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

101–110 of 119 posts

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

#101

Post by ams6110 »

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.

This is my objection. I don't so much object to the notion of insurers considering genetics when evaluating risk, but the demonstrated inability of organizations to keep private personal information private. Once an insurer has your DNA sequence, you must assume that the government also has it, plus any number of criminal organizations.

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

#102

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

cmdrfred wrote: post #88
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…

>This is more of a liability issue then anything else If this was true why shouldn't they also test for alcohol use?

As much as some of them would like to - it's very hard to do so legally (which is their way out of being on the hook legally too) - even in situations where being drunk can realistically cause physical harm, let alone office type job situations.

One company I worked for had a manufacturing operation, talking to their supervisors - they would call the cops sometimes if someone is visibly drunk and the worse case scenario for the employee is they would get sent home w/out pay for a day or something along those lines. They were actually happy when some of those dudes would get drunk AND high at lunch so they can get busted by the cops :) There was also a union involved so that tied supervisor's hands even more.

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

#103

Post by lisper »

dredmorbius wrote: post #57
lisper wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

All social constructs are myths, including the very idea of a corporation itself. When enough people believe the myth it becomes self-actualizing. The law itself is a self-actualizing myth, having power only because enough people believe that it has power. It is that shared belief that causes the law to have actual power in the real world.

It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "myth" that shareholders own corporations and that corporations hence have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders that this "myth" becomes self-actualizing in exactly the same way that the law becomes self-actualizing. The law itself even has a mechanism for incorporating such self-actualizing myths, notwithstanding that they are not formally codified into the law. That is called "common law". Common law is a meta-myth. Nowhere will you find the idea of common law formally incorporated into the law. And yet anyone who questioned the principle of common law (at least in the U.S.) would rightfully be considered out of touch with reality. Likewise for the fiduciary duty of corporations to their shareholders.

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

#104

Post by curun1r »

ghaff wrote: post #89
astrange wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, get…

The wellness programs were never about changing behavior or making people healthier. They're about satisfying actuaries to reduce the cost of insuring more healthy individuals. Determining how much someone's health care premium should be depends on assigning them to a risk pool. The more data you have on that person, the more nuanced you can make that assignment. These wellness programs gather that data and appropriately discount the health insurance premiums of lower-risk employees. That they may change a few people's unhealthy behavior would just be a bonus.

I've never seen a problem with that. I do believe that everyone should have the right to health care, but I don't think that everyone should have the right to health care at the same price. If people are actively making choices that make them, statistically speaking, more costly to insure, why shouldn't they have to pay more as a result?

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

#105

Post by dredmorbius »

lisper wrote: post #103
dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

All social constructs are myths, including the very idea of a corporation itself. When enough people believe the myth it becomes self-actualizing. The law itself is a self-actualizing myth, having power only because enough people believe that it has power. It is that shared belief that causes the law to have actual power in the real world. It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "m…

You're verging on, if not wholly embracing, a complete dispensing of the very concept of truth.

The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law.

Which is incorporated into law through jurisprudence, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v East, 81 S.W. 279 (Texas 1904), or Pierson v. Post, as examples.

Cheers.

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

#106

Post by mikeash »

maxerickson wrote: post #97
mikeash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's stated repeatedly. Cmd-F "heart": http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Gattaca.html

That's a draft of the script though, not the final film.

Which of the instances in that script are not in the final film? As I recall, all of them are. The fact that his heart sucks is a pretty major part of the movie.

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

#107

Post by curun1r »

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…

It's kind the way that credit card companies don't allow you to charge a higher price for credit purchases but do allow businesses to offer a cash discount. So businesses raise their prices and offer that cash discount, effectively charging a higher price to people using credit.

This is the same thing. They can't penalize people for not participating in the Wellness Program. So they increase the employee contribution for everyone and then offer discounts for people who participate. The net effect is to penalize the people that don't participate.

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

#108

Post by rbanffy »

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 strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.

I read the movie as a criticism towards a society that grew accustomed to certainty, to a very narrow notion of physical perfection and the removal of all risk in favor of that. In that sense, the testing depicted in the movie induces society to an error, optimizing for a narrow set of traits, the expectation of fashionable accomplishments, where the explorers are not those who yearn to explore, but those whose genetic makeup makes them best suitable.

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

#109

Post by mikeash »

gred wrote: post #98
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…

> It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing. Interesting viewpoint! It seems to me that the genetic testing was nothing more than a convenient proxy for measuring actual performance. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and by actually performing, Vincent proved that the proxy was (in many ways) flawed. > either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things th…

The risk to the rest of the crew is never discussed, and is implied to lightly that most people don't even notice it. (For examples, see the other replies I'm getting.)

The tradeoffs are never discussed, and the protagonist never so much as acknowledges that his pursuit of his dreams might cause harm to others.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding isn't eaten until Vincent's mission returns safely. When the movie ends, he has not come close to proving his performance for that.

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

#110

Post by maxerickson »

mikeash wrote: post #106
maxerickson wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a draft of the script though, not the final film.

Which of the instances in that script are not in the final film? As I recall, all of them are. The fact that his heart sucks is a pretty major part of the movie.

Compare how much of the geneticist scene is struck out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRpQMW77T_o

At 1 minute in that clip the nurse talks about probability of heart disorder. 99% probability.

Post reply on HN