Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by icebraining » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 12:44 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #88

codecamper wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US many have a very flawed way of thinking: if we give more power to companies, than we won't need government. I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this. Government should exist to protect it's people and environment. It should have the long term in mind & work with other governments to do the same, creating a level playing field for the companies to be within.

Yeah, I was just having a conversation with someone today about how it never works out in practice. There is no free market, and in anything approaching it, companies simply e.g. collude to keep prices high or make things unnecessarily complex. Look at cell phone plans and what "unlimited" means, for example. Not that the wireless ISP industry is unregulated (far from it), but why not just start your own and fix it?…

> why not just start your own and fix it?

Because the State punishes you if you start emitting? It's called spectrum allocation.

Just because you can technically start a company doesn't mean you have anything resembling a free market, and in fact the examples you gave (wireless and healthcare) are two of the most regulated industries.

That doesn't mean the free market wouldn't be even worse than what we have now. It's just that you can't use that argument against it.

> The point of a business is to make a profit. This is many times at odds with what people actually need to e.g. Stay alive. I'm not sure why many people keep attempting to suggest businesses as a solution to the modern basic needs of humans. They're fundamentally misaligned.

And the point of the State is to further the ambitions of politicians and their pay masters (like those business owners who lobby them).

You can never get real alignment, so that's an irrelevant argument. Even parents are often not aligned with the welfare of their children.

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

#102

Post by cowsandmilk » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 12:49 PM UTC

mantas wrote: post #71

wyager wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not better. Cheaper. Nope, it's also better for the vast majority of medicine. Have you ever used Mexican private healthcare? I have! Customer service and convenience is through the roof compared to US healthcare. > I rest my case. Not a very good case! The reason you wouldn't want to get complicated surgery in Mexico is that they don't have as many medical specialists, or as much equipment. The US is richer and ha…

The reason is that what you pay for "cheap" service is actually the premium service over there. Super expensive private hospital in US would provide as good customer service.

Yep, you can get luxury suites at hospitals in the US; and they'll serve your every whim. And that "better customer service" often results in worse medical care. Just google "VIP syndrome" and see tons of examples where it appears that this "better customer service" of deviating from procedure killed these VIPs.

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

#103

Post by nisa » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:23 PM UTC

witty_username wrote: post #32

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?

Almost 50% of US citizens don't have enough money on the bank to replace a broken 400$ item.

How many would out of desperation i.e. healthcare costs for relatives sell an organ?

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secr...

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

#104

Post by emodendroket » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:23 PM UTC

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…

I get the sentiment but a lot of people do get life insurance through work.

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

#105

Post by eru » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:29 PM UTC

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?

Singapore works fairly well. They have an interesting system; but it's not strictly single-payer.

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

#106

Post by eru » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #99

techsupporter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Another quote I've heard is that "extremists become more extreme, not less, as problems come closer to solutions." "Socialism" and "extremists" don'…

> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover someth…

SAP in Germany was getting union representation just when I was doing an internship there about 10 year ago. The move wasn't popular with employees.

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

#107

Post by icebraining » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #99

techsupporter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Another quote I've heard is that "extremists become more extreme, not less, as problems come closer to solutions." "Socialism" and "extremists" don'…

> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover someth…

It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices.

It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. Organizations aren't created in a vacuum, they require bringing in others, and if you're starting an union, you'll attract people who are already predisposed to all the ideas of what makes up a union, and you'll attract offers of help from existing unions, which will try to co-opt you. And there's no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process. Finally, once that it created, it's not just a matter of distancing yourself; once a union grows, it affects every worker, even non-unionized - in some cases, even banning them outright from working.

So it's not surprising that workers which still have it pretty good aren't interest in opening that can of worms, and you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one.

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

#108

Post by witty_username » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

nisa wrote: post #103

witty_username wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with people selling their organs?

Almost 50% of US citizens don't have enough money on the bank to replace a broken 400$ item. How many would out of desperation i.e. healthcare costs for relatives sell an organ? 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secr...

You seem to be implying that is a bad thing.

What is wrong with that? Allowing them to donate organs gives them more choices. Who owns a person's body?

And donating the organ helps people who needs organs. The person who donates and the person who receives do this voluntarily if they feel they benefit.

I think it's deplorable that people are dying from lack of organ donations while there are people with healthy organs who are poor. Legalizing organ donation would help both groups.

See https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... .

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

#109

Post by witty_username » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:48 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #98

witty_username wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The boss is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract. > but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. You seem to be implying this is bad thing but it makes sense that a company (could be thousands of people) should h…

what happens when all insurance plans make this a hard requirement, and you effectively can not be employed, or insured without it. Don't think it will happen? Try to get internet access, or medical insurance without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration (that is, signing away your ability to sue).

If it happens, then that's what employees/customers want. It's similar to democracy.

I do not want to force something on other people.

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

#110

Post by icebraining » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:54 PM UTC

Exofunctor wrote: post #49

While I think health insurance shouldn't be attached to employers, I don't really have an objection to insurance companies using genetic testing. This is certainly an unpopular opinion here, but as someone who believes that medical care is a service, not a right: I think it's unfair to force people to subsidize the healthcare of other people, regardless of the mechanism used. When you have car insurance, the insuranc…

A lot of health risks, including at least the top 6 causes of death worldwide (heart disease, stroke, lung infections, COPD, respiratory cancers, diabetes) can be substantially mitigated by personal choices such as diet and exercise

That's true, but genetics is literally the opposite: it's the one thing you definitively can't choose to change. So your argument doesn't work in the case being discussed.

If you had to pay an extra $200/mo to your insurance company because you were morbidly obese, one would expect that this would encourage a lot of people to start eating better.

One would expect that all the existing drawbacks of being morbidly obese would encourage a lot of people to start eating better. Why would this specific drawback work when others haven't?