44 ms·
Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
- wodencafe 10y agoCongress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill? It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- krapp 10y ago>How could they even consider this bill? This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.
- ghostDancer 10y agoLand of the free. It's the free market and all that bullshit that USA like to get proud of. Now people is going to be a nice resource and a cheap and easily replaceable one too.
- deathhand 10y agoTo be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.
- fragsworth 10y agoAnd then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia. Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
- thotpoizn 10y agoJust for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles? This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?" I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
- mcguire 10y agoOr we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
- canadian_voter 10y ago“Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1] See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2] [1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-science-says-yes-sexologists-say-not-so-fast http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci... [2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
- thotpoizn 10y agoThe hypothetical "pedo gene" is probably too emotionally charged; some may find it difficult to engage rationally as a result. Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die. I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you. I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
- canadian_voter 10y agoYou and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible. Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism. Why not just make the data free and open to all? Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition
- noir_lord 10y agoBecause it slams straight into body autonomy, what is more personal than the building blocks that make you who you are (to a large extent). I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully. I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- cylinder 10y agoWhen did I agree to be in this world with everyone else? I am free to go off and live my own private life without being part of this "global community" if I choose.
- dsr_ 10y agoThat's actually very difficult, possibly impossible. Virtually every square inch of land has been claimed by someone else. Much of the ocean is open to you, but it's very difficult to bootstrap without substantial resources from land-based civilizations.
- thotpoizn 10y agoI dunno, there are still places in the US where you can buy decent land, outside of any city limits, for under $1,000 an acre. And there are absolutely scads of places you can buy NICE parcels (including tree lines, water, etc.) for around $2K / acre or less. This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily. ... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.
- pharrington 10y agoAccording to the article (I haven't checked congress.gov yet), said bill hasn't even passed committee yet. As foul as the proposal is, this isn't indicative of a regression or collapse of the legislative process.
- 24gttghh 10y agoThis [0] WP article says it passed the House Education and the Workforce committee, but the official bill tracking page [1] hasn't been updated yet, and is still being considered by two other committees. I read the text of HR 1313 [2] and can't actually find the part where it allows penalties described in this article. The final paragraph seems close, but not quite what is described: >(c) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury). [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.0d8505df0670 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0... [1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/committees https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313... [2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
- bobcostas55 10y agoWhat's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
- pstuart 10y agoNo downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
- bobcostas55 10y agoEmployers already check credit reports, so they know about problems with your financial history. I don't see how porn is relevant.
- pstuart 10y agoWe need to know too. Just to make sure you're safe around children. Of course you have nothing to hide, so this shouldn't be a big deal.
- canadian_voter 10y agoAlso, all of your activities both at work and at home will be monitored for compliance with our "Helping Our Employees be Safer and Healthier" policy. No smoking, no drinking, no refined sugar, no red meat, no extra-marital or unprotected sex or your coverage may be denied. Don't forget to do your morning calisthenics: we will be watching. Welcome to the firm.
- mattnewton 10y agoDon't worry, the public is perfectly competent to draw relevant conclusions from that information too.
- pstuart 10y agoHmmmm... perhaps maybe some privacy might be called for then?
- jmclnx 10y agoWell I guess if you cannot legally discriminate on a person's looks, they can use this method. Someone said Gattaca, but I think more like syfi's Incorporated Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
- no1youknowz 10y agoAlready posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848599
- guftagu 10y agoIsn't this exactly the premise of the movie Gattaca? Great movie, BTW.
- ekianjo 10y agoExcept that no amount of scrubbing should make you undetectable.
- Pxtl 10y agoThe trick was he overwhelmed his real traces with fake ones from Jude Law's character. Vaccuuming out his keyboard and then dumping in somebody else's skin and hair. Traces of the janitor would be reasonable to expect, right?
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago> Traces of the janitor would be reasonable to expect, right? Wasn't that also a major plot point?
- agumonkey 10y agoSadly a lot of SF movies are reaching reality, and it doesn't feel that good.
- mikeash 10y agoIMO Gattaca makes a great case for genetic testing. An idiot with a major heart condition bluffs his way onto a space mission where he's likely to die and endanger the rest of the crew. If the testing had been a bit more thorough (say, if the doctor in charge of testing had done his job) then the mission wouldn't have been endangered. It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
- DrJokepu 10y agoIt's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.
