The Briefing Room
General Category => Health/Education => Topic started by: Suppressed on March 10, 2017, 08:19:48 pm
-
It Might Soon Be Legal for Employers to Force You Into a Genetic Test
Sy Mukherjee
12:49 PM Eastern
http://fortune.com/2017/03/10/genetic-testing-workplace-wellness-bill/
Say your employer wants you to get a genetic test. You politely decline because you consider it a gross infringement of privacy. Well, too bad—your monthly health insurance payments just spiked 30%.
This could be the reality under HR 1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text), a House GOP-sponsored bill that would essentially allow companies with workplace wellness programs to demand your genetic information (or force you to pay a big penalty).
The legislation has now passed a House committee on a straight party line vote, reports STAT News (https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/), with all 22 Republicans unified in support against 17 Democratic detractors. The bill is expected to be latched on to a second Obamacare-related legislative effort that will be a followup to the main GOP health care plan now working its way through Congress (http://fortune.com/2017/03/09/obamacare-replacement-plan-republicans-congress/).
Currently, employers with ostensibly voluntary workplace wellness programs can force their workers to pay 30% more (and up to 50% more for smokers) toward their company-provided health insurance benefits if they choose not to participate - provisions that were actually passed as a part of Obamacare and then cemented by the Obama administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The wellness programs typically include (http://fortune.com/2016/10/04/corporate-wellness-programs-health/) basic biometric screenings, access to gym memberships, and health care-related questionnaires.
...
Excerpt. Read more at link.
-
Headline is misleading. It's not "forcing" anyone. It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break. Or saying it's a condition of employment.
So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?
-
Hell no. Not a good idea needs to die quickly.
-
Headline is misleading. It's not "forcing" anyone. It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break. Or saying it's a condition of employment.
So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?
I paid extra premiums one year for declining participation in our "Wellness Program" because I got tired of nagging letters from the insurance company about things like my cholesterol, which is just borderline. If they change it to require genetic testing I'll refuse and resume paying the extra premium. As a conservative, I don't have a problem with that.
If they refuse to insure me that would be another matter. If they make it a condition of employment then it looks like an early retirement for me.
-
Headline is misleading. It's not "forcing" anyone. It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break. Or saying it's a condition of employment.
So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?
This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down. Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.
-
Genetic test! No Way!
Last year our doctor's office, of many years, told my wife that they no longer accepted our insurance. So we found another doctor nearby. On my wife's first visit, they wanted to do some blood work. One of the tests was, you guessed it, a genetics test. My wife objected, but relented and agreed as they pressured her. For that genetics test they billed our insurance for over $21,000 of which our insurance claimed that some $650 was reasonable and we should pay it. Well my wife told the new doctor to eat it as she told them she didn't want the test anyway.
-
Headline is misleading. It's not "forcing" anyone. It's providing an incentive to give up your genetic info...like a tax break. Or saying it's a condition of employment.
So where will "conservatives" come down on this... will they want the government to step in and prevent companies from providing these incentives/requirements?
I'm not a market purist or anything of that nature. I'm not an anarchist. The free market should be there for when it benefits people.
So no, I can say no to this kind of nonsense while still remaining a conservative.
-
This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down. Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.
Not their job to look over our shoulder on things like this or to "encourage" employees to be "healthy".
-
This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down. Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.
Welp, by definition a genetics test is something you really cannot do anything about so any arguments about being the interest of employees is bunk.
-
This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down. Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a
Not to put words in you mouth, but do you find this "health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums" acceptable? Or not.
-
Not their job to look over our shoulder on things like this or to "encourage" employees to be "healthy".
Why not? They're paying the bills.
-
"Currently, employers with ostensibly voluntary workplace wellness programs can force their workers to pay 30% more (and up to 50% more for smokers) toward their company-provided health insurance benefits if they choose not to participate"
I've never had an employer that forced me to accept their subsidized health insurance. If I didn't want it, I didn't have to pay anything. If they wanted to attach conditions to the amount of my health insurance THEY were paying for, that's their right. They don't owe me anything other than to keep up their end of any bargain we made.
-
Not their job to look over our shoulder on things like this or to "encourage" employees to be "healthy".
That's the path we went down when companies started ponying up the insurance cost for their resources uh I mean carbon based wage slaves.
Of course they are going to try and cut that cost.
-
Why not? They're paying the bills.
I'm paying the bills for welfare recipients because I was lucky and won the Lottery of Life by working my butt off in a job. Since I'm paying their bills, I have an interest in whether they're taking illegal drugs. So...by your reasoning I have the right to demand welfare recipients take regular drug screens.
-
I paid extra premiums one year for declining participation in our "Wellness Program" because I got tired of nagging letters from the insurance company about things like my cholesterol, which is just borderline. If they change it to require genetic testing I'll refuse and resume paying the extra premium. As a conservative, I don't have a problem with that.
If they refuse to insure me that would be another matter. If they make it a condition of employment then it looks like an early retirement for me.
It sounds to me like just another method of "nudging" Americans to do something they don't really want to do....ie either charge them more or tax the hell out of them if they don't do something "for their own good". Cass Sunstein would be proud of his ongoing legacy, no doubt.
-
Hell no. Not a good idea needs to die quickly.
So you think it's the government's business to step in and tell the employer how to run his business, @txradioguy?
Funny...on this thread, @Jazzhead isn't the one advocating Big Government intrusion. :pondering:
I think it's a very interesting debate.
-
Why not? They're paying the bills.
Seriously?
You sit here and rail in one thread against corporations picking and choosing winners and losers based on the kind of Healthcare they can offer...and in the next breath fully back a company being able to pick and choose who they employ (winners / losers) because of an invasive genetics test that has nothing to do with whether you are qualified for the position or not.
You seem have some very loose situational ethics when it comes to what matters you want the Government to be involved in and which ones you think they don't need to be.
-
So you think it's the government's business to step in and tell the employer how to run his business, @txradioguy?
Funny...on this thread, @Jazzhead isn't the one advocating Big Government intrusion. :pondering:
I think it's a very interesting debate.
No the government doesn't need to be involved AND this is something the employer has no business getting involved with either.
Let me be clear I am in no way shape or form advocating for big government intrusion of any sort.
-
I am opposed without reservation. Databases can be compiled in ways that I am unable to comprehend or imagine. It is enough for me to know that others can imagine those ways. Heck, maybe I can be assessed a tax because of my DNA/mitochondrial advantages. Or not. I don't know what I don't know - and I'm speaking for the purity of intent in mapping my genetics.
Meanwhile, as a philosophical matter, I suspect many who may desire this genetic testing would find it abhorrent to drug screen a welfare recipient.
