House committee passes bill that could allow employers to require genetic testing
50 replies, posted
[quote]While most Americans were worrying about the replacement for the Affordable Care Act making its way through Congress, a lesser-known bill regarding healthcare was sneaking up behind them.
Sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, the bill known as HR 1313 would allow for employers participating in “workplace wellness” programs to require their employees go through genetic testing, or risk taking a financial hit.
Workplace wellness programs are typically put in place to improve employee health by including screening for medical conditions and promoting things like smoking cessation.
Currently, there is legislation in place prohibiting this kind of employer overreach. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), for example, was put into place in 2008 to prohibit workplace discrimination “of a particular group [that] may be stigmatized or discriminated against as a result of that genetic information.” However, HR 1313 has found a loophole by explicitly stating that GINA (and other similar programs) do not apply when companies participate in a workplace wellness program.
Another program that HR 1313 would override is the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.
“What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws,” said Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a civil rights group. She added that protections for genetic and health information in those acts would be “pretty much eviscerated.”[/quote]
[url]http://www.salon.com/2017/03/10/house-committee-passes-bill-that-could-allow-employers-to-require-genetic-testing/[/url]
So essentially the fear is that if you had, say, a genetic heart condition you could be discriminated against?
salon is garbage and so is the thread title :goodjob:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/[/url]
i'm from the UK, and what is a workplace wellness programs
GATTACA when?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51944975]salon is garbage and so is the thread title :goodjob:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/[/url][/QUOTE]
That just says there's no mandatory testing
It doesn't say anything about those who do opt into company wellness programs
[editline]11th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE]The GINA bill, which was passed in 2008, also prohibits employers from using genetic information as the basis for hiring, terminating, or promoting their employees. But both that measure and the ADA contain exceptions for wellness programs. Vendors operating the programs are often not required to follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which restricts the information doctors and hospitals can share regarding their patients.[/QUOTE]
This brings up questions of discrimination though. What if the employee is from an ethnic group that has a high rate of genetic diseases? For example the Ashkenazi group has a higher rate of tay sachs, Northern Europeans have a higher rate of Cystic fibrosis and etc. At what point does it become discriminatory.
[QUOTE]Under the ACA, these incentives can include all sorts of rewards and compensations. For instance, people who don’t want to participate can pay up to 60 percent more on employer-sponsored insurance premiums. That can easily amount to thousands of dollars each year.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Moreover, employers tend to hire third parties to collect and manage health data. These companies are not heavily regulated and can review genetic and other health data with identifiers. Some of the companies even sell health information to advertisers, STAT notes[/QUOTE]
Seems more sinister than the republican apologists might let on
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51945039]
It doesn't say anything about those who do opt into company wellness programs[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies’ voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect “information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member” of participating employees.[/QUOTE]
This?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51945095]This?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, how is that not disconcerting to you?
It doesn't say anything about protecting people who do opt into those, and it other articles explicitly mention that you're essentially punished for [B]not[/B] opting in, so this information is freely sharable at that stage
Are you happy about that
[editline]11th March 2017[/editline]
I'm sure, as a republican, that "Genetic testing and Opt in Programs" weren't one of the things you were waving a flag for a few months ago, so I just have to ask, [B]is[/B] there even a point where you will criticize your own party?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51944975]salon is garbage and so is the thread title :goodjob:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/[/url][/QUOTE]
Honestly, I just want to give you at least a handful of brownie points for the simple fact that you consider a source garbage while not also implying Snopes is garbage.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51945057]This brings up questions of discrimination though. What if the employee is from an ethnic group that has a high rate of genetic diseases? For example the Ashkenazi group has a higher rate of tay sachs, Northern Europeans have a higher rate of Cystic fibrosis and etc. At what point does it become discriminatory.[/QUOTE]
Like you said, at what point does it become discrimination? Some employers wont hire a person for a job if they have high blood pressure or preexisting conditions that would inhibit their work or make them a liability.
Is it wrong to refuse to hire somebody if they have a high chance to develop one of these conditions that could inhibit their work?
i cant even find any reason why a company should need your DNA other than to use it against you, theres no goddamn reason for this
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51945467]Like you said, at what point does it become discrimination? Some employers wont hire a person for a job if they have high blood pressure or preexisting conditions that would inhibit their work or make them a liability.
Is it wrong to refuse to hire somebody if they have a high chance to develop one of these conditions that could inhibit their work?[/QUOTE]
alright so say you were born with a genetic heart defect that killed your father and will likely kill you when you're in your late 40's to early 50's
that person will cost more to insure, should they be allowed to work or get a job that provides healthcare?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51945494]alright so say you were born with a genetic heart defect that killed your father and will likely kill you when you're in your late 40's to early 50's
that person will cost more to insure, should they be allowed to work or get a job that provides healthcare?[/QUOTE]
They should obviously be allowed insurance and the same benefits everyone else gets, but I dont see an issue with coal mining outfit refusing to hire them since theyll probably drop dead on the job and theyd have to pay out because of it.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51944975]salon is garbage and so is the thread title :goodjob:
[url]http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/[/url][/QUOTE]
It's still pretty fucking shit and invasive
[quote]H.R. 1313 states that employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies’ voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect “information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member” of participating employees.[/quote]
[quote]H.R. 1313 would allow employers to offer substantial health insurance premium rebates to workers who take part in company wellness programs that may include submitting to "health risk assessments."
