Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#31

Post by hkmurakami »

M_Grey wrote: post #25
whiskyant wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world with mandatory genetic testing, genetic engineering in order to "give your child the best possible start" will definitely ring true.

I wonder what traits we'll program for? Intelligence, maybe, but that's tough to manage and I'd guess that without a complete understanding you'd get a lot of madness. Physical traits will be easier to select for, especially gross ones like size and overall strength. Selecting out congenital illness would be another step. If you could though, if you had a clear understanding of how Trait A and cluster of genes/epigen…

What parents will want will be informed by the environment around them.

For example, when parents perceive the economy to be closer to zero sum, with clear "winners and losers", they tend to push their children more to get every edge they can in credentialing and jockeying for the best position for financial security (read: Tiger Moms).

Hard to say what said environment will be in the future when more tools are available.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#32

Post by witty_username »

quantum_state wrote: post #13

It's simply insane to propose such a bill ... they may as well as people to sell body parts to cover healthcare costs ... it's simply not acceptable!

What is wrong with people selling their organs?

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#33

Post by wyager »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #27
programmarchy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history behind our current nonsensical scheme started with FDR capping wages during the great depression, which spurred companies to offer "perks" like healthcare to recruit talent. An example of one market intervention leading to another, and another, ad nauseam. Totally agree that insurance should be decoupled from corporations. The way the "market" is regulated hampers people from working independently or star…

The specifics of the American healthcare system aside, what leads you to believe that the problem is regulation? By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem. Why is there any reason to believe that there's too much state intervention as opposed to, say, too little?

> By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem.

Except things like, you know, quality of care or satisfaction.

Single-payer healthcare beats the American implementation, which is not a high bar to clear.

There's a reason medical tourism to Mexico and India is so prevalent. Totally deregulated private doctors seem to kick the ass of state healthcare (in quality and wait times) and American healthcare (in cost). I wouldn't want to get, say, complicated brain surgery in Mexico; in that case, the tens of thousands of dollars premium you would pay, uninsured, for US care is probably worth it. But for routine medicine (dental care, minor surgery, etc.) it's medical tourism all the way. For certain kinds of medicine, people will even make medical visits to the US from socialized countries like Canada or France.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#34

Post by pilsetnieks »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #27
programmarchy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history behind our current nonsensical scheme started with FDR capping wages during the great depression, which spurred companies to offer "perks" like healthcare to recruit talent. An example of one market intervention leading to another, and another, ad nauseam. Totally agree that insurance should be decoupled from corporations. The way the "market" is regulated hampers people from working independently or star…

The specifics of the American healthcare system aside, what leads you to believe that the problem is regulation? By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem. Why is there any reason to believe that there's too much state intervention as opposed to, say, too little?

I think they meant the kinds of regulation, not the fact of regulation itself. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if American healthcare had more regulation than the average European country.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#35

Post by M_Grey »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #28
M_Grey wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, kids born today are pretty fucked for so many reasons. In a way, this kind of dystopian future is averted when you consider the rate of accelerating ocean warming, permafrost melting, etc. It seems likely that all problems short of that which is going to end us, sort of gets subsumed. All of these social problems are in the context of a failing ecosystem that is being increasingly overtaxed. So... the kid…

Is there any credible research that climate change is going to "end us"?

By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#36

Post by M_Grey »

hkmurakami wrote: post #31
M_Grey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what traits we'll program for? Intelligence, maybe, but that's tough to manage and I'd guess that without a complete understanding you'd get a lot of madness. Physical traits will be easier to select for, especially gross ones like size and overall strength. Selecting out congenital illness would be another step. If you could though, if you had a clear understanding of how Trait A and cluster of genes/epigen…

What parents will want will be informed by the environment around them. For example, when parents perceive the economy to be closer to zero sum, with clear "winners and losers", they tend to push their children more to get every edge they can in credentialing and jockeying for the best position for financial security (read: Tiger Moms). Hard to say what said environment will be in the future when more tools are avail…

Then maybe you want a kid who doesn't sleep much, has a high drive, and low empathy. That assumes you want success uber alle though, what if you want your kid to believe that handling poisonous snakes is the key to salvation, or something like that?

Then you might need to breed a very different kind of mind.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#37

Post by Buge »

brokenmasonjars wrote: post #30

I suppose if this is passed it goes to the many reasons why I enjoy living my life trading with my own funds without the stability of holding a career with an employer. So far no drug tests is pretty much the winner but if genetic testing bill becomes law then I'm pretty sure that tops drug testing. I'm not a fan of background checks and I refuse to give references..but that's easy for me since I'm not applying to jo…

Why are you against references?

My current job didn't require drug tests or references. Just resume + whiteboard coding.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #26
drawkbox wrote: post #12

We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…

In fact, Obamacare (which significantly mitigates the healthcare related costs of changing jobs) had no noticeable effect on startup formation or job separations. I've seen similarly no effect from Romneycare. https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=http://img.washington... https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100816.png Do you have any evidence (as opposed to hypothetical anecdote) suggesting this is actual…

> In fact, Obamacare (which significantly mitigates the healthcare related costs of changing jobs)

The ACA doesn't all that significantly affect the healthcare-related impact of switching jobs (it slightly mitigates the healthcare related cost of being a difficult-to-insure individual and moving from a job that provides a group plan to one that doesn't), and the parts of it that did have some impact on that were have not been in place long enough to have substantially affected people's expectations and behavior.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#39

Post by ryanwaggoner »

M_Grey wrote: post #35
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any credible research that climate change is going to "end us"?

By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.

In that case, my question still stands.

I'm asking because I frequently see this kind of climate change alarmism on forums (it's the end of civilization, billions will die, etc) but my sense from an admittedly cursory reading of the estimates is that the dangers of climate change are likely to be an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a substantial decrease in quality of life for generations.

So, horrible. But I think it's wrong to say that it represents the end of civilization. For one thing, like most things, the consequences of climate change will be felt very unequally. The richest countries of the world are likely to see a much smaller impact in terms of famine and death.

Granted, no one knows for sure, but as someone who is NOT skeptical of the cause and effects of climate change, I am somewhat skeptical that in 100 years it'll be as bad as many internet chicken little types seem to think.

I probably sound more dogmatic than I am though, so please do share some research and change my view :)

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#40

Post by hkmurakami »

M_Grey wrote: post #36
hkmurakami wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What parents will want will be informed by the environment around them. For example, when parents perceive the economy to be closer to zero sum, with clear "winners and losers", they tend to push their children more to get every edge they can in credentialing and jockeying for the best position for financial security (read: Tiger Moms). Hard to say what said environment will be in the future when more tools are avail…

Then maybe you want a kid who doesn't sleep much, has a high drive, and low empathy. That assumes you want success uber alle though, what if you want your kid to believe that handling poisonous snakes is the key to salvation, or something like that? Then you might need to breed a very different kind of mind.

Well exactly. Hence its hard to say what we'll desire given that we don't really know what things will be like.

Who knows, pale skin may sadly be more desirable than ever before if things continue their current course. :(

Post reply on HN