9 ms·
House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results
- pottersbasilisk 10y agoWe need to march on washington for control of our privacy again. This and the spying under obama shows democrats and republicans need to be removed quickly.
- LyndsySimon 10y agoBe sure to wave at the surveillance aerostats[1] in Maryland as you head that way. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/28/the-army-lost-control-of-a-giant-unmanned-surveillance-blimp/?utm_term=.266a6138410f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/28...
- rosser 10y agoYou make the category error of thinking this is about privacy. It's about control.
- jacquesm 10y agoIt's about neither. It's about money. Insurers would love to be able to increase premiums based on pre-existing conditions and all the pre-emptive language of this bill notwithstanding this is opening the door a crack. And once the door is open it won't stop opening further. After all, if you don't want to cooperate with the 'voluntary' wellness program it's your own fault that your premiums will go up. After all, non-cooperation is a sure sign there is something you know that you don't want them to know (or so the argument will go...). Wellness, what a nice example of newspeak.
- maxerickson 10y agoIt looks like it is going to unravel, but the trajectory between 2000 and 2015 was that US insurance companies had to consider less and less information when pricing policies. I think it is hard to extrapolate that into a guaranteed bleak future.
- jacquesm 10y agoLess information -> more fairness. The bleak future isn't there when it does not affect you but for people with pre-existing conditions (and that's a fair number) it just got a little bleaker. (Because having some life-long health issue is already bleak enough by my reckoning and such people should be aided rather than hindered in having an otherwise as normal life as possible. It's a lottery, no point in penalizing the losers even further.)
- maxerickson 10y agoYes, that's what I meant. The medium term trajectory has been towards a fairer system. A bill passing out of a committee now doesn't guarantee things will be worse in 2030. Even if the ACA is completely repealed it's hard to say where things will be in 8 years, never mind the forever.
- jacquesm 10y agoThat's true, but in the intermediary it will make peoples lives worse, possibly much worse.
- Arizhel 10y agoWhy bother? What's a march going to accomplish? If we were worried about this stuff, we should have spoken up in November, but we didn't. We voted for the GOP to have strong control of both houses of Congress. All a march does is show that there's an angry minority of voters who lost the election. The GOP politicians in Congress know that these disgruntled people are not the ones who voted for them, so they really don't care about your opinions. And as for removing both Dems and Reps, how do you proposed to do that? They, together, control the whole government.
- anigbrowl 10y agoIt'll accomplish a hell of a lot more than doing nothing. If they won't respond to peaceful protest then they can be removed by other means.
- Arizhel 10y agoLike what? The only option at that point is violent revolution. Good luck with that. Besides, the Trump supporters are the ones with guns.
- anigbrowl 10y agoOh you Americans, always jumping right down the slippery slope. There's a whole spectrum of strikes and civil disobedience between here and there. And no, the Trump supporters are not the only ones with guns, even though they have been gearing up for civil war for longer.
- Arizhel 10y agoCivil disobedience requires a large amount of cooperation from many people to be effective. Good luck with that. The anti-Trump side couldn't even be bothered to show up to vote against him (for anyone; there were more choices than Hillary on the ballot, and there's all the Congressional and other positions too). If they couldn't be bothered to cast a ballot, you really think they're going to be bothered to risk their freedom and jail time on civil disobedience demonstrations? Hah! The only people with guns in any substantial numbers are the Trump supporters, the anti-Trump conservative Republican voters, and maybe a few violent radical leftists. The only ones there who are going to take a real stand against the government are the last ones, and they're 1) too few to make a real change, and 2) not people you want to side with anyway--people like Timothy McVeigh. In case you've forgotten, almost all the people on the left are anti-gun and consistently support anti-gun legislation. They're not going to be stockpiling arms and ammo. The ones who have are either happy with the current situation (Trump supporters), or somewhat unhappy but confident they'll be able to get politicians they prefer elected in the next election or two since they've already succeeded in getting many in Congress now ("mainstream" conservative GOP voters). It's only the leftists, liberals, progressives, etc. who are hopping mad, and they generally don't believe in gun ownership and certainly don't believe in civil war.
- awalton 10y agoIn 2008, GINA was virtually unanimous in the House and Senate. What the hell has happened to this country.
- jacquesm 10y agoNothing that you could not have predicted a decade ago. Once data exists it will be used, for good and for bad. Which is one reason why privacy really matters, we simply can not extrapolate to what evil uses a future bureaucracy will put our data. And you can bet that these 'wellness' programs results, especially the genetic data will be filed for future use.
