
House Republicans would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results - ozdave
https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/
======
aurelianito
Well, 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.

~~~
superbaconman
It'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
_Insurance_ doesn't need to know anything about the person covered. _Doctors_
are the ones who provide healthcare.

~~~
superbaconman
Only 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.

~~~
ksdale
This! 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.

~~~
wutbrodo
> it's definitely not insurance.

Do you ....know what insurance is? Optimization based on feature of the
population is not part of the definition. If a million people all paid into a
pool that would cover any one of them if they got sick, and they all paid the
premium, that would still be insurance.

------
jacquesm
That 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
Think 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.

~~~
astrodust
Those 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)

~~~
M_Grey
Sure, they watched it, ate popcorn, and felt better about their lives by
comparison. Most people don't watch things like that for the lesson, they're
just entertained. The rest of us find it hard to believe, but go to a NASCAR
rally sometime... you'll see. There are all kinds of people there, but there
are vast swathes of... fools. Fools who you could never hope to reach or
educate, even if they wanted you to do, which they vehemently don't.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I've spent plenty of time working in a cubicle. I've overheard my coworkers
say a lot of dumb stuff. Going a NASCAR race seems like an Ivy League board
meeting by comparison.

Look in the mirror. Odds are you're just as bad plus or minus a few %.

~~~
M_Grey
Working in a cubicle could mean a lot of things, including working at a call
center. I'm not seeing the relevance, other than as an opening to take a
personal swing because I assume you're offended.

------
awalton
In 2008, GINA was virtually unanimous in the House and Senate.

What the hell has happened to this country.

~~~
tzs
Between 2008 and now, the Republican party was taken over by its most extreme
members. Many things that would have been solidly advocated by Republicans
then are now out of the question.

Just compare the 2008 Republican Party platform [1] to where they stand today.
A couple things that illustrate just how different the 2008 GOP was compared
to today.

On climate change:

> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate
> change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a
> Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change.
> Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for
> technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or
> abate atmospheric carbon.

There are several other mentions of climate change in the 2008 platform. To
the extent that dealing with climate change and economic growth are at odds,
they wanted a balance close to growth than Democrats did (and do), but they
knew that climate change did have to be dealt with.

On renewable energy:

> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind
> solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial
> development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in
> environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative
> energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate
> technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We
> therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all
> renewable power sources.

If you want to get banned from /r/republican, just wait until the next time
cap and trade comes up, and someone says that it is a socialist liberal
democrat commie approach, and point out that Ronald Reagan used it for the
phaseout of leaded gasoline, and the first Bush used it for reducing the
emissions responsible for acid rain, with overwhelming support from
Republicans in Congress...and you will likely get banned from that subreddit
for advocating anti-republican positions. Yup...RONALD REAGAN is anti-
republican in today's GOP. (Well, his policies are...they never miss a chance
to praise him or claim to be like him).

[1]
[http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78545](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78545)

~~~
koolba
Democrats opened the door to your employer checking on your "wellness".

"Are you going to the gym? Did you sneak a cigarette in on Friday night? Did
you have a chili dog or a salad for lunch)? Oh you won't tell us? Don't worry
you don't have to. Okay we'll just slap a surcharge on your health insurance!"

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Not sure why you're getting down-voted. The "I don't want to share" surcharge
sucks.

~~~
wutbrodo
What are the details on this? I'm unfamiliar with what you're describing. It
sounds like people getting charged extra for not sharing nutritional and
exercise information with insurers? What is the legal context here (the
Democrats were mentioned in the GP).

~~~
falcolas
They're couched as wellness plans with insurance discounts if you disclose
certain aspects of your behavior. All endorsed by employers (who tend to pay
the lion's share of insurance premiums) and political parties (because who
doesn't want a healthier <insert country here>).

~~~
wutbrodo
Thanks for the info. I had deduced as much, but I was asking about the legal
side of things. Is there anything more concrete than "endorsed by" (which I
take to mean "they said nice things about it)? I understood "Democrats opened
the door to" as meaning something like perhaps a tax or legal incentive for
these plans: I just wanted to know the specifics because government
involvement in our healthcare system is complex enough that it could have been
any of a million possible things.

------
ams6110
I actively refuse to participate in all workplace wellness programs now. If it
ever became mandatory I would quit. No question.

~~~
jacquesm
No, 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.

~~~
FLGMwt
More 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
That'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.

------
djrogers
This 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
Well, technically they rate it as "mixture".

~~~
acdha
djrogers 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
Snopes 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.

------
gravypod
I 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
If most people are willing to say yes, it becomes more difficult for you, or
rather a hypothetical prospective job candidate, to say no.

------
koolba
And 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
Government 1 - Privacy 0

------
alexqgb
Somehow, the GOP can't stop making the case for single-payer stronger by the
day.

~~~
Arizhel
You may think that, but it appears the voters are perfectly happy to hedge
their bets with the GOP in the voting booth.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>perfectly happy

"less terrible" is a phrase you should get to know.

~~~
Arizhel
Judging 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.

------
pottersbasilisk
We 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.

~~~
rosser
You make the category error of thinking this is about _privacy_.

It's about _control_.

~~~
jacquesm
It'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
It 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
Less 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
Yes, 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
That's true, but in the intermediary it will make peoples lives worse,
possibly _much_ worse.

------
masonic
The bill does no such thing:

[https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih....](https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih.pdf)

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.

~~~
im2nguyen
The 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
There is _nothing_ in this bill that allows your insurer to sequence your
genome in the first place.

~~~
im2nguyen
To quote jacquesm and MisterBastahrd:

"No, 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."

"There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for
not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain."

\--

You're right, there's nothing in this bill that explicitly forces your insurer
to sequence your genome in the first place. HOWEVER, if a wellness program
asked for your genome, and you denied it, then you would incur a heavy
penalty. This is new.

------
jordanb
Republicans 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.

