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

51–60 of 119 posts

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

#51

Post by lisper »

ta12mar17 wrote: post #48
Neliquat wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflating a personal matter with something required is inappropriate no matter your tangentally related situation.

Your comment is incredibly insensitive and unkind. I sincerely hope that if I were to tell you what happened to our family face-to-face, you would not have responded in this way. I was assuming that it would be a worthwhile anecdote to share, given that most people appear to find it unnecessary to get tested. If one person on the Internet reads my comment, decides to get tested, and finds they are a carrier of a seve…

I don't want to minimize your pain in any way, but I think the reason you're being downvoted is that your comment sounds like you want to imply that because mandatory testing would have spared you this pain, that it is therefore a good thing. But this does not follow. Just because mandatory testing might have led to a better outcome in one case doesn't mean that overall it's a good thing. You yourself pointed out the extreme cost of mandatory testing: if an employer knows that you are at high risk of being sick, then they have no choice but to do everything they can to replace you with an equally productive but healthy person. Not doing so would be a breach of their fiduciary duties to their investors.

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

#52

Post by dorfsmay »

lohengramm wrote: post #46
klenwell wrote: post #37

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 M…

Are 23andMe tests useless? Don't get me wrong, I am just curious about it.

To help curing the common cold in a specific individual at a specific time, yes.

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

#53

Post by dorfsmay »

Pxtl wrote: post #15

Meanwhile in Canada, the House voted to ban genetic discrimination, over the objections of the Cabinet (who believe this should be a provincial issue and not a federal one). http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...

Isn't the ability to live on native land based on genetic discrimination?

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

#54

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

Keverw wrote: post #40

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…

>> Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them.

This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them.

>>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.

It's not. Also, you're free to decline the coverage through your employer and buy your own (or not buy any). Which used to be a viable option until Obamacare kicked in - now you either buy what's called a "short term" insurance OR buy the same coverage and pay 2-3 times more for it. Why would you do that you might ask? Because short-term policies impose tax penalties and can only last up to 6 months so you have to constantly change providers which is an ordeal...

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

#55

Post by DrJokepu »

mikeash wrote: post #50
guftagu wrote: post #4

Isn't this exactly the premise of the movie Gattaca? Great movie, BTW.

IMO Gattaca makes a great case for genetic testing. An idiot with a major heart condition bluffs his way onto a space mission where he's likely to die and endanger the rest of the crew. If the testing had been a bit more thorough (say, if the doctor in charge of testing had done his job) then the mission wouldn't have been endangered. It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of…

It's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.

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

#56

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

Not seeing anything about any penalties in the bill.

These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become a part of if this passes.

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

#57

Post by dredmorbius »

lisper wrote: post #49
ta12mar17 wrote: post #39

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 on…

I'm very sorry for your loss. > I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Did you really mean to say "how" or did you mean "why"? Because the "why" is that if you have investors (at least in the U.S.) then you have a fiduciary duty to them to maximize their return by all legal means at your disposal. You do not have a fiduciary duty t…

That fiduciary duty myth you've just restated is just that, a myth. Created from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman.

http://evonomics.com/the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-valu...

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

#58

Post by dredmorbius »

ta12mar17 wrote: post #39

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 on…

That same level of testing could be required without requiring an employer's involvement, and all the potential for abuse, discrimination, harassment, and pain that might imply.

You're forcing a false dichotomy. Under colour of sympathy to boot.

I'm sorry for your pain, but your suggestion and justification are both exceedingly poor.

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

#59

Post by brohoolio »

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #56

Not seeing anything about any penalties in the bill. These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become…

The companies can charge you higher premiums for opting out. I think 30% higher.

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

#60

Post by mikeash »

DrJokepu wrote: post #55
mikeash wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO Gattaca makes a great case for genetic testing. An idiot with a major heart condition bluffs his way onto a space mission where he's likely to die and endanger the rest of the crew. If the testing had been a bit more thorough (say, if the doctor in charge of testing had done his job) then the mission wouldn't have been endangered. It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of…

It's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.

There's a ton of other stuff in the movie that attempts to make the case against testing, but IMO it's all overshadowed by the main plot wherein a failure of testing likely results in a major problem for an important mission.
Post reply on HN