Edit: Spelling - drat!
-
Not to put words in you mouth, but do you find this "health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums" acceptable? Or not.
I have no philosophical objection to this. If you're too hung up on privacy to take a health risk assessment, then don't - and pay the higher cost for your health insurance. Most employers pay the majority of their employees' health insurance premiums, so why shouldn't they take an interest in their good health?
Conservatives recoil in horror at having to "subsidize" the bad habits of others. So what's the beef with an employer charging more to cover employees with bad habits that will drive up its health care spend? The point of the HRA is to identify risk factors that the employee can take steps to control. Certain genetic risks are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.
-
I have no philosophical objection to this. If you're too hung up on privacy to take a health risk assessment, then don't - and pay the higher cost for your health insurance. Most employers pay the majority of their employees' health insurance premiums, so why shouldn't they take an interest in their good health?
Conservatives recoil in horror at having to "subsidize" the bad habits of others. So what's the beef with an employer charging more to cover employees with bad habits that will drive up its health care spend? The point of the HRA is to identify risk factors that the employee can take steps to control. Certain genetic risks are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.
My problem with genetic testing IMO is that it seems extremely unfair, by definition.
-
No the government doesn't need to be involved AND this is something the employer has no business getting involved with either.
Let me be clear I am in no way shape or form advocating for big government intrusion of any sort.
You advocate government solutions more frequently than I do.
-
I am opposed without reservation. Databases can be compiled in ways that I am unable to comprehend or imagine. It is enough for me to know that others can imagine those ways. Heck, maybe I can be accessed a tax because of my DNA/mitochondrial advantages. Or not. I don't know what I don't know - and I'm speaking for the purity of intent in mapping my genetics.
Meanwhile, as a philosophical matter, I suspect many who may desire this genetic testing would find it abhorrent to drug screen a welfare recipient.
You can coerce all kinds of forced behavior under the guise of "wellness" and the desire to keep someone "healthy".
The kids of cars they drive...food they eat...activities they participate in...clothes they buy etc etc.
It's a slippery slope with lots of unintended consequences.
-
You advocate government solutions more frequently than I do.
That's a steamy pile of horse apples and you know it.
-
@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...
-
@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...
:2popcorn:
-
Listen everyone - I gotta call it a day.
-
Listen everyone - I gotta call it a day.
Dittos. TTYL.
-
Listen everyone - I gotta call it a day.
A DAY! -There it's been called.
Have a good weekend!
-
This is part of the growing effort to encourage wellness, by tying rewards to engagement in wellness activities that will (hopefully) keep employees healthier and health care costs down. Usually what's at stake is the employee's agreement to take a health risk assessment in exchange for a discount in health insurance premiums.
I disagree.
It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.
it is a right to privacy issue, which is a conservative issue, and this crazy idea is not conservative at all.
-
I disagree.
It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.
it is a right to privacy issue, which is a conservative issue, and this crazy idea is not conservative at all.
...which is why it will be portrayed as one.
-
I don't like this Idea at all. Smacks of Big Brother.
However, as an adopted child, knowing nothing about my genetic parents I would like this test but I wouldn't want anyone to see the results other than myself.
It would be nice to know if there is anything I need to look for in my family history, like cancer or what not, but it would be my information, not my employers.
-
I don't like this Idea at all. Smacks of Big Brother.
However, as an adopted child, knowing nothing about my genetic parents I would like this test but I wouldn't want anyone to see the results other than myself.
It would be nice to know if there is anything I need to look for in my family history, like cancer or what not, but it would be my information, not my employers.
Generally, if you are willing to pay for the thing yourself you can sign a proviso refusing access to the data to anybody but yourself. The problem with this is the mention upthread that a genetic test that would help you spot cancer markers and such is still in excess of $20,000.
-
Generally, if you are willing to pay for the thing yourself you can sign a proviso refusing access to the data to anybody but yourself. The problem with this is the mention upthread that a genetic test that would help you spot cancer markers and such is still in excess of $20,000.
I don't have that kind of money. It's ok I've gone my whole life not knowing, it's all good.
-
@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...
You are a very bad man!.
I'm out of here. Meeting the Mrs for a Metamucil Martini down at the Dew Drop Inn. You all have fun.
-
I don't have that kind of money. It's ok I've gone my whole life not knowing, it's all good.
Same here. Mrs. Liberty was considering it, but when we found out the cost it was No Way Jose.
-
You are a very bad man!.
I'm out of here. Meeting the Mrs for a Metamucil Martini down at the Dew Drop Inn. You all have fun.
Shaken or stirred?
-
Shaken or stirred?
I'd bet stirred. Shaken would disrupt Wings' cataracts and, uh, his naughty bits.
-
I'd bet stirred. Shaken would disrupt Wings' cataracts and, uh, his naughty bits.
Correct. Always stirred. In a tub poured over ice with 2 olives and wave the Vermouth bottle over the glass letting two drops fall gently on the cubes.....
-
Genetic testing would mean flirting with that dreadful "reality" thing, which some States are making illegal.
If I'm a 45 year old bearded male, but I self-identify as a 14 year old Chinese girl, which will the genetic testing report to my employer? Who are they to tell ME that I'm not a woman?, or Chinese?, or Black?, or a giraffe? That's racist, sexist, and homophobic! I see many lawsuits in this.
Genetic reality is infringing on my right to be a delusional weirdo. I'm suing!
-
Seriously, what is the difference in making employment decisions based on a "genetic test" and looking at one's skin color? Neither is something the person being tested has any control of. So if you have "bad" genes or the wrong skin color you are "defective" and must pay more for healthcare and/or are unemployable?
-
...which is why it will be portrayed as one.
Sad day.
I read where all the house republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the house democrats voted against it.
The world really is upside down now.
-
I disagree.
It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.
No it's not. There are protections against just that sort of thing. It's to encourage employees to get information to better their health. Results of the HRA aren't shared with the employer. And completing a health risk assessment must be completely voluntary. So if privacy's your thing, just decline.
EDIT: I just took a quick look at the bill. It seems clear that the purpose of the bill is to reconcile certain inconsistencies between regulations issued by different federal agencies with respect to three pieces of legislation that impact employee wellness programs (the ACA, the ADEA and GINA, the latter addressing genetic testing). Those inconsistencies have bedeviled employers seeking to implement workplace wellness programs linked to a health plan. It is, simply stated, consistent with the Trump administration's goal to simplify regulations that ultimately harm economic growth and cost jobs.
-
@INVAR, I'm interested in what you think of this potential policy of employers and insurers...
If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.
The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.
With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.
Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.
-
I disagree.
It is a way to:
(1) Find high risk people to weed them out,remove them from the payroll (and the company insurance).
