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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 169 posts

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

#41

Post by brokenmasonjars »

Buge wrote: post #37
brokenmasonjars wrote: post #30

I suppose if this is passed it goes to the many reasons why I enjoy living my life trading with my own funds without the stability of holding a career with an employer. So far no drug tests is pretty much the winner but if genetic testing bill becomes law then I'm pretty sure that tops drug testing. I'm not a fan of background checks and I refuse to give references..but that's easy for me since I'm not applying to jo…

Why are you against references? My current job didn't require drug tests or references. Just resume + whiteboard coding.

It's more of a personal preference than overt philosophical stance. I just don't think it's anyone's business where I'm applying or may end up working (I don't want the references to know where I'm applying or may end up working).

Edit: switched "stance" for "preference"

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

#42

Post by jedberg »

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…

Places I've worked have provide life, health, AD&D, pet, dental, vision, and lawyer insurance. So yeah, it's a lot more than health.

But I still agree with you -- we need to figure out a way to separate insurance from a job. Although I don't like the idea of just precluding them from offering it. If a company wants to offer insurance we shouldn't stop them. We just need to make it so they have little advantage to do so.

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

#43

Post by erlehmann_ »

randyrand wrote: post #21

If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue. There are plenty of employers that don't require genetic information. If you don't want to give your genetic information to your employer it's simple, don't work there. Companies that can't hire employees go out of business. This is a self correction 'problem'. We don't need legisla…

> If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue.

The problem is one of bargaining power: Consent must be given freely – 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. Example: If an employee is told by the boss he or she will be fired if they do not have sex right now, any consent in that scenario is not given freely, but under duress.

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

#44

Post by lisper »

wyager wrote: post #33
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem. Except things like, you know, quality of care or satisfaction. Single-payer healthcare beats the American implementation, which is not a high bar to clear. There's a reason medical tourism to Mexico and India is so prevalent. Totally deregulated private doctors seem to kick the ass of state heal…

> There's a reason medical tourism to Mexico and India is so prevalent.

Yes: health care in Mexico and India is cheaper. Not better. Cheaper.

> I wouldn't want to get, say, complicated brain surgery in Mexico.

I rest my case.

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

#45

Post by wavefunction »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #39
M_Grey wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.

In that case, my question still stands. I'm asking because I frequently see this kind of climate change alarmism on forums (it's the end of civilization, billions will die, etc) but my sense from an admittedly cursory reading of the estimates is that the dangers of climate change are likely to be an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a sub…

I would just say in response to your post: the start of Syria's troubles are considered by some to begin with an unseasonable and sustained drought.

That's one country's population sudden injection into the rich Western world you consider to be facing limited fallout, and we've witnessed the results and the reactions.

I don't think most people can picture the real effects of sustained and mass migration, even if you're fortunate enough to enjoy the perks of Western life.

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

#46

Post by adrianN »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #39
M_Grey wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.

In that case, my question still stands. I'm asking because I frequently see this kind of climate change alarmism on forums (it's the end of civilization, billions will die, etc) but my sense from an admittedly cursory reading of the estimates is that the dangers of climate change are likely to be an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a sub…

I also don't think that global warming will end civilization for the same reasons as you. However, a refuge crisis, wars over food and water and hundreds of millions dead will be a heavy blow that might set us back for a long time. There is little money for colonizing Mars when you have to spend it all for killing revolutionaries.

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

#47

Post by davedx »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #39
M_Grey wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.

In that case, my question still stands. I'm asking because I frequently see this kind of climate change alarmism on forums (it's the end of civilization, billions will die, etc) but my sense from an admittedly cursory reading of the estimates is that the dangers of climate change are likely to be an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a sub…

You think given the way things are going today, civilization as we know it will survive this?

> an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a substantial decrease in quality of life for generations.

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

#49

Post by Exofunctor »

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 insurance companies are allowed to use statistical techniques to predict how much you are going to cost them. Competition between insurance companies involves treading the line between beating the price of other insurance companies while charging slightly more than the customer is expected to cost.

If we let health insurance companies do this, then yes, healthcare would get substantially more expensive for very risky/unhealthy people. Of course, it would also get drastically less expensive for healthy people. From a moral perspective, I think this is preferable, but obviously not everyone will agree.

Now, from a utilitarian perspective, these two possibilities seem roughly equivalent at first glance. However, I'd argue that the latter (where insurance companies are allowed to set prices like car insurance) has a number of (significant) positive side effects.

The largest side effect is that it incentivizes customer health improvement. 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. 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. Let the market do the heavy lifting! This is exactly the sort of thing that the market excels at. Society benefits from healthier people, but in almost all countries rich enough to have insurance (including the US and nations with socialized healthcare), there is no mechanism to incentivize this! An actual insurance market would do the job.

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

#50

Post by electricEmu »

wyager wrote: post #33
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> By essentially any metric, state provided (single-payer) healthcare is the best-known solution to the healthcare problem. Except things like, you know, quality of care or satisfaction. Single-payer healthcare beats the American implementation, which is not a high bar to clear. There's a reason medical tourism to Mexico and India is so prevalent. Totally deregulated private doctors seem to kick the ass of state heal…

If America completely deregulated the medical industry then where would you get that complex brain surgery? It doesn't sound like completely deregulated markets cater to that speciality.

It sounds great until you need something that isn't routine.

Post reply on HN