- Delmania 10y ago2 things. One of the most corrupt administrations in history took control of the Oval Office, combined with one of the most ideological Congress. If it even looks like a regulation, it will be suspect. No thought, no debate. Whatever makes donors money will be done.
- astrodust 10y agoThis is like when you see looting on television, where windows are smashed, things stolen, other stuff just thrown on the ground for no reason. Things set on fire. I don't think people realize the magnitude of the problem here. This is a Category 5 situation. They're pouring gasoline on important institutions that will take decades to rebuild, and the costs are going to be staggering.
- dexterdog 10y agoIs now really any different than the last 25 years?
- 67726e 10y ago> One of the most corrupt administrations in history took control of the Oval Office Facts or GTFO
- Delmania 10y ago
- ams6110 10y agoI actively refuse to participate in all workplace wellness programs now. If it ever became mandatory I would quit. No question.
- jacquesm 10y agoNo, of course they're not mandatory... but your insurance premiums will go up with $500/month if you don't 'voluntarily' agree to do this.
- 77pt77 10y agoA few years back when I refused to have my data filed electronically the nurse just said dismissingly. "Suit yourself, next year you won't even be given a choice"
- FLGMwt 10y agoMore often, I see wellness programs that offer yearly FSA credit in the hundreds range for filling out a health survey and then potentially additional credit for using the program. The psychology is better there for the base premium (bonuses are better than penalties). Source: I work for a company that makes a wellness app.
- jacquesm 10y agoThat's just a sales trick which is effectively the same thing. A bonus to fill it out is the same as a penalty for not doing so. The psychology is not 'better' it's just sneakier.
- jacquesm 10y agoThat was what this was about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1288509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1288509 It only took a couple of years. See, it's easy to look at technology in the light of whatever the political climate is at the moment. But you should not be worried about what the present administration is going to do with it, you should be worried about the next and the one after that. And your genes are not exclusively yours, your parents and children's genes are also exposed if you give away your genetic code. Now employers are demanding genetic testing, next up insurance companies with some nice file sharing options to boot. It's all just a stroke of a pen somewhere away.
- M_Grey 10y agoThink of most people, who are too busy broadcasting their personal information everywhere, given the chance. People like you, me, and most of HN are a statistical anomaly.
- jacquesm 10y agoI strongly suspect that this is a rearguard fight and that - barring something along the lines of a French revolution - sooner or later this will all be made acceptable and what few jobs will be left are going to come with mandatory genetic testing, assuming it isn't done at birth and made part of your files which are either made public or will be accessible in the same way credit records are today. Medical privacy is on the way out.
- M_Grey 10y agoI think you'd be right, but I'd guess that we'll be failing as a civilization before the worst privations can come to pass. War, chaos, and dissolution is more likely our future, fueled by climate change and global conflict.
- astrodust 10y agoThose fools leaving their DNA all over everything. Didn't they watch Gattaca and remember the part about your whole world being torn apart by a strand of hair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
- aurelianito 10y agoWell, if so it would be quite natural to do genetic testing to all the Congress members and also the POTUS. Even better, it should be done to all the candidates, so the US people can vote using all the information they need. If they don't need it, the rest of the employers do not need it either.
- unityByFreedom 10y agoAgreed. Same reason we won't get Trump's tax returns without some sort of discovery process. Ours are protected, so his are too.
- superbaconman 10y agoIt's not like government mandated insurance isn't going to demand this at one point anyway. Health care should take genetic factors into account for health care optimization; If it doesn't, it's probably not the best health care you could get.
- nitrogen 10y agoInsurance doesn't need to know anything about the person covered. Doctors are the ones who provide healthcare.
- superbaconman 10y agoOnly if you think insurance shouldn't optimize for cost (this obviously includes age and pre-existing conditions). Either insurance should be optimized for cost, or insurance should be outlawed.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoThe problem is that optimizing for cost creates situations our society isn't ok with.
- ksdale 10y agoThis! If insurance companies aren't allowed to know anything about customers AND they have to insure people with pre-existing conditions, then we're not paying for insurance, we're just paying for our healthcare out of pocket before we get sick (or other people's healthcare in the case of young healthy people with high premiums). It very well may be what's best for society, but it's definitely not insurance.