(2) Making it mandatory to take the "wellness" exams, thereby when you refuse, they can drop you from the insurance or force you to pay more for your coverage than your other co-workers do. Which means the employer will kick in less.
it is a right to privacy issue, which is a conservative issue, and this crazy idea is not conservative at all.
I'm somewhat confused. It if is currently illegal (supposedly) for employers to discriminate against hiring individuals based on their age....(called age-discrimination hiring)....
then how the hell is this not illegal too?
-
If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.
The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.
With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.
Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.
That's what I thought. I think that way too, thanks for the affirmation.
-
I'm somewhat confused. It if is currently illegal (supposedly) for employers to discriminate against hiring individuals based on their age....(called age-discrimination hiring)....
then how the hell is this not illegal too?
It should be illegal, it would be discrimination by immutable characteristics, like race.
-
If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.
The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.
With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.
Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.
Well thought out and nicely stated. The slopes are indeed slippery.
-
If a private company wants to mitigate risk factors with this information - then the free market can decide that, and whether or not it crosses into the realm of discrimination - will end up being litigated.
The split second government gets involved in this issue - it will be used as an ugly political weapon.
With genetic markers, the ability to label, target and identify persons based on genetic proclivities - will go well beyond discriminating based on skin color and deviant behavior, to a more medieval bloodline/genetic discrimination that will be excused as 'risk factor' elimination.
Government picking winners and losers - always ruins liberty, and with a weapon like this in their control or pocket - what little remains of liberty will certainly be erased.
I think the question is, how much information are they entitled to. Were does privacy begin and end?
-
I think the question is, how much information are they entitled to. Were does privacy begin and end?
In our depraved and wicked culture, the only privacy one is permitted is to engage in deviant sexual behaviors and criminality if you are a liberal Leftist and vote Democrat.
The rest of us are not entitled to any privacy, because as Leftists have been trumpeting now with great fanfare - the plebes in flyover country cannot be trusted with liberty or privacy. Certainly they say that the last election proves we cannot be trusted to vote either.
Those of us who understand the scriptures recognize we are rapidly arriving at the place and time whereby everyone must be married, thought and deed to the beast - or breathing and making a living will be impossible.
This is just one more tool in such an arsenal of imposing that.
-
In our depraved and wicked culture, the only privacy one is permitted is to engage in deviant sexual behaviors and criminality if you are a liberal Leftist and vote Democrat.
The rest of us are not entitled to any privacy, because as Leftists have been trumpeting now with great fanfare - the plebes in flyover country cannot be trusted with liberty or privacy. Certainly they say that the last election proves we cannot be trusted to vote either.
Those of us who understand the scriptures recognize we are rapidly arriving at the place and time whereby everyone must be married, thought and deed to the beast - or breathing and making a living will be impossible.
This is just one more tool in such an arsenal of imposing that.
What if.... the reason behind wanting genetic info on every employee.... has a more diabolical purpose? Like..... cloning, for instance. Wouldn't want to spend time and money cloning someone with bad genes. Sounds wacky? What doesn't, these days?
-
What if.... the reason behind wanting genetic info on every employee.... has a more diabolical purpose? Like..... cloning, for instance. Wouldn't want to spend time and money cloning someone with bad genes. Sounds wacky? What doesn't, these days?
I've had at least one boss that told me they wished they could clone me. :whistle:
-
I've had at least one boss that told me they wished they could clone me. :whistle:
Have you ever told yourself you wished they could clone you? :whistle:
-
What if.... the reason behind wanting genetic info on every employee.... has a more diabolical purpose? Like..... cloning, for instance. Wouldn't want to spend time and money cloning someone with bad genes. Sounds wacky? What doesn't, these days?
Whenever man decides to play God - it bodes horrifically ill for everyone.
-
I am opposed without reservation. Databases can be compiled in ways that I am unable to comprehend or imagine. It is enough for me to know that others can imagine those ways. Heck, maybe I can be assessed a tax because of my DNA/mitochondrial advantages. Or not. I don't know what I don't know - and I'm speaking for the purity of intent in mapping my genetics.
Meanwhile, as a philosophical matter, I suspect many who may desire this genetic testing would find it abhorrent to drug screen a welfare recipient.
Edit: Spelling - drat!
I notice what seem to be trends, often reflected in advertisements for programs, actions, etc., and there has been a definite uptick in the number of ads wanting to document my bloodline or have my genetics tested.
An uncle did the geneology, back to before the Norman Conquest, so I doubt any outfit is going to provide me with much that isn't already available to me. Never mind that.
I also noted the selling angle that "I didn't know where I came from" being used to nudge people toward DNA testing to determine ancestry.
Overall, though, it seems someone out there wants to build databases of DNA, which can of course, be one of the most valuable tools totalitarians and eugenicists ever had.
Nothing like being able to say this group is the untermenschen, this the ubermenschen, and thus these will be used as thrall or eliminated, these as slaves or servants, while the rest will be the overlords (if they just have the right DNA).
Sorry, but I see a future of abuse, of targeting individuals for organ donation, a thousand abuses that can and will be justified by DNA, rather than allow for people to succeed or fail based on their willingness to work hard and be creative.
So, not only no, but Hell No.
-
The horrors of science fiction novels are not difficult to conjure up here.
Let's say we begin mapping people's genetic make-up for the purposes of health wellness and management. All is good. Now... your young son or daughter develops a grave illness. Well, let's have a look... Oh... little Tommy or Katie has terribly flawed markers in their genetics. Hmmm... we need to withhold the expensive treatment because... well, he/she is "flawed" and likely to have a short, unproductive life. Expensive for the system, too. The sound business decision is to make him/her comfortable and let them expire in due course.
Does this really sound too far-fetched?
-
Certain genetic risks are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.
"Educated"? "encouraged" ?
OFF TO CAMP WITH YOU!
-
I notice what seem to be trends, often reflected in advertisements for programs, actions, etc., and there has been a definite uptick in the number of ads wanting to document my bloodline or have my genetics tested.
An uncle did the geneology, back to before the Norman Conquest, so I doubt any outfit is going to provide me with much that isn't already available to me. Never mind that.
I also noted the selling angle that "I didn't know where I came from" being used to nudge people toward DNA testing to determine ancestry.
Overall, though, it seems someone out there wants to build databases of DNA, which can of course, be one of the most valuable tools totalitarians and eugenicists ever had.
Nothing like being able to say this group is the untermenschen, this the ubermenschen, and thus these will be used as thrall or eliminated, these as slaves or servants, while the rest will be the overlords (if they just have the right DNA).
