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

71–80 of 169 posts

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

#71

Post by mantas »

wyager wrote: post #54
lisper wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Not better. Cheaper. Nope, it's also better for the vast majority of medicine. Have you ever used Mexican private healthcare? I have! Customer service and convenience is through the roof compared to US healthcare. > I rest my case. Not a very good case! The reason you wouldn't want to get complicated surgery in Mexico is that they don't have as many medical specialists, or as much equipment. The US is richer and ha…

The reason is that what you pay for "cheap" service is actually the premium service over there. Super expensive private hospital in US would provide as good customer service.

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

#72

Post by witty_username »

erlehmann_ wrote: post #43
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 is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract.

> 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.

You seem to be implying this is bad thing but it makes sense that a company (could be thousands of people) should have more bargaining power than an employee (1 person). What is the threat of force here? That is illegal. What is the retribution here if an employee chooses a different employer because the employee wants to decline testing?

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

#73

Post by adrianN »

M_Grey wrote: post #68
adrianN wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health, physical attractiveness and intelligence are the obvious ones. We already know many genes that are associated with cancer and other illnesses, so screening for those and discarding embryos could already be done with today's technology. I suspect eye, hair and skin color aren't very difficult either. Seeing how popular skin bleaching products are I could see many parents paying money for lighter offspring. Int…

...But physical attractiveness has some serious variability, even within culture. I agree though, that some things like lighter skin in many parts of the world would be a likely big seller.

So? Parents choose what they find attractive.

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

#74

Post by tray5 »

I'm sorry to all Americans who may read this and get ruffled, but what the actual fuck is wrong with your political landscape and attitudes towards workers rights? Why don't you have unions? Why do Americans seem to hate unions? Why don't you have an active political party representing workers? Why don't you have an active movement to prevent your employer from becoming overseer of your entire life? All I see day in and day out from America is employers and capitalists finding another way to fuck the workers and there is not one iota of widespread organised resistance to this (or any of your other disgusting work legislation like "at will employment" or your complete desire to shoot yourselves in the foot with univ.healthcare) at all.

Seriously what is the problem with your country that you've managed to manoeuvre yourselves as employees into a position where you are totally unable to counter the repeated and ceaseless violation of your ability to live with some sort of security and expectation of privacy against your employer. Your country is amazing, your people are lovely. But your politics and attitudes towards work, workers and their rights is abhorrent and disgusting.

The thought of legislation like this arising in my country (Australia), where your employer is given free range to look into your genetic privacy is just unfathomable to me, and if it did happen there would be widespread protests organised by unions and political parties representing workers rights. Truly the attitude of seemingly the majority of Americans towards themselves and workers rights is gross, and frankly quite sad. You will only ever stop these sorts of gross violations of workers rights with even bargaining power between employee and employer, and there is only one way to achieve that (workers unionising)

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

#75

Post by M_Grey »

int_19h wrote: post #65
wavefunction wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

The ability to isolate yourself comes with its own costs. Turning away refugees is one thing; but what happens when people are sufficiently desperate that they will be willing to take up arms to secure a place under the sun for themselves and their kin?

...And then, after slaughtering those people and years of insularity, nationalism, and populism... what's going to be left, but for those insular nations to fight over remaining resources?

I can't see a nuclear nation shrugging and saying, "Well I guess we're conquered! Here are the keys..."

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

#76

Post by M_Grey »

adrianN wrote: post #73
M_Grey wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...But physical attractiveness has some serious variability, even within culture. I agree though, that some things like lighter skin in many parts of the world would be a likely big seller.

So? Parents choose what they find attractive.

Right. Like genital mutilation, or foot binding, or neck-stretching...

Except that you could do it at a genetic level. People, like Pugs and Pomeranians, because that's how we do things. We'll create fashions and fuck around before we figure out the fine details.

"Oh Mandy is so lovely and pale, so thin and tall! What a pity she slobbers and can't breath very well."

Even worse, lets imagine...

Uganda bans "Gay genes"

Parts of the world now produce girls who are naturally born "pre-mutilated", or maybe you bypass that and just make them unable to experience sexual pleasure.

Maybe people would finally get their dream, and have a child who would stay a child for a very long time.

Then you have the people with a plan... the "best golfer" or "best football player" stuff, but now genetically loaded before conception. Todd Marinovich, but even more intense.

Just take all of the insane, controlling shit that people do, and now give them as much control (and as much fallibility) as you can imagine over our own genes.

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

#77

Post by mantas »

Exofunctor wrote: post #49

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 insuranc…

> If let health insurance companies do this, then yes, healthcare would get substantially more expensive for very risky/unhealthy people.

Which is more risky/unhealthy - obese couch potato or mountain biker?

The only cheap way of living would be sitting on a couch and doing nothing. But then you gotta work out. Infinite loop :)

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

#78

Post by codecamper »

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…

In the US many have a very flawed way of thinking: if we give more power to companies, than we won't need government. I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this.

Government should exist to protect it's people and environment. It should have the long term in mind & work with other governments to do the same, creating a level playing field for the companies to be within.

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

#79

Post by techsupporter »

mantas wrote: post #71
wyager wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not better. Cheaper. Nope, it's also better for the vast majority of medicine. Have you ever used Mexican private healthcare? I have! Customer service and convenience is through the roof compared to US healthcare. > I rest my case. Not a very good case! The reason you wouldn't want to get complicated surgery in Mexico is that they don't have as many medical specialists, or as much equipment. The US is richer and ha…

The reason is that what you pay for "cheap" service is actually the premium service over there. Super expensive private hospital in US would provide as good customer service.

Case in point in north Texas: Witness the staggering difference between the specialty hospitals that have cropped up like weeds over the past decade (many of them are clustered around the larger hospitals in places like Plano and Denton) versus, say, the public and not-for-profit hospitals that must take all comers.

Most of these specialty hospitals oh-so-carefully do not offer "Emergency Services" (as in, they don't staff a room called an "emergency room" even though they, conveniently, have an ambulance bay and are staffed 24/7) so they don't have to accept Medicare or several of the known-to-pay-on-the-low-side private insurance plans.

Meanwhile, Parkland, JPS, Baylor, and UTSW get to deal with the "cast-offs" who have no other choice.

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

#80

Post by kurthr »

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…

So over the next 85 years we're expecting a rise of 2-10m based on current warming with the low end hoping that we maintain only 2c by the end of the century, which currently seems unlikely. Follow the link at the bottom and ask yourself what the US is going to do without Florida, or how much the dams across the Golden Gate (and Houston, New York, DC, Shanghai, London) are going to cost to prevent the inundation of Sacramento and the destruction of California farming.

We're ignoring poor places like Bangladesh with a population of 200Mil (or Indonesia with 1Bil), which will likely be largely depopulated.

I'm now going to past text I used in an earlier comment: _Florida is porous. You can build walls but they don't do much. The water will rise to cover the entire peninsula. Long before that tides and storm surge will destroy all of the surface roads to coastal cities. I personally wouldn't lend money there for longer than 30years._ http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

Post reply on HN