Theoryland of the Wheel of Time Forums

Theoryland of the Wheel of Time Forums (http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Non WoT Discussion (http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=77)
-   -   Meanwhile, While Everyone Is Outraged Over Healthcare... (http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8961)

Davian93 03-10-2017 11:45 AM

Meanwhile, While Everyone Is Outraged Over Healthcare...
 
https://www.genomeweb.com/policy-leg...rimination-law

Another bill is quietly advancing through Congress that would destroy genetic privacy.

WTF is wrong with the GOP???

GonzoTheGreat 03-10-2017 12:09 PM

Maybe they're all possessed by demons. It does seem to get pretty hard to find arguments to refute that theory, at least.

Nazbaque 03-10-2017 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davian93 (Post 241043)
https://www.genomeweb.com/policy-leg...rimination-law

Another bill is quietly advancing through Congress that would destroy genetic privacy.

WTF is wrong with the GOP???

Can't see the article without registering. So different link or copy-paste please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat (Post 241045)
Maybe they're all possessed by demons. It does seem to get pretty hard to find arguments to refute that theory, at least.

That's insulting Gonzo. Demons have standards. They wouldn't touch GOP with a ten foot pole.

Davian93 03-10-2017 02:05 PM

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...ns-genes-bill/

Does this one work?

If not, maybe this one...

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/...netic-testing/

Nazbaque 03-10-2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davian93 (Post 241048)

Those work just fine.

But the whole thing is pretty vague. If I understood this right the people we might refer to as "employers" want access to the medical information of their employees and specifically their genetic information. What I don't understand is why they want this information.

Davian93 03-10-2017 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazbaque (Post 241049)
Those work just fine.

But the whole thing is pretty vague. If I understood this right the people we might refer to as "employers" want access to the medical information of their employees and specifically their genetic information. What I don't understand is why they want this information.

"Oh, you have the potential for some odd genetic issue? We ain't keeping you around, that'll cost us a fortune"

That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

Nazbaque 03-10-2017 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davian93 (Post 241050)
"Oh, you have the potential for some odd genetic issue? We ain't keeping you around, that'll cost us a fortune"

That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

And the latter part wouldn't be a crime?

Kimon 03-10-2017 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davian93 (Post 241050)
"Oh, you have the potential for some odd genetic issue? We ain't keeping you around, that'll cost us a fortune"

That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

Even beyond the obvious privacy concerns and potential healthcare ramifications, this still seems like it would open a host of wrongful termination lawsuits if it was actually used as the basis for firing someone. I wonder if this wasn't just initiated by a lobbyist for the genetic testing industry out of a desire to drum up more business. Certainly it seems pretty random.

Quote:

The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.
It's hard to imagine that all 22 republicans could support something so blatantly obtrusive without money changing hands. This smells like lobbying to me.

And we can't pretend that this kind of wellness annoyances have been completely limited to republicans...

Quote:

Employers got virtually everything they wanted for their workplace wellness programs during the Obama administration. The ACA allowed them to charge employees 30 percent, and possibly 50 percent, more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits, including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.
Those examples at least seem more like legitimate wellness tests, but still could (and perhaps should) be viewed as, and argued to be egregious intrusions. This does underscore just how ridiculous a position it is however to push for these types of cost-saving wellness programs while simultaneously fighting against the inclusion of one the most obvious cost-saving features - birth control.

Nazbaque 03-10-2017 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimon (Post 241054)
This does underscore just how ridiculous a position it is however to push for these types of cost-saving wellness programs while simultaneously fighting against the inclusion of one the most obvious cost-saving features - birth control.

Just look at it from an utterly selfish point of view. The first makes it easier for you to sin so you are all for it and the other makes it easier for others to sin so you are against it. If someone else has more fun than you then you've lost.

ShadowbaneX 03-10-2017 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazbaque (Post 241051)
And the latter part wouldn't be a crime?

Since when has that ever stopped anyone?

Weird Harold 03-10-2017 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazbaque (Post 241049)
Those work just fine.

But the whole thing is pretty vague. If I understood this right the people we might refer to as "employers" want access to the medical information of their employees and specifically their genetic information. What I don't understand is why they want this information.

If employers can't ask for genetic test results, it makes it difficult for them to be required to force people to use the appropriate restroom for their genetic type.

Of course the government has a responsibility to make sure employers can comply with such vital public safety concerns. [/sarcasm]

Nazbaque 03-10-2017 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowbaneX (Post 241056)
Since when has that ever stopped anyone?

The fact that something is illegal? Oh quite a few times. Naturally there are those it wouldn't stop just like people still get murdered in spite of all the laws against it. But there is a difference in a law that is inefficiently enforced and there not being a law at all. The first just requires some fine tuning while the other demands definite change before you can even get to the fine tuning.

GonzoTheGreat 03-11-2017 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davian93 (Post 241050)
That's a start. Also, they can then turn around and sell that information...which is scary in itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazbaque (Post 241051)
And the latter part wouldn't be a crime?

Why would it be a crime for businessmen to sell some commodity they happened to get their hands on in a legal way?

If you don't want anyone to know your genetic make up, then simply don't have genes. You are (legally speaking) free to do that; if you don't, then the consequences are your problem, not anyone else's.