Sorry, but I see a future of abuse, of targeting individuals for organ donation, a thousand abuses that can and will be justified by DNA, rather than allow for people to succeed or fail based on their willingness to work hard and be creative.
So, not only no, but Hell No.
Just wait until we're required to get a government permit to have children. Favorable DNA will get incentives and unfavorable DNA will get deterrents if not worse.
-
Yo @Quix you see this?
-
Genetic testing would mean flirting with that dreadful "reality" thing, which some States are making illegal.
If I'm a 45 year old bearded male, but I self-identify as a 14 year old Chinese girl, which will the genetic testing report to my employer? Who are they to tell ME that I'm not a woman?, or Chinese?, or Black?, or a giraffe? That's racist, sexist, and homophobic! I see many lawsuits in this.
Genetic reality is infringing on my right to be a delusional weirdo. I'm suing!
Well, it could be interesting watching all the 'psychotic breaks' (via satellite, of course).
-
Certain genetic risks are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.
Very disturbing. Lets have government force on you what government says is healthy and penalize you for what it says is unhealthy. Your good intentions are just slavery and making people property of the state to do as they see fit for the "greater good". The "science" says having the wrong attitude is bad for your health and the government is going to correct that attitude...
How foolish can you be?
-
In our depraved and wicked culture, the only privacy one is permitted is to engage in deviant sexual behaviors and criminality if you are a liberal Leftist and vote Democrat.
The rest of us are not entitled to any privacy, because as Leftists have been trumpeting now with great fanfare - the plebes in flyover country cannot be trusted with liberty or privacy. Certainly they say that the last election proves we cannot be trusted to vote either.
Those of us who understand the scriptures recognize we are rapidly arriving at the place and time whereby everyone must be married, thought and deed to the beast - or breathing and making a living will be impossible.
This is just one more tool in such an arsenal of imposing that.
Yep. That's about how it looks from the cheap seats.
-
The point of the HRA is to identify risk factors that the employee can take steps to control. Certain genetic risks are made riskier by bad habits - and the employee can be educated or encouraged to take part in wellness activities to help him live healthier.
Don't eat apples/eat apples, don't eat eggs/ eat eggs, don't eat butter/butter is better for you, et cetera.
How many studies have we seen deeming something to be 'bad' for us when it turns out it wasn't, how often have we been told something is 'good' when it isn't?
This is nonsense. Neither the government nor the medical profession would even assert the 'science is settled', yet they want to impose it? No thanks, I'm not a lab rat.
-
@Jazzhead
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. Lewis
-
Yo @Quix you see this?
Hey wait! We got the makin's of a futuristic dystopia sci- fi novel. It will get better.
-
The horrors of science fiction novels are not difficult to conjure up here.
Let's say we begin mapping people's genetic make-up for the purposes of health wellness and management. All is good. Now... your young son or daughter develops a grave illness. Well, let's have a look... Oh... little Tommy or Katie has terribly flawed markers in their genetics. Hmmm... we need to withhold the expensive treatment because... well, he/she is "flawed" and likely to have a short, unproductive life. Expensive for the system, too. The sound business decision is to make him/her comfortable and let them expire in due course.
Does this really sound too far-fetched?
Not at all. How many parents of perfectly normal children have been encouraged to abort because of possible birth defects? How long before that becomes mandatory under such a program? (Or "encouraged"? as in they will pay for the abortion, but not ever cover the child, maternity, or any costs associated with it.)
The new ubermensch, the new camps. It doesn't take science fiction to get there, only to be decanting the Alphas, Betas, and Gammas out of the artificial wombs (Brave New World, Aldous Huxley).
-
@Jazzhead
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. Lewis
QFT
-
What if.... the reason behind wanting genetic info on every employee.... has a more diabolical purpose? Like..... cloning, for instance. Wouldn't want to spend time and money cloning someone with bad genes. Sounds wacky? What doesn't, these days?
You do realize, don't you, just how stupid you sound?
Wellness programs are perfectly benign. Employers are trying save health care dollars and they want to encourage healthy habits among the workforce. What the heck is wrong with that? Folks live longer, and employers save money. One of the more useful takeaways from a health risk assessment is to alert folks to issues that they can address by changing bad habits. Like diabetes. To be able for the health plan to provide such information, family medical history can be quite relevant. And that's the "genetic information" problem faced by wellness programs. The bill appears to be an attempt to facilitate the promulgation of effective wellness programs, that VOLUNTARILY obtain family medical history in order to formulate an action plan for an employee.
These programs do work, you know. They bring down an employer's health care spend and, well, I hate to say it to all you rugged individualists, gets some employees to clean up their acts - eating healthier, giving up smoking, losing weight, you name it . You know, good old socialist paternalism, in the name of helping an employer rein in skyrocketing health care costs.
-
Very disturbing. Lets have government force on you what government says is healthy and penalize you for what it says is unhealthy. Your good intentions are just slavery and making people property of the state to do as they see fit for the "greater good". The "science" says having the wrong attitude is bad for your health and the government is going to correct that attitude...
How foolish can you be?
Note to Board administrator: We really, really need a "rolleyes" smiley.
-
You do realize, don't you, just how stupid you sound?
Did she really just say that employers want genetic testing for cloning?
-
Whenever man decides to play God - it bodes horrifically ill for everyone.
Whenever man has the hubris to prance about like you saying he knows the mind of God, it bodes horrifically ill.
-
Did she really just say that employers want genetic testing for cloning?
It would appear so.
The irony is, I know so many employers that really do care about the health of their workforce, and not just to improve the bottom line.
-
You do realize, don't you, just how stupid you sound?
Wellness programs are perfectly benign. Employers are trying save health care dollars and they want to encourage healthy habits among the workforce. What the heck is wrong with that? Folks live longer, and employers save money. One of the more useful takeaways from a health risk assessment is to alert folks to issues that they can address by changing bad habits. Like diabetes. To be able for the health plan to provide such information, family medical history can be quite relevant. And that's the "genetic information" problem faced by wellness programs. The bill appears to be an attempt to facilitate the promulgation of effective wellness programs, that VOLUNTARILY obtain family medical history in order to formulate an action plan for an employee.
These programs do work, you know. They bring down an employer's health care spend and, well, I hate to say it to all you rugged individualists, gets some employees to clean up their acts - eating healthier, giving up smoking, losing weight, you name it . You know, good old socialist paternalism, in the name of helping an employer rein in skyrocketing health care costs.
Well, we've already determined your level of stupidity (it is well-documented by now). And notice....
I DID say "sounds wacky?" (note the question mark, as well).
Other than that.... you can KMA.
