic (there's an important vote tomorrow), but we need a return to civility, please.