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

81–90 of 119 posts

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

#81

Post by mikeash »

barrkel wrote: post #73
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…

The conflict at the heart of the movie is between the rational vs the emotional. In so far as it makes an argument, it's a weak one; but the core it is in the discussion between the brothers about the race / rescue from the sea. It's rational to curtail ambitions; it's rational to give up if you see no hope of an endeavour succeeding. But Ethan Hawke's character didn't let his rational mental model limit what he coul…

I agree with that. It's unfortunate that the movie attempts to illustrate this emotional drive to achieve with something that puts others in danger. If the protagonist had only been risking himself, it would have gotten the message across far better.

It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.

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

#82

Post by jfoutz »

aplomb wrote: post #38

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.

Yeah, what the hell has Stephen hawking ever done for us? Socialized medicine supports the guy, and we get nothing in return.

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

#83

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

kbenson wrote: post #76
ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 t…

From my experience it's not 2-3 times more, depending on your specific conditions and possibly region. For me, a male over 35 in not very great shape, it's maybe a 20-30% difference IIRC.

From what I've seen it was $100 vs $350 type deal.

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

#84

Post by mikeash »

rosser wrote: post #80
mikeash wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was the navigator. That seems kind of important. If it wasn't, why would they bother to bring him along?

You either missed or evaded my point, simply to re-state your own. (Also: nice shadow-edit.)

I don't see where I'm evading or missing your point. Perhaps you could explain? And I didn't make any shadow edits. You sound rather paranoid.

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

#85

Post by barrkel »

mikeash wrote: post #81
barrkel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflict at the heart of the movie is between the rational vs the emotional. In so far as it makes an argument, it's a weak one; but the core it is in the discussion between the brothers about the race / rescue from the sea. It's rational to curtail ambitions; it's rational to give up if you see no hope of an endeavour succeeding. But Ethan Hawke's character didn't let his rational mental model limit what he coul…

I agree with that. It's unfortunate that the movie attempts to illustrate this emotional drive to achieve with something that puts others in danger. If the protagonist had only been risking himself, it would have gotten the message across far better. It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to…

You're committing the same mistake that is expressly argued against in the story. The story is directly criticises rationality taken too far; it's advocating a triumph of will to achieve. Who are you to say that the mission is more likely to fail without someone with that will to succeed, and instead with yet another rationalist who will lose hope when their models tell them it won't work out? Who will give up the swim when they see no way back to shore?

Teams generally work better with a mix of different people, rather than uniformity. I'd be willing to bet that if the scenario was real, the mix would work better.

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

#86

Post by astrange »

gumby wrote: post #47

This is based on theory of 'wellness': the insurance company / employer should take a holistic approach to health. Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives. So they are doubling down on a disproven theory to invade people's privacy. Hat trick to the GOP House if they can pull this nonsense off.

> Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives.

Why don't they?

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

#87

Post by mikeash »

barrkel wrote: post #85
mikeash wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that. It's unfortunate that the movie attempts to illustrate this emotional drive to achieve with something that puts others in danger. If the protagonist had only been risking himself, it would have gotten the message across far better. It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to…

You're committing the same mistake that is expressly argued against in the story. The story is directly criticises rationality taken too far; it's advocating a triumph of will to achieve. Who are you to say that the mission is more likely to fail without someone with that will to succeed, and instead with yet another rationalist who will lose hope when their models tell them it won't work out? Who will give up the sw…

I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocating the inclusion of people with fatal heart defects on space missions just to satisfy a goal of improved diversity.

There are a lot of people out there who want to become astronauts and are rejected because they're not healthy enough. The reaction is almost always "that sucks for you, maybe you could go into something related to space so you're at least still doing something related to your dream," not "NASA sucks, they're building weaker teams by excluding people they think aren't healthy enough for space travel."

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

#88

Post by cmdrfred »

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #54
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 t…

>This is more of a liability issue then anything else

If this was true why shouldn't they also test for alcohol use?

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

#89

Post by ghaff »

astrange wrote: post #86
gumby wrote: post #47

This is based on theory of 'wellness': the insurance company / employer should take a holistic approach to health. Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives. So they are doubling down on a disproven theory to invade people's privacy. Hat trick to the GOP House if they can pull this nonsense off.

> Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives. Why don't they?

A number of reasons.

-- Most healthcare monies are spent on the sickest individuals and they're least likely to participate in a wellness program. And the most motivated participants in lifestyle change sort of program would probably have been the most motivated to make changes outside of a program.

-- Many chronic illnesses and other expensive medical conditions/procedures are not prevented by wellness programs, getting an annual physical, etc.

-- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)

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

#90

Post by kbenson »

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #83
kbenson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience it's not 2-3 times more, depending on your specific conditions and possibly region. For me, a male over 35 in not very great shape, it's maybe a 20-30% difference IIRC.

From what I've seen it was $100 vs $350 type deal.

My work provided plan is about $350 for a fairly cheap Kaiser plan.
Post reply on HN