-
I've had at least one boss that told me they wished they could clone me. :whistle:
Lol....yeah. I had a boyfriend once that I wished I could clone. He was a good cook and really liked to cook for me, was a licensed massage therapist, didn't mind shopping with, loved the same music (smooth jazz and blues) AND was damned good in the sack. Oh...yeah.
-
Lol....yeah. I had a boyfriend once that I wished I could clone. He was a good cook and really liked to cook for me, was a licensed massage therapist, didn't mind shopping with, loved the same music (smooth jazz and blues) AND was damned good in the sack. Oh...yeah.
So he was a lesbian? :smokin:
-
Well, it could be interesting watching all the 'psychotic breaks' (via satellite, of course).
I said it in a sarcastic way but it is a real point. Imagine if Elizabeth Warren got outed as being a White Scandinavian, which she clearly is, after representing herself as a minority Native American. Could she be fired? What about people who represent themselves as Black or Hispanic who are not? Can they be fired? They're also going to find women pretending to be men and men who pretend to be a woman.
This would open up some deep legal issues way outside of any medical concerns. Genetic profiling is as deeply personal and unabridged information about you as it gets.
A Chinese person may find out that they are Korean. A White Supremist may find out that they are Jewish. You can never know what may happen. The information may lead to extortion or possibly blackmail. Who knows?
The results could shatter lives. And all of these issues are well outside of the purview of any employer.
-
Did she really just say that employers want genetic testing for cloning?
What part of that "What if" (indicating pure speculation vs. certainty) are you and Beavis here incapable of comprehending? (all of it, obviously)
-
So he was a lesbian? :smokin:
Lol.....trapped in a good-looking man's body? No comment....hehehe
-
Lol.....trapped in a good-looking man's body? No comment....hehehe
Just as I thought! :laugh:
-
Get a room!
-
Whenever man has the hubris to prance about like you saying he knows the mind of God, it bodes horrifically ill.
Anyone who actually reads and understands the bible knows the mind of God.
But since you know and understand neither, you are just a pawn of demons.
-
Wellness programs are perfectly benign.
Until the government begins mandating and pushing them.
Then they become a tool of genocidal maniacs, to the applause of people like you.
-
Four pages and no one has yet mentioned the biggest non-privacy related problem with this?
Genetic testing is all very well, but it's fairly useless as a medical predictor for all but a handful of conditions. In 95% of cases, genes are paired, at minimum. Which gene(s) gets expressed is random chance, so saying someone has a genetic predisposition to thalasemia, for example, is about as useful as saying they have a chance to be struck by lightning.
About the only thing genetic testing is good for is a breeding chart.
-
I've had a lot of genetic issues with my secretary, but the dry cleaners was always able to get them out.
-
I've had a lot of genetic issues with my secretary, but the dry cleaners was always able to get them out.
It's too bad for William Jefferson Clinton that Monica Lewinsky didn't know your Dry Cleaners Frank.
-
It's too bad for William Jefferson Clinton that Monica Lewinsky didn't know your Dry Cleaners Frank.
Everyone thinks the Chinese run the best dry cleaners. Wrong. It's the Koreans.
-
It would appear so.
The irony is, I know so many employers that really do care about the health of their workforce, and not just to improve the bottom line.
Yadda Yadda yadda. After all the employer has made an investment in training the worker, yadda yadda, and we can't have those people just doing what the hell they want on their OWN time, now, can we?
Do you have any idea how that sounds?
I can understand drug screening--that affects workplace safety, not just employee performance. But if I'm not getting paid, it's MY time, and I'll do with it what I damn well please. Any employer who has a problem with that can kiss my ass.
Employers pay for our time and expertise, not control over every facet of my time. If they want to pay me to piss around on a treadmill, that's one thing. If not, forget it.
-
What part of that "What if" (indicating pure speculation vs. certainty) are you and Beavis here incapable of comprehending? (all of it, obviously)
Not so speculative, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning)
-
It Might Soon Be Legal for Employers to Force You Into a Genetic Test
Excerpt. Read more at link.
I don't do 'wellness programs', home owners assocs or any other social control idiocy. If employers want to force this on employees, I don't work for them. Over the course of my life I turned down some high paying jobs specifically because the employment contract would have resulted in things I deemed unacceptable. I made less money but I look at myself in mirrors without recoiling at my visage.
-
Yo @Quix you see this?
YEAH. Thanks.
VERY sobering, imho.
Sigh.
-
Yadda Yadda yadda. After all the employer has made an investment in training the worker, yadda yadda, and we can't have those people just doing what the hell they want on their OWN time, now, can we?
Do you have any idea how that sounds?
I can understand drug screening--that affects workplace safety, not just employee performance. But if I'm not getting paid, it's MY time, and I'll do with it what I damn well please. Any employer who has a problem with that can kiss my ass.
Employers pay for our time and expertise, not control over every facet of my time. If they want to pay me to piss around on a treadmill, that's one thing. If not, forget it.
Of course. And AMEN TO THAT!
However,
It is the oligarchy's plan that we more overtly become OWNED PROPERTY of theirs--at least of the various multi-national corporations--as their serfs and more likely slaves. They think the idea of us having our own free will and doing what we want is inefficient as well as a threat to their tyranny, their power.
-
Yadda Yadda yadda. After all the employer has made an investment in training the worker, yadda yadda, and we can't have those people just doing what the hell they want on their OWN time, now, can we?
Do you have any idea how that sounds?
I can understand drug screening--that affects workplace safety, not just employee performance. But if I'm not getting paid, it's MY time, and I'll do with it what I damn well please. Any employer who has a problem with that can kiss my ass.
Employers pay for our time and expertise, not control over every facet of my time. If they want to pay me to piss around on a treadmill, that's one thing. If not, forget it.
Understood! You like your freedom and you want to be left alone. We all do - but don't let that cloud you to the reality that these are voluntary programs. Sure, the employer wants its workforce to be healthy - and lots of employees don't mind getting a discount on their medical insurance in order to get resources to live healthier. This isn't tyranny, it's an employer trying to protect a capital asset.
We all like a good discount Well, okay, not all - and that's the point. These are voluntary programs. They're linked to discounts on medical insurance, and hence are plans subject to ERISA, including strict requirements regarding privacy including that the data can't be used to, say, get someone fired.
Skyrocketing health care costs ultimately mean fewer jobs. This is a tool that can work. If you want to play the curmudgeon, don't fill out an HRA.
-
Of course. And AMEN TO THAT!
However,
It is the oligarchy's plan that we more overtly become OWNED PROPERTY of theirs--at least of the various multi-national corporations--as their serfs and more likely slaves. They think the idea of us having our own free will and doing what we want is inefficient as well as a threat to their tyranny, their power.
They're right, especially the last part.
