House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results

[hal2kilo]

Who'd have thought?



http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/house-republicans-would-let-employers-demand-workers’-genetic-test-results/ar-AAo5Qb1?li=BBnb7Kz

Going for GATACA already.

 

[Zorba]

To my knowledge, this is actually not a way this can be used. Companies can provide you reduced premiums based on whether you participate in the wellness program or not. They can't offer you different premiums based on your specific health information, and this bill doesn't change that. In your example with breast cancer markers etc, the company would get sued into oblivion for discrimination if they did that. That's now, it could easily change in the future of course.

I don't think that is true. I know my mom's company changed coverage based on your individual wellness results. Too fat? Higher deductible. Tons of companies also charge a higher premium for smokers too.

 

[PokerGuy]

We need to get back to the employee employer relationship being time and effort for pay.

Sorry, but that has never been the case and never will be. How you conduct yourself on and off the job can reflect on your employer. For example, if you go on some racist tirade on facebook and your employer finds out, they have every right to say "that behavior is not in line with our core values, it's not what we believe in" and fire you.

It's a tricky balance between employer / employee rights, but allowing employers access to your medical and genetic information is going way too far over the line IMO.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't think that is true. I know my mom's company changed coverage based on your individual wellness results. Too fat? Higher deductible. Tons of companies also charge a higher premium for smokers too.

Correct, you can charge higher premiums based on whether someone is a smoker or not, but that's not medical information. Usually the way companies do it is to set a premium, and then give you discounts if you participate in the wellness program and hit certain metrics etc. It's really a distinction without a difference, but I don't think they can charge you more based on your medical info, but they can offer you discounts if you participate in the programs and achieve certain goals.

Giving them genetic information goes a giant leap further, because it allows insight into what *could* happen or is more likely to happen based on genetic information, rather than current observable reality.

 

[Zorba]

Correct, you can charge higher premiums based on whether someone is a smoker or not, but that's not medical information. Usually the way companies do it is to set a premium, and then give you discounts if you participate in the wellness program and hit certain metrics etc. It's really a distinction without a difference, but I don't think they can charge you more based on your medical info, but they can offer you discounts if you participate in the programs and achieve certain goals.

Yes, that is how they did it, but like you said a distinction without a difference.

 

[Jhhnn]

Technically this is small government, if its a repeal. This is all at-will employment, and you are free to work elsewhere. We are all free to buy products or use the services of companies that do not engage in such practices.

You are also free to choose marketplace plans while employed at a place that maybe wants to use genetic testing to lower their group insurance rate. The marketplace plans is the aggregate risk pool without any sort of advanced risk testing.

It's also not a bad idea to get genetic tested in the first place, why not know what your risks are so you can mitigate them as best as you can yourself? I really doubt any progressive or liberal type with their strict adherence to science and facts, would prefer to live life in complete ignorance of their own body. Ignorance is for conservatives or libertarians like myself.

I don't think freedumb is a good argument here. Employers will go for it like pre-employment drug screens. It's authoritarianism, just not of the govt variety, & it discriminates on the basis of something people can't change, like skin color & gender. It'll render some people unemployable & uninsurable.

 

[sandorski]

Single Payer, remove Employers from the equation.

 

[brycejones]

Single Payer, remove Employers from the equation.

This a thousand times.

 

[momeNt]

I don't think freedumb is a good argument here. Employers will go for it like pre-employment drug screens. It's authoritarianism, just not of the govt variety, & it discriminates on the basis of something people can't change, like skin color & gender. It'll render some people unemployable & uninsurable.

Your buzzwords (freedumb) are so tiring. You hit a home run though with the buzzwords.

In one sentence you mentioned.

• authoritarianism
• skin color
• gender

 

[ch33zw1z]

Post rings with truth.

 

[ch33zw1z]

OP, policy is a stepping stone.

 

[tweaker2]

Smaller gov't = Bigger Corporate control of the nation.

Everybody knows this.......OK, just about a little more than half the nation knows this. Those others, they're going to take us down with them and somehow feel good about it.

 

[glenn1]

I'll be the person who defends this (sorta). I think if there's a legitimate business reason for it that employers should be able to request specific genetic tests for safety and other reasons. For example if you were a helicopter pilot who had some rare gene that meant you might suddenly lose consciousness mid-flight thus killing everyone aboard then I think this is a valid reason to test you for that gene. Or if you're a nurse who has a genetic resistance to some disease and can thus be asymptomatically infected with it and pass it to an entire hospital of patients. The tests would need to be narrowly tailored, have a specific justification, and reviewed by the Labor Department or other oversight to see it's not some broad fishing expedition.