- fixxer 10y agoInteresting source...
- Pxtl 10y agoMeanwhile in Canada, the House voted to ban genetic discrimination, over the objections of the Cabinet (who believe this should be a provincial issue and not a federal one). http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vote-wednesday-1.4015863 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...
- Hello71 10y agonot so much that it "should" be as that the Constitution mandates it be
- dorfsmay 10y agoIsn't the ability to live on native land based on genetic discrimination?
- Pxtl 10y agoNo. It's based on ancestry. While those are obviously tightly related, the distinction is important. There are no genes that are identified as "First Nations genes" for this purpose.
- dorfsmay 10y agoIs one more acceptable than the other? I heard of stories where two kids are playing on a reserve, they go to the same school, share the same culture, both know the same amount of words from their ancestral language etc... But when they turn 18 the one which is 40% native will have to leave the reserve, will suffer from racism inherent to "being native", and will have no special advantage while the other who is 60% native will be considered native and able to stay on the reserve.
- kbenson 10y agoIn some places it's much more confusing than that, and highly political[1]. 1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- someone79879 10y agoSo no more whiteboard interviews? Just send us a blood sample to make sure you match the profile we're looking for?
- klenwell 10y agoI interviewed a couple years ago with a startup that was a commercial and research leader in personalized medicine with a portfolio of patent-protected genetic tests. After a laughably bad interview, I looked a little deeper into their business model. A little Googling revealed the real business model was to convince doctors and medical groups to order these tests and pass the costs along to insurance companies and Medicare. These tests are pretty useless in most cases, probably not a lot different from 23andMe. Your grandmother goes into see her doctor with a cough. Her doctor now throws in a couple genetic tests to go along with the normal blood tests and obligatory cat-scan. And the cost of American medicine continues to rise with the same lousy results.
- lohengramm 10y agoAre 23andMe tests useless? Don't get me wrong, I am just curious about it.
- dorfsmay 10y agoTo help curing the common cold in a specific individual at a specific time, yes.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y agoDepends on the definition of "useless" :) They used to be better until FDA cracked down and prohibited them from providing a detailed analysis of the DNA results where they would do a very decent breakdown of what kind of decease you might be predisposed to based on the results etc. From what I understand they still do this in Canada though, also there are online services that can take your results and provide some sort of an extended analysis, never dealt with them though.
- neuronexmachina 10y agoThere's also several 3rd-party tools, like promethease, that can take the raw data from 23andme and produce much of the old detailed analysis: http://www.23andyou.com/3rdparty http://www.23andyou.com/3rdparty
- aplomb 10y agoPeople with poor genetic dispositions are significant cost to our socialized healthcare systems - this is the end game and always will be when costs are shared or mostly paid by someone that is not you. In the benefactor's view there are a few actors crashing their cars everyday and others who have never had a ticket - currently they're all paying the same.
- jfoutz 10y agoYeah, what the hell has Stephen hawking ever done for us? Socialized medicine supports the guy, and we get nothing in return.
- aplomb 10y agoI wasn't questioning right or wrong of socialized medicine, just calling out what ultimately happens and the viewpoint of those who truly control/manage the system
- ta12mar17 10y agoIf this had been required back when I got my first job, I would've learned that my wife and I are carriers of a rare genetic disorder, and it would've saved the sadness and pain of my wife having delivering stillborn twins. My wife is still dealing with medical issues years later because of this. The pain was indescribable. Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Or how anyone would. At the point an employee gets tested, you've already hired them. What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
- Neliquat 10y agoConflating a personal matter with something required is inappropriate no matter your tangentally related situation.
- ta12mar17 10y agoYour comment is incredibly insensitive and unkind. I sincerely hope that if I were to tell you what happened to our family face-to-face, you would not have responded in this way. I was assuming that it would be a worthwhile anecdote to share, given that most people appear to find it unnecessary to get tested. If one person on the Internet reads my comment, decides to get tested, and finds they are a carrier of a severe genetic abnormality and avoids delivering a stillborn child, I frankly don't give a shit how "inappropriate" it is.