HR 1313 does not allow employers to force all their workers to submit to genetic testing.[/quote]
You basically get a discount if your relatives are medically sound. I don't know what the hell happens when you're in the program and the insurance company/employer discovers you have a serious inheritable heart condition.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51945502]They should obviously be allowed insurance and the same benefits everyone else gets, but I dont see an issue with coal mining outfit refusing to hire them since theyll probably drop dead on the job and theyd have to pay out because of it.[/QUOTE]
But we're not talking about extremes like that as those conditions will affect people even in office jobs.
Should they be denied office jobs as well?
You aren't getting dropped/fired if they find heart disease in your family. You lose access to discounts/rebates for being a potential risk.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51945576]You aren't getting dropped/fired if they find heart disease in your family. You lose access to discounts/rebates for being a potential risk.[/QUOTE]
yeah and that's not a problem for you?
Insurance works by using the healthy to subsidize the sick, that's how it works at it's core
so, those people are now not really subsidized and are on their own in a more broken healthcare system than ever before
I know you applaud anything and everything they do, but maybe just questioning this wouldn't hurt you
[QUOTE]A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that [B]premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent.[/B]
The EEOC has also sued employers accused of imposing penalties on workers who refused to join their wellness programs.[/QUOTE]
Sounds good to me.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51945651]Sounds good to me.[/QUOTE]
that's what people are losing out on if they have the genetic problems or don't opt in
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51945518]You basically get a discount if your relatives are medically sound. I don't know what the hell happens when you're in the program and the insurance company/employer discovers you have a serious inheritable heart condition.[/QUOTE]
Hah. I'm so fucked, then. My dad has type 2 diabetes, my mom has a stupidly rare autoimmune disorder, one uncle has Sjogren's syndrome, my aunt had cancer twice, and my grandpa had a host of illnesses including rheumatoid arthritis and heart failure.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51945568]But we're not talking about extremes like that as those conditions will affect people even in office jobs.
Should they be denied office jobs as well?[/QUOTE]
Probably not? Too broad of a question really. I mean if some genetic condition exists where a person could drop dead for any reason, it would be tough to justify employing that person.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51945960]Probably not? Too broad of a question really. I mean if some genetic condition exists where a person could drop dead for any reason, it would be tough to justify employing that person.[/QUOTE]
you realize that this borderlines on the argument of just letting the weak drop dead right? Like, if they can't get hired because they could potentially drop dead at some point, they will die anyway.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51945960]Probably not? Too broad of a question really. I mean if some genetic condition exists where a person could drop dead for any reason, it would be tough to justify employing that person.[/QUOTE]
It's unlikely I can make you see the folly in your words here
But people born with bad hands have a right to a decent life, at least one not stopped short due to a medical condition we'll out of their control that prevents them from a life
[QUOTE=Tigster;51945993]you realize that this borderlines on the argument of just letting the weak drop dead right? Like, if they can't get hired because they could potentially drop dead at some point, they will die anyway.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure he meant with respect to the potential occupation. You don't want someone who can't safely exert themselves to be working a job that requires a lot of manual labor..
In any case that's not what this bill is. This is specific to wellness programs, which are and have been voluntary. The bill states that IF the employee participates in the wellness programs, companies would be allowed to use genetic information in addition to their other metrics to decide that employee's benefits.
[QUOTE=Tigster;51945993]you realize that this borderlines on the argument of just letting the weak drop dead right? Like, if they can't get hired because they could potentially drop dead at some point, they will die anyway.[/QUOTE]
So should you force companies to hire people who can't do their job properly, or are a liability? I'm not opting for a eugenics program and throw these people in the pits, I'm not even in favor of this bill because its far too invasive, but I disagree that people unfit for a job should be hired for it just because they have a disability.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946022]It's unlikely I can make you see the folly in your words here
But people born with bad hands have a right to a decent life, at least one not stopped short due to a medical condition we'll out of their control that prevents them from a life[/QUOTE]
If someone has bad hands then they probably shouldn't be working jobs that put a lot of stress and require good motor skills with your hands.
Theres a job for everyone but not everyone is capable for every job.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51945960]Probably not? Too broad of a question really. I mean if some genetic condition exists where a person could drop dead for any reason, it would be tough to justify employing that person.[/QUOTE]
No it wouldn't. "Could" does not mean "will", and there's plenty of people in society who have genetic conditions who lead perfectly normal and productive lives-- even in serious cases. Like with most things, it's a matter of what fair and equal opportunities (if any) are extended to them. The problem is that we have no shortage of individuals and organizations who don't want to be bothered with trying to extend them fair and equal opportunities, because that would require them to make concessions. This is America. We do whatever we can to avoid that shit for as long as possible, even if it's futile for us to drag our feet in the end.
If we're going ahead with this proposition though, then I suggest we start by testing you to see if you've got any problems. If you do, then we should probably go ahead and sterilize you (perhaps even euthanize, depending on the severity) in addition to denying you employment or compensation of some sort. We don't want the defective procreating and passing along their biological inferiority to future generations after all...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