What they fail to recognize, is that in some unplanned, non-centrally-controlled, muddling way, humankind has succeeded in making advancements in garages and workshops and homegrown labs, without their central planning, in fact advancements that all too often they railed against, refused to fund research into, that only through the unfailing belief, perseverance, and diligence of their creators were made at all. Impediments are placed in the way whenever possible, from zoning laws to other legal barriers, with excuses from maintaining property values to the public safety.
Of course, the members of the oligarchy commonly and promptly will steal those ideas, once proven, and claim them the result of their personal genius (while the money rolls in).
It is no accident that we have gone from a culture which crafted engines and vehicles in their backyard workshop to people who can't turn a wrench, from scratch building airplanes to wishing for that flying car (maybe in another 50 years), from building our own cars to regulations that won't permit such tinkering because they require systems too complex for the average person to work on. It's called control, be it economic or intellectual, it all boils down to controlling the worker drones like a piece of production equipment, and will end in the workers being discarded like a piece of worn out machinery when they are no longer useful.
-
Understood! You like your freedom and you want to be left alone. We all do - but don't let that cloud you to the reality that these are voluntary programs. Sure, the employer wants its workforce to be healthy - and lots of employees don't mind getting a discount on their medical insurance in order to get resources to live healthier. This isn't tyranny, it's an employer trying to protect a capital asset.
We all like a good discount Well, okay, not all - and that's the point. These are voluntary programs. They're linked to discounts on medical insurance, and hence are plans subject to ERISA, including strict requirements regarding privacy including that the data can't be used to, say, get someone fired.
Skyrocketing health care costs ultimately mean fewer jobs. This is a tool that can work. If you want to play the curmudgeon, don't fill out an HRA.
Voluntary? Sure, like the income tax. Like Obamacare. Voluntarily lay down and grovel before your masters or feel the lash!
The difference isn't a discount, it is a penalty for those who will not sell their birthright for a mass of pottage.
Skyrocketing health costs are a result of intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship. This is an even more egregious intrusion. As for data being used to get someone fired, well, there is always a way. Ask anyone from one of those protected groups you know and advocate about that and I'm sure they all have a story about being made unwelcome at (or simply removed from) a job in a way that didn't break any laws.
As for privacy, try again. My social security card clearly says that it is for tax purposes only and not for identification. Really? Data, once collected, will be used. Just say no.
-
You like your freedom and you want to be left alone. We all do - but don't let that cloud you to the reality that these are voluntary programs....This isn't tyranny.....These are voluntary programs...
Our Government and Tyranny Apologist once again showcases his skills at justifying despotism.
You are an idiot if you believe that any program the government touches ever remains 'voluntary'. Every single time a 'benevolent tax/program/initiative' is enacted, it becomes a permanent mandatory obligation.
The Income Tax was initially voluntary. Same with SoSec. In addition to what is always first stated about an eternal government mandate - my SoSec card explicitly states that it cannot be used for identification purposes, and yet you cannot do a thing in this country without one, unless you are an illegal alien.
If Government is involved in ANY capacity - voluntary will always become a mandated obligation and compulsory.
-
Voluntary? Sure, like the income tax. Like Obamacare. Voluntarily lay down and grovel before your masters or feel the lash!
The difference isn't a discount, it is a penalty for those who will not sell their birthright for a mass of pottage.
Skyrocketing health costs are a result of intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship. This is an even more egregious intrusion. As for data being used to get someone fired, well, there is always a way. Ask anyone from one of those protected groups you know and advocate about that and I'm sure they all have a story about being made unwelcome at (or simply removed from) a job in a way that didn't break any laws.
As for privacy, try again. My social security card clearly says that it is for tax purposes only and not for identification. Really? Data, once collected, will be used. Just say no.
Sadly I did not read replies past the last justification by our resident Leftist the prompted my above. Nice to know his comments spurned nearly the same thoughts in rebuttal.
As to your advice to 'just say no' to our cherished Leftist, you and I both know his purpose here is to persuade everyone to say 'yes' to government Socialism, central planning and tyranny in the Name of 'fairness' and 'equality'.
-
Sadly I did not read replies past the last justification by our resident Leftist the prompted my above. Nice to know his comments spurned nearly the same thoughts in rebuttal.
As to your advice to 'just say no' to our cherished Leftist, you and I both know his purpose here is to persuade everyone to say 'yes' to government Socialism, central planning and tyranny in the Name of 'fairness' and 'equality'.
That has been my observation as well. I am having a hard time thinking of a Liberal or Statist or even "private" program (readily adapted for totalitarianism) the poster has advocated against.
It remains to the rest of us then, to point out the fallacies, the threats to liberty, the potential for abuse, or the clear and present abusive of those viewpoints, the inherent danger in things designed to be seductive and presented as wonders to the masses.
Sure, everyone wants a spaceship ride, but there is that cookbook.
I'd recommend reading Childhood's End (Arthur C Clarke) for those who haven't.
Syfy did the story in a three part series as well.
-
Four pages and no one has yet mentioned the biggest non-privacy related problem with this?
Genetic testing is all very well, but it's fairly useless as a medical predictor for all but a handful of conditions. In 95% of cases, genes are paired, at minimum. Which gene(s) gets expressed is random chance, so saying someone has a genetic predisposition to thalasemia, for example, is about as useful as saying they have a chance to be struck by lightning.
About the only thing genetic testing is good for is a breeding chart.
You mean.... like.... for the "mine-shaft gap" scenario?
:silly: :silly: :silly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
-
That has been my observation as well. I am having a hard time thinking of a Liberal or Statist or even "private" program (readily adapted for totalitarianism) the poster has advocated against.
Everything antithetical and anathema to Biblical morality and Constitutional Liberty, he is vociferously argumentatively for, and against everything tied to biblical morality and Constitutional limits on Government. Not to mention his Apologetics for Islam and his numerous stated hatreds and attacks on Christianity and the bible - which he has declared 'a myth'.
-
Not so speculative, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning)
There is no way in hell that they can state that accurately.
...but is not in medical practice anywhere in the world, as of January 2017.
In fact, I would bet money that some evil loon/wacko somewhere is trying to clone humans as we speak. The "evil" demands it (slave labor workforce and army), dontcha know. Think: Mengele.
-
There is no way in hell that they can state that accurately.
In fact, I would bet money that some evil loon/wacko somewhere is trying to clone humans as we speak. The "evil" demands it (slave labor workforce and army), dontcha know. Think: Mengele.
Cloning has not been taken to full term, actually not past very early stages with humans. Not to speak of, anyway. Think spare parts, with no rejection issues, and there are people who would gladly kill for them. If the 'person' (would a clone be considered a person?) never officially existed, is it still murder?