While I realize this proposal doesn't seem like what I've described above, I don't think that genetic information should always and every case completely sacrosanct and never available to employers under any circumstances.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your buzzwords (freedumb) are so tiring. You hit a home run though with the buzzwords.

In one sentence you mentioned.

• authoritarianism
• skin color
• gender

You seem to assume you'll pass the test. Maybe not, huh? It's not like a person can clean up their act or study to pass, obviously. It's just another way for employers & thus insurers to wrongfully discriminate on the basis of things people can't change.

 

[Sonikku]

 

[sdifox]

Great, bring back Eugenics.

 

[Jhhnn]

Smaller gov't = Bigger Corporate control of the nation.

Everybody knows this.......OK, just about a little more than half the nation knows this. Those others, they're going to take us down with them and somehow feel good about it.

You're absolutely correct. Our govt is the only effective buffer between the people & naked capitalism in all its malevolent glory. That's why Repub politicians, the servants of the financial elite, have been trying to tear it down for decades.

 

[momeNt]

Smaller gov't = Bigger Corporate control of the nation.

Everybody knows this.......OK, just about a little more than half the nation knows this. Those others, they're going to take us down with them and somehow feel good about it.

Generally speaking, no. Big corporations depend on a large government to enable the necessary subsidy that they are provided to do business. Think infrastructure, currency control, patent enforcement, customs, etc.

An actual small government is an enormous inhibitor of big business. Problem is we don't have a small government, and republicans aren't small government conservatives either.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Technically this is small government, if its a repeal. This is all at-will employment, and you are free to work elsewhere. We are all free to buy products or use the services of companies that do not engage in such practices.

You are also free to choose marketplace plans while employed at a place that maybe wants to use genetic testing to lower their group insurance rate. The marketplace plans is the aggregate risk pool without any sort of advanced risk testing.

It's also not a bad idea to get genetic tested in the first place, why not know what your risks are so you can mitigate them as best as you can yourself? I really doubt any progressive or liberal type with their strict adherence to science and facts, would prefer to live life in complete ignorance of their own body. Ignorance is for conservatives or libertarians like myself.

I mean this with all the sincerity I can muster
fuck. you.

 

[momeNt]

You seem to assume you'll pass the test. Maybe not, huh? It's not like a person can clean up their act or study to pass, obviously. It's just another way for employers & thus insurers to wrongfully discriminate on the basis of things people can't change.

There are a lot of things we can't change about ourselves that we are discriminated on. Our smarts is a good example.

Tell me, as an electrician, presumably on construction sites of some sort, would you really want a dumb guy operating the crane that a mistake can end your life in an instant? Or some dumb person responsible for lock out / tag out that can cause you to get electrocuted? Or would you want them discriminated against for things they cannot change?

 

[momeNt]

I mean this with all the sincerity I can muster
fuck. you.

I'll stand arm in arm with you in a boycott of the companies that engage in this. But I fully respect their right to do so in a free marketplace.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are a lot of things we can't change about ourselves that we are discriminated on. Our smarts is a good example.

Tell me, as an electrician, presumably on construction sites of some sort, would you really want a dumb guy operating the crane that a mistake can end your life in an instant? Or some dumb person responsible for lock out / tag out that can cause you to get electrocuted? Or would you want them discriminated against for things they cannot change?

Genetic testing would change that in what way? It's irrelevant to safety & job performance, like skin color & gender.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll stand arm in arm with you in a boycott of the companies that engage in this. But I fully respect their right to do so in a free marketplace.

How do you boycott the power company? And how do you figure out all the companies you'd need to boycott?

 

[sandorski]

How do you boycott the power company? And how do you figure out all the companies you'd need to boycott?

Hell, when every Company starts doing it what then? Government of the People exists for a reason. That is to create a more Just society. Companies have no Right to this information and it should be Illegal for them to have it.

 

[momeNt]

How do you boycott the power company? And how do you figure out all the companies you'd need to boycott?

All the employees don't show up to work that day? Pretty simple huh? Do you think the power company when they float this idea is going to have a bunch of happy workers?

For somebody with a union background you give like almost zero credit to the power of the workforce. Like, it's astonishing.