- lisper 10y agoI don't want to minimize your pain in any way, but I think the reason you're being downvoted is that your comment sounds like you want to imply that because mandatory testing would have spared you this pain, that it is therefore a good thing. But this does not follow. Just because mandatory testing might have led to a better outcome in one case doesn't mean that overall it's a good thing. You yourself pointed out the extreme cost of mandatory testing: if an employer knows that you are at high risk of being sick, then they have no choice but to do everything they can to replace you with an equally productive but healthy person. Not doing so would be a breach of their fiduciary duties to their investors.
- Keverw 10y agoCompanies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them. Which some companies make you stand in front of someone watching you pee. When there's less invasive methods such as a spit or hair sample(Maybe they cost more to use or somthing?). Now they want to do genetic testing? Well my aunt's work does somthing like this, if you get your blood checked once a year you get a discount, but I don't know if the company gets a copy of the results. I would think that would violate HIPPA, but I know if you switch doctors you can sign a release so your new doctor gets the information. So I assume it's all done with your permission(Signing a release with the doctor). America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also. Edit: Looks like some positions only urine tests are allowed by federal law but looks like just DOT jobs. So If you have a desk job or working retail, looks like the companies are free to pick any much any method. https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-a-hair-drug-test-for-pre-employment https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-a-hair-drug-test-for-pre...
- nameisu 10y agocompanies can make you sign all kinds of waivers when giving employment. shits fucked up
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago>> Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them. This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them. >>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also. It's not. Also, you're free to decline the coverage through your employer and buy your own (or not buy any). Which used to be a viable option until Obamacare kicked in - now you either buy what's called a "short term" insurance OR buy the same coverage and pay 2-3 times more for it. Why would you do that you might ask? Because short-term policies impose tax penalties and can only last up to 6 months so you have to constantly change providers which is an ordeal...
- kbenson 10y agoFrom my experience it's not 2-3 times more, depending on your specific conditions and possibly region. For me, a male over 35 in not very great shape, it's maybe a 20-30% difference IIRC.
- gumby 10y agoThis is based on theory of 'wellness': the insurance company / employer should take a holistic approach to health. Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives. So they are doubling down on a disproven theory to invade people's privacy. Hat trick to the GOP House if they can pull this nonsense off.
- astrange 10y ago> Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives. Why don't they?
- ghaff 10y agoA number of reasons. -- Most healthcare monies are spent on the sickest individuals and they're least likely to participate in a wellness program. And the most motivated participants in lifestyle change sort of program would probably have been the most motivated to make changes outside of a program. -- Many chronic illnesses and other expensive medical conditions/procedures are not prevented by wellness programs, getting an annual physical, etc. -- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)
- curun1r 10y agoThe wellness programs were never about changing behavior or making people healthier. They're about satisfying actuaries to reduce the cost of insuring more healthy individuals. Determining how much someone's health care premium should be depends on assigning them to a risk pool. The more data you have on that person, the more nuanced you can make that assignment. These wellness programs gather that data and appropriately discount the health insurance premiums of lower-risk employees. That they may change a few people's unhealthy behavior would just be a bonus. I've never seen a problem with that. I do believe that everyone should have the right to health care, but I don't think that everyone should have the right to health care at the same price. If people are actively making choices that make them, statistically speaking, more costly to insure, why shouldn't they have to pay more as a result?
- ChemicalWarfare 10y agoNot seeing anything about any penalties in the bill. These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become a part of if this passes.
- brohoolio 10y agoThe companies can charge you higher premiums for opting out. I think 30% higher.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y agoYou don't have to participate in their coverage though, so even if that was the case (which I personally never encountered this - the programs I've seen were centered around gym membership discounts, free cholesterol level testing, some small monetary compensation - like $100 - $300/yr type deal for partaking in some kind of a "weight loss challenge" etc) - the whole thing is not mandatory.
- curun1r 10y agoIt's kind the way that credit card companies don't allow you to charge a higher price for credit purchases but do allow businesses to offer a cash discount. So businesses raise their prices and offer that cash discount, effectively charging a higher price to people using credit. This is the same thing. They can't penalize people for not participating in the Wellness Program. So they increase the employee contribution for everyone and then offer discounts for people who participate. The net effect is to penalize the people that don't participate.
- pmorici 10y agoco-founder of genetic testing company floated for position in administration and now provisions start showing up in bills that would enlarge the market for genetic testing. Reminds me of Solyndra.