-
If some wanted to clone you they wouldn't need genetic testing, just a sample of your saliva or blood.
-
If some wanted to clone you they wouldn't need genetic testing, just a sample of your saliva or blood.
And what will they get from that? DNA, your genetic code.
-
And what will they get from that? DNA, your genetic code.
I think it's more about genome mapping than cloning, anyway. Insurance companies are always looking for ways to improve their risk assessments, and I think the genome analysis is way too new to start drawing those kinds of conclusions. I'd also note it's really expensive still, which would mean it's not worth it (yet). I think employers and insurance companies are just trying to get their markers down, to see what people are willing to accept. I rather doubt this is going to get a good reception.
-
Cloning has not been taken to full term, actually not past very early stages with humans. Not to speak of, anyway. Think spare parts, with no rejection issues, and there are people who would gladly kill for them. If the 'person' (would a clone be considered a person?) never officially existed, is it still murder?
Good question. When does the state of being "human" start and how? Artificial insemination can start it artificially, but it is still a "human" and a person. What other ways to create a human would qualify the product as a person? Dunno.
-
If some wanted to clone you they wouldn't need genetic testing, just a sample of your saliva or blood.
But....if (and note I said "if" ....duh)..... they (and by they I don't mean employers, I mean wacko NWO madmen somewhere) did want to try to clone someone, they wouldn't want to waste their time on cloning someone that might have 'bad genes' or some genetic defect. They would want to find out as much about the genetic makeup of the subject as possible, logically, before going to the effort and expense. Who knows? But it's interesting to speculate on.
-
But....if (and note I said "if" ....duh)..... they (and by they I don't mean employers, I mean wacko NWO madmen somewhere) did want to try to clone someone, they wouldn't want to waste their time on cloning someone that might have 'bad genes' or some genetic defect. They would want to find out as much about the genetic makeup of the subject as possible, logically, before going to the effort and expense. Who knows? But it's interesting to speculate on.
Good point. One would think Quality Control is important to such an endeavor. Hey, I saw Young Frankenstein...all that hard work and he ends up with a brain from Abbie Normal.
-
Good point. One would think Quality Control is important to such an endeavor. Hey, I saw Young Frankenstein...all that hard work and he ends up with a brain from Abbie Normal.
It's hard to get good help nowadays...
-
I'm curious if anybody writing here, has experience with DNA testing for genealogy purposes?
Ancestry.com matches family for instance. Other services do it as well.
23 and me.com specializes in medical issues, I believe.
DNA is widely used now, for law enforcement and criminal trial cases. DNA is used for paternity issues.
If an employee voluntarily allowed his DNA to be taken, would you allow the state to change a law later, to make his sample available to law enforcement for rape cases ?
In the OJ Simpson jury's case, it is said one juror stated "what about DNA? Everybody gots DNA."
-
I'm curious if anybody writing here, has experience with DNA testing for genealogy purposes?
Ancestry.com matches family for instance. Other services do it as well.
23 and me.com specializes in medical issues, I believe.
DNA is widely used now, for law enforcement and criminal trial cases. DNA is used for paternity issues.
If an employee voluntarily allowed his DNA to be taken, would you allow the state to change a law later, to make his sample available to law enforcement for rape cases ?
In the OJ Simpson jury's case, it is said one juror stated "what about DNA? Everybody gots DNA."
Considering things already supposed to be confidential or court 'sealed' end up in the news with amazing regularity, I would not count on anything being confidential, much less if there was a profit or "compelling public safety" motive behind that violation of confidentiality.
Like I have told three generations: "How many people does it take to keep a secret? One. Any more than that, and it isn't a secret."
-
I'm curious if anybody writing here, has experience with DNA testing for genealogy purposes?
Ancestry.com matches family for instance. Other services do it as well.
23 and me.com specializes in medical issues, I believe.
DNA is widely used now, for law enforcement and criminal trial cases. DNA is used for paternity issues.
If an employee voluntarily allowed his DNA to be taken, would you allow the state to change a law later, to make his sample available to law enforcement for rape cases ?
In the OJ Simpson jury's case, it is said one juror stated "what about DNA? Everybody gots DNA."
The only experience I have with it is in relation to the Military. They've had mine on file since 1994.
-
The only experience I have with it is in relation to the Military. They've had mine on file since 1994.
Yeah, but that's (and no disrespect intended) so they can figure out who all is in the bag.
-
I'm curious if anybody writing here, has experience with DNA testing for genealogy purposes?
Ancestry.com matches family for instance. Other services do it as well.
23 and me.com specializes in medical issues, I believe.
DNA is widely used now, for law enforcement and criminal trial cases. DNA is used for paternity issues.
If an employee voluntarily allowed his DNA to be taken, would you allow the state to change a law later, to make his sample available to law enforcement for rape cases ?
In the OJ Simpson jury's case, it is said one juror stated "what about DNA? Everybody gots DNA."
My twin brother did the Ancestry one. It was okay. Gave the regional breakdown of our ancestry on a percentage basis. We had no big surprises.
I'm not a fan, though.
-
t’s hard to imagine a more sensitive type of personal information than your own genetic blueprints. With varying degrees of accuracy, the four-base code can reveal bits of your family’s past, explain some of your current traits and health, and may provide a glimpse into your future with possible conditions and health problems you could face. And that information doesn’t just apply to you but potentially your blood relatives, too.
Most people would likely want to keep the results of genetic tests highly guarded—if they want their genetic code deciphered at all. But, as STAT reports, a new bill that is quietly moving through the House would allow companies to strong-arm their employees into taking genetic tests and then sharing that data with unregulated third parties as well as the employer. Employees that resist could face penalties of thousands of dollars.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/companies-want-employees-genetic-info-new-bill-lets-them-take-it-by-force/
-
Merged related threads.
-
The problem here is insurance.
It cannot be cheaper for someone else to pay your bills for you.
Secondarily, there is the problem of someone else paying for the insurance which shouldn't be there in the first place.
So not only is someone else paying your bills, someone else is paying someone else to pay your bills.
With freedom liberty comes responsibility.
Refuse the responsibility, lose the liberty.
In the end,it doesn't matter who you give that responsibility to, government or business. The result is inevitable:
Liberty lost.
End of story.
-
Dr. Bruce Lipton.
-
The problem here is insurance.
It cannot be cheaper for someone else to pay your bills for you.
Secondarily, there is the problem of someone else paying for the insurance which shouldn't be there in the first place.
So not only is someone else paying your bills, someone else is paying someone else to pay your bills.
With freedom liberty comes responsibility.
Refuse the responsibility, lose the liberty.
In the end,it doesn't matter who you give that responsibility to, government or business. The result is inevitable:
Liberty lost.
