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

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

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

#31

Post by canadian_voter »

thotpoizn wrote: post #18
fragsworth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 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

Just 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…

“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-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

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

#33

Post by pstuart »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #23
pstuart wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.

Employers already check credit reports, so they know about problems with your financial history. I don't see how porn is relevant.

We 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.

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

#34

Post by 24gttghh »

pharrington wrote: post #20
wodencafe wrote: post #2

Congress 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).

According 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.

This [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/2017/0...

[1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...

[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...

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

#35

Post by thotpoizn »

dsr_ wrote: post #19
cylinder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When 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.

That'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.

I 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.

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

#36

Post by klenwell »

thotpoizn wrote: post #18
fragsworth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 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

Just 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…

The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?

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

#37

Post by klenwell »

I 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.

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

#38

Post by aplomb »

People 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.

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

#39

Post by ta12mar17 »

If 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?

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

#40

Post by Keverw »

Companies 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...

Post reply on HN