- masonic 10y agoThe bill does no such thing: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.... Relevant quotes: "...workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that provide for more favorable treatment of individuals with adverse health factors as described..." "...the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member..." But nothing about forcing genetic testing on employees.
- 542458 10y agoIANAL, but if I'm reading this right sec. 3(a)1(A)(iii) (not sure of what the right way to cite that is) says that collection of genetic information is OK if you say it's workplace health promotion plan (and remember, you're allowed to charge employees way more for insurance if they don't participate in these "voluntary" health promotion programs).
- jacquesm 10y agoNo, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory. I also like how they pre-emptively state that this is all in accordance with GINA when it really isn't. The whole 'wellness' thing has fuck all to do with the wellness of the employees, it's all about case building and shifting responsibility onto employees.
- im2nguyen 10y agoThe first "relevant quote" is.. irrelevant to genetic data collection. If you expand the second quote, it reads: "the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information" As the article stated, genetic testing isn't forced upon employees. If you don't do it, you might have to pay an increase of up to 50% for health insurance or.. if your employer doesn't sponsor healthcare, they can deduct your paycheck.
- masonic 10y ago
- gravypod 10y agoI agree this is bad but why is it bad if an employer says they want a genetic workup done and just don't hire you if you say no? I just wouldn't take the job and I don't see what's wrong with that. If you're employed as a test subject for a new cure to something getting a genetic workup seems very reasonable and is about the only time I'd acctually say yes to something like this. That's really the only case I can think of where this makes sense. Why do companies actually want to do this? Do they think people will still work for them if they do?
- mc32 10y agoIf most people are willing to say yes, it becomes more difficult for you, or rather a hypothetical prospective job candidate, to say no.
- alexqgb 10y agoSomehow, the GOP can't stop making the case for single-payer stronger by the day.
- Arizhel 10y agoYou may think that, but it appears the voters are perfectly happy to hedge their bets with the GOP in the voting booth.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago>perfectly happy "less terrible" is a phrase you should get to know.
- Arizhel 10y agoJudging by the turnout numbers in 2016 and 2008, and also the popularity of the GOP candidate at his rallies, it appears that isn't the case; instead, GOP voters really were happy to vote GOP, and others simply didn't bother to vote.
- alexqgb 10y agoTrump lost the popular vote by more than 3 million. The Senate majority sits on a vote deficit of 6 million. And the GOP holds the House by a margin two digits greater than their share of the portion of the vote they won. If you think the government we have is a reflection of the popular will, you are deeply mistaken. Indeed, the whole point of gerrymandering, Voter ID, registration purges, and a host of other practices that have flourished in post-VRA era, is to ensure that the will of the majority is not embodied in the government. We've never had a minority in power that was this formally unopposed, while being this hostile to the popular public interest. As far as the health and even survival of our republic's democracy goes, this is uncharted territory.
- djrogers 10y agoThis is an overwrought and inflammatory headline. Even snopes says it's false: http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/ http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/
- skybrian 10y agoWell, technically they rate it as "mixture".
- acdha 10y agodjrogers is misrepresenting the Snopes conclusion about as much as that headline misrepresents the bill. No, your employer can't say “take this test if you want to keep your job” but doubling your premiums isn't too far off of that for many people and removing the restrictions on sharing information with non-healthcare professionals is just asking for abuse.
- djrogers 10y agoSnopes specifically says that employers would not be able to demand genetic testing results, while the headline says they would. It's a pretty clear cut case of a false and clickbaity headline.
- djrogers 10y agoAnd the headline - which is specifically what I called out - is overwrought and clickbait because it makes the false claim of 'let employers demand'.
- puppetmaster5 10y agoOoooh, Republicans. Is there anything on Dems on YC news?
- jordanb 10y agoRepublicans are so out to lunch. I guess it's an example of the Overton Window in action. Obamacare is essentially what the Republicans were advocating in the 90s. So now they feel like they have to stake out a position in opposition to it, which means they have to regroup in loony land. From the other side it demonstrates both the promise and the peril of triangulation. On the one hand you back your opponent into a corner. On the other hand, you end up making your opponent's proposal the new "consensus centralism" and force the public discourse so far in their direction that the "crazy extremist" position becomes the new rational opposition.
- koolba 10y agoAnd here's the same thing applied to car insurance: https://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/ https://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/ It's not a surcharge if you don't plug it in, it's a discount if you do. Semantics...
- rgilpt2 10y agoGovernment 1 - Privacy 0