End of story.
The information will be used, not to discern whether the actuarial factors taken as a reason to charge more are mitigated by either personal behaviour or genetics, but applied to the gross statistics which were intended to find out who to charge more (not to give "discounts").
But beneath it all lies the question of 'Who owns you?" Do you? Does the Government? Your employer?
There can be only one answer it there is to be Liberty.
The only time I asked the Government to pick up the tab for my health care, they refused. Now, they want to force me to take it or pay not to. That's wrong.
I'm self-employed, for what that's worth at the present, that leaves it on me to decide what health insurance or care I will offer me.
Again, the government can keep out. If they fine my employer, they fine me. They attack the fundamental building block of small business, where the fundamental innovations and discoveries have been made that brought us most of the way here. That path leads to stagnation, the death of a Capitalistic system.
Leave health care decisions up to the employee...before some jackass in HR or HS&E is telling some guy who works on the shop floor on his feet all day that he has to go spend 30 minutes on a treadmill after work.
-
Leave health care decisions up to the employee...before some jackass in HR or HS&E is telling some guy who works on the shop floor on his feet all day that he has to go spend 30 minutes on a treadmill after work.
:amen:
-
Yeah, but that's (and no disrespect intended) so they can figure out who all is in the bag.
There are ways that havingy DNA in a federal data base could be used without my being splattered across these blast radius of an IED.
It's something I've always worried about.
-
There are ways that havingy DNA in a federal data base could be used without my being splattered across these blast radius of an IED.
It's something I've always worried about.
Despite it being one of the better reasons to collect the data, that's true.
-
There are ways that havingy DNA in a federal data base could be used without my being splattered across these blast radius of an IED.
It's something I've always worried about.
We worry about it too, TRG. We have a few Members who are Active Service, and we always start saying prayers when they get deployed. Thank you so very much for your service, Tex.
-
Note to Board administrator: We really, really need a "rolleyes" smiley.
:boring: :coffee:
-
Say your employer wants you to get a genetic test. You politely decline because you consider it a gross infringement of privacy. Well, too bad—your monthly health insurance payments just spiked 30%.
This could be the reality under HR 1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, a House GOP-sponsored bill that would essentially allow companies with workplace wellness programs to demand your genetic information (or force you to pay a big penalty).
The legislation has now passed a House committee on a straight party line vote, reports STAT News, with all 22 Republicans unified in support against 17 Democratic detractors. The bill is expected to be latched on to a second Obamacare-related legislative effort that will be a followup to the main GOP health care plan now working its way through Congress.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/10/genetic-testing-workplace-wellness-bill/
I posted this in politics as it makes the Republicans appear Orwellian.
-
Nothing Orwellian about this. It's quite benign. It's a clarification of existing law intended to assure employers that they can include as part of a workplace wellness program a health risk assessment that asks questions about family medical history. Completing an HRA would continue to be voluntary, and the information would be solicited in connection with an ERISA group health plan (that is, the reward would take the form of a discount in the group medical premium). That keeps the information confidential so it cannot be used for employment purposes by the employer.
-
Topics merged.
-
Nothing Orwellian about this. It's quite benign. It's a clarification of existing law intended to assure employers that they can include as part of a workplace wellness program a health risk assessment that asks questions about family medical history. Completing an HRA would continue to be voluntary, and the information would be solicited in connection with an ERISA group health plan (that is, the reward would take the form of a discount in the group medical premium). That keeps the information confidential so it cannot be used for employment purposes by the employer.
I do not mind if it is voluntary. But I trust no one. Not the employer, not the insurance company, not the government.
-
I do not mind if it is voluntary. But I trust no one. Not the employer, not the insurance company, not the government.
Funny word, "Voluntary." We send in our tax forms "voluntarily." Radio stations broadcast EBS tests "voluntarily." Sarge needs a "volunteer."
When a big government advocate tells me something is going to be "voluntary" I start looking for the big lie. There's a hook somewhere in that bait.
-
I do not mind if it is voluntary. But I trust no one. Not the employer, not the insurance company, not the government.
Kinda scary to think of the chaos that could be created if hackers were to switch from stealing personal info files to your DNA info from a database.
-
Funny word, "Voluntary." We send in our tax forms "voluntarily." Radio stations broadcast EBS tests "voluntarily." Sarge needs a "volunteer."
When a big government advocate tells me something is going to be "voluntary" I start looking for the big lie. There's a hook somewhere in that bait.
The personal mandate is voluntary as long as you can afford the ever increasing fine er um I mean tax.
-
Nothing Orwellian about this. It's quite benign.
That is what tyrants and their supporters always tell the people that they are enslaving.
Completing an HRA would continue to be voluntary, and the information would be solicited in connection with an ERISA group health plan... That keeps the information confidential so it cannot be used for employment purposes by the employer.
Right.
And the Income Tax and SoSec were supposed to be voluntary too, and it was actually printed on the SoSec Card I still have that says 'For Social Security Purposes Only - Not for identification', and we see how well that 'selling point' lasted. Try opening a bank account or obtaining a driver's license without one.
History teaches that anytime a government says something is voluntary - it will be made mandatory in short order. Likewise anything they say is confidential and cannot be used for something, will be used publicly as a weapon against those they are seeking to control.
Only fools and those desiring the implementation of tyranny would make the insistences that you do.
-
Funny word, "Voluntary." We send in our tax forms "voluntarily." Radio stations broadcast EBS tests "voluntarily." Sarge needs a "volunteer."
When a big government advocate tells me something is going to be "voluntary" I start looking for the big lie. There's a hook somewhere in that bait.
The current popular phrase for that is volun-told
-
The personal mandate is voluntary as long as you can afford the ever increasing fine er um I mean tax.
"Individual Shared Responsibility Payment." I shit you not.
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/the-individual-shared-responsibility-payment-an-overview
-
The current popular phrase for that is volun-told
I was never in the service. BTW, thank you for yours....
-
Kinda scary to think of the chaos that could be created if hackers were to switch from stealing personal info files to your DNA info from a database.
It is not that far out. I know of a person that was court ordered to provide urine samples, as a condition of probation or child custody.
The person stood in court, and the law enforcement official informed the judge "your honor, the sample provided to the court is not human."
Dog piss.
-
"Individual Shared Responsibility Payment." I shit you not.
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/the-individual-shared-responsibility-payment-an-overview
Of course. Freedom is slavery comrade.
-
"Individual Shared Responsibility Payment." I shit you not.
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/the-individual-shared-responsibility-payment-an-overview
IRSP(enalty)
-
I was never in the service. BTW, thank you for yours....
@Cyber Liberty thanks.