4 ms·

Being born with this type of genetic predisposition is unfair, but passing that risk on to an unknowing employer is also unfair. For a medium-size business that

Being born with this type of genetic predisposition is unfair, but passing that risk on to an unknowing employer is also unfair. For a medium-size business that underwrites its own policies (very common), a few employees with multi-million dollar medical needs can easily make the difference between a modest profit and bankruptcy. If we care about equal protection of all American citizens -- and I believe that we should -- the solution is not to legally prohibit employers from performing genetic screenings, it's simply to cover healthcare for high-risk individuals, or ideally everyone, at the national level with single-payer care. That way there's no incentive to cheat anti-genetic-discrimination laws, business don't have to worry about getting hit with an unexpected multi-million dollar expense, and the cost of coverage to everyone shows up on the national ledger, where it honestly belongs.

reverend_gonzo 10y ago
What companies underwrite their own health insurance policies? I would find that to be a ridiculous risk for those not actually in the business. The whole idea behind insurance is to spread the risk among lots of people. If a medium-sized business is underwriting their own policy, I would think they would quickly go bankrupt more often than not.
- dzdt 10y ago
  Family farms.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    If you're concerned about family farms you would oppose things too like ag-gag laws regarding un-hygenic food production/abuse and the general anti-humane industrialization of food products both animal and other. These are far more potent threats to traditional pastoral and agricultural traditions than tax policy. If it was just a bunch of family farms competing against each other (or more likely forming co-ops given history) then it might be a bit more of a fair playing field.
- wincy 10y ago
  My company has about 1,000 employees and underwrites its own insurance. They allocate a pool at the beginning of the year and anything that isn't used is written off as profit at the end of the year. I don't know anything more specific than that, but our medium sized, successful company does do this.
  - pnutjam 10y ago
    Isn't this usually coupled with some sort of insurance that covers a major cost overrun? That secondary insurance might get skyrocket if it gets hit repeatedly.
- sevensor 10y ago
  Most medium-to-large employers in the US are self-insured, although big insurers manage the plans for them. When I was working at a factory with a couple of thousand employees, one of them crushed her leg in a motorcycle accident and required a total amputation. Shortly thereafter (and before her return to work) we had an all-hands meeting where they emphasized the importance of vehicular safety during our off hours. HR didn't name any names, although everybody knew who they were talking about.
- bmm6o 10y ago
  There was that blow-up a few years ago when the AOL CEO basically blamed an employee with a sick baby for the company's unprofitability. (And maybe that overstates what happened, I'm sure you can find the details if you want)
crispyambulance 10y ago
> ... the solution is not to legally prohibit employers from performing genetic screenings, it's simply to cover [everyone] OK, but then why would employers even bother to query the genetics of their employees? So they could STILL discriminate on the basis of genetics (regardless of whether it cost them in medical insurance)?
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Do businesses have these same concerns about hiring disabled people? Classifying those with certain genetic mutations as disabled, could be another solution to this problem. Although it should, in theory render them immune from. discrimination, it's a highly imperfect solution that could lead to a very ugly society. Id rather just keep that information completely private. Companies have been able to operate just fine without the data provided by genetic tests since time immemorial. Employers are not allowed to ask about whether or not you are. married, have kids, your religion, your ethnicity etc. It might not be fair, but it is a trade-off/tax that I would happily pay to ensure that people, through no fault of their own, experience a new class of systemic, institutional discrimination.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Yes, that's why the disabled are a protected class.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    For now.
Asooka 10y ago
Between those two choices, one is unfair to people, and one is unfair economically. Life is inherently unfair and a lot of things can sink your medium-sized business, so passing the unfair buck from the people to the company makes sense to me. Businesses die and get reborn a lot easier than people.

reverend_gonzo 10y ago

What companies underwrite their own health insurance policies? I would find that to be a ridiculous risk for those not actually in the business. The whole idea behind insurance is to spread the risk among lots of people. If a medium-sized business is underwriting their own policy, I would think they would quickly go bankrupt more often than not.

dzdt 10y ago
Family farms.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  If you're concerned about family farms you would oppose things too like ag-gag laws regarding un-hygenic food production/abuse and the general anti-humane industrialization of food products both animal and other. These are far more potent threats to traditional pastoral and agricultural traditions than tax policy. If it was just a bunch of family farms competing against each other (or more likely forming co-ops given history) then it might be a bit more of a fair playing field.
wincy 10y ago
My company has about 1,000 employees and underwrites its own insurance. They allocate a pool at the beginning of the year and anything that isn't used is written off as profit at the end of the year. I don't know anything more specific than that, but our medium sized, successful company does do this.
- pnutjam 10y ago
  Isn't this usually coupled with some sort of insurance that covers a major cost overrun? That secondary insurance might get skyrocket if it gets hit repeatedly.
sevensor 10y ago
Most medium-to-large employers in the US are self-insured, although big insurers manage the plans for them. When I was working at a factory with a couple of thousand employees, one of them crushed her leg in a motorcycle accident and required a total amputation. Shortly thereafter (and before her return to work) we had an all-hands meeting where they emphasized the importance of vehicular safety during our off hours. HR didn't name any names, although everybody knew who they were talking about.
bmm6o 10y ago
There was that blow-up a few years ago when the AOL CEO basically blamed an employee with a sick baby for the company's unprofitability. (And maybe that overstates what happened, I'm sure you can find the details if you want)

crispyambulance 10y ago

> ... the solution is not to legally prohibit employers from performing genetic screenings, it's simply to cover [everyone] OK, but then why would employers even bother to query the genetics of their employees? So they could STILL discriminate on the basis of genetics (regardless of whether it cost them in medical insurance)?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

Do businesses have these same concerns about hiring disabled people? Classifying those with certain genetic mutations as disabled, could be another solution to this problem. Although it should, in theory render them immune from. discrimination, it's a highly imperfect solution that could lead to a very ugly society. Id rather just keep that information completely private. Companies have been able to operate just fine without the data provided by genetic tests since time immemorial. Employers are not allowed to ask about whether or not you are. married, have kids, your religion, your ethnicity etc. It might not be fair, but it is a trade-off/tax that I would happily pay to ensure that people, through no fault of their own, experience a new class of systemic, institutional discrimination.

mcguire 10y ago
Yes, that's why the disabled are a protected class.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  For now.

Asooka 10y ago

Between those two choices, one is unfair to people, and one is unfair economically. Life is inherently unfair and a lot of things can sink your medium-sized business, so passing the unfair buck from the people to the company makes sense to me. Businesses die and get reborn a lot easier than people.