Nazbaque 03-11-2017 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat (Post 241061)
Why would it be a crime for businessmen to sell some commodity they happened to get their hands on in a legal way?

If you don't want anyone to know your genetic make up, then simply don't have genes. You are (legally speaking) free to do that; if you don't, then the consequences are your problem, not anyone else's.

They aren't selling a commodity, they are selling a copy of information. That's copyright infringment. You can sue them for millions.

GonzoTheGreat 03-11-2017 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazbaque (Post 241062)
They aren't selling a commodity, they are selling a copy of information. That's copyright infringment. You can sue them for millions.

Only if you're Disney. Since you aren't, you can't. Sometimes law is so simple that even I understand it.

Ozymandias 03-11-2017 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimon (Post 241054)
Those examples at least seem more like legitimate wellness tests, but still could (and perhaps should) be viewed as, and argued to be egregious intrusions. This does underscore just how ridiculous a position it is however to push for these types of cost-saving wellness programs while simultaneously fighting against the inclusion of one the most obvious cost-saving features - birth control.

I agree with the first few words. If employers are going to be responsible for their employees healthcare, or at least partially responsible, then they are being given a right to demand that their employees make a minimal effort to be healthy.

I am sure this is bound to cause issues, but healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. One that any decent, humane civilization should strive to provide, but not a right nonetheless. It does bother me a lot, on an ideological level, that I, as a healthy person (not super healthy, but reasonably so) am forced to subsidize the healthcare of people who spent their whole lives smoking or eating unhealthily. On a practical level, that is the concession we make to live in a society and I'm happy to do it from that standpoint, but I am a fervent believer in so-called "sin taxes"; if you smoke, you pay a big tax, in part to cover the cost of your more expensive long term care. Same should be true for soft drinks, fast food, etc.

Kimon 03-11-2017 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias (Post 241064)
I agree with the first few words. If employers are going to be responsible for their employees healthcare, or at least partially responsible, then they are being given a right to demand that their employees make a minimal effort to be healthy.

I am sure this is bound to cause issues, but healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. One that any decent, humane civilization should strive to provide, but not a right nonetheless. It does bother me a lot, on an ideological level, that I, as a healthy person (not super healthy, but reasonably so) am forced to subsidize the healthcare of people who spent their whole lives smoking or eating unhealthily. On a practical level, that is the concession we make to live in a society and I'm happy to do it from that standpoint, but I am a fervent believer in so-called "sin taxes"; if you smoke, you pay a big tax, in part to cover the cost of your more expensive long term care. Same should be true for soft drinks, fast food, etc.

Placing incentives (and disincentives) on smoking is one thing, but genetic testing would pick up things likes risk for cancers, for obesity, for high blood pressure - things that have the potential to be as much, or more, genetically linked than lifestyle linked. That starts sounding a bit too much like eugenics for the sake of cost efficiency.

As an aside, this is part of the reason why many of us want single payer via the government, rather than via employer.

GonzoTheGreat 03-11-2017 11:04 AM

Suppose that someone showed that voting Republican correlated with bad health, would employers then be entitled to see what every one of their employees had voted?
If not, why not? Can't be privacy or the "sanctity of the voting booth" or something like that. Privacy isn't a right in the USA, and the sanctity of things is a religious concept, so the government should not mess around with it.

Nazbaque 03-11-2017 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias (Post 241064)
I agree with the first few words. If employers are going to be responsible for their employees healthcare, or at least partially responsible, then they are being given a right to demand that their employees make a minimal effort to be healthy.

I am sure this is bound to cause issues, but healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. One that any decent, humane civilization should strive to provide, but not a right nonetheless. It does bother me a lot, on an ideological level, that I, as a healthy person (not super healthy, but reasonably so) am forced to subsidize the healthcare of people who spent their whole lives smoking or eating unhealthily. On a practical level, that is the concession we make to live in a society and I'm happy to do it from that standpoint, but I am a fervent believer in so-called "sin taxes"; if you smoke, you pay a big tax, in part to cover the cost of your more expensive long term care. Same should be true for soft drinks, fast food, etc.

Healthcare is a right. A country has a duty to protect its citizens from danger including poor health. If a country allows vices like smoking, fast food, alcohol and so on, it accepts the duty of dealing with the issues rising from the practice of those vices. If an individual is to be punished on a legal level their activities have to be illegal. Anything else is poor governance.

Kimon 03-11-2017 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazbaque (Post 241067)
Healthcare is a right.

Not in America. Whether it should be is obviously part of the debate, but what is truly being argued isn't so much whether it should be a right (like say life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), but whether it is something that taxes dollars should automatically be earmarked for (i.e. the dem position), or something that you should only have the right to either pay for on your own privately, or via negotiation with your employer (i.e. the republican position), with both essentially also agreeing that the poor (especially poor children) should be provided for by the government (i.e. Medicaid).

If it was purely a right, then we would be arguing Medicaid for all, rather than that for the majority it should be paid for via taxes or paid via collective negotiation through your employer. So this isn't so much an issue of a right, as an issue of the government and its populace saying that it benefits the entire society for everyone to be covered, and thus forcing those who are able to pay for coverage in some way, and the rest (the poor) to be covered directly by the government. And even Medicaid isn't truly free (at least as far as I'm aware, I've obviously never had any personal experience with it), just heavily subsidized.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.