back to article Force employees to take DNA tests for bosses? We've got a new law to make that happen, beam House Republicans

Amid the attention on the new US administration's healthcare plan, a law has been proposed that would force employees to hand over their genetic information if they want company health insurance. House bill HR 1313, dubbed the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, was introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and …

Silver badge

Re: Won't past muster.

They'll either gut HIPPA, or more likely simply force employees to waive their HIPPA rights as a condition of employment/enrollment.

16
2
Silver badge

Re: Won't past muster.

HIPAA is non-waivable much as ADA isn't, but this Act will create loopholes.

3
0
ST
Silver badge

Re: Won't past muster.

> [ ... ] check for hereditary risk for diseases like cancer and some how disqualify a candidate.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prevents discrimination based on genetic information and/or makeup. However, it opens a loophole: that the genetic information is somehow available to the employer.

So, the reason why person XYZ did not get the job is not because of their genetic makeup. That would be illegal. It's because 23 years ago, when XYZ was a junior in college, they bounced a USD $8.51 check to the video rental store, and that shows they aren't a responsible and trustworthy person.

8
1
Silver badge

@ST Re: Won't past muster.

That's the problem.

There are so many reasons why and how this data can be abused.

And yes, its so easy to say that you chose another candidate for over half a dozen reasons and there's no way to prove any sort of trend in terms of hiring without exposing a privacy issue of all applicants.

This goes back to the late 80's and aids scare and why there needs to be medical records privacy.

1
0

> If they want company health insurance.

What? Why would anyone need (or even want) that? The more I learn about the US healthcare system, the less I understand.

7
2
Silver badge

It's confusing because there is no care nor system.

17
2
Orv
Bronze badge

Company plans are the only way to get good group insurance. The individual health insurance market tends to be more expensive, have worse coverage, and (pre-ACA) pretty much refused to cover you if you had any kind of pre-existing medical condition. A lot of the expense is due to adverse selection -- employer plans cover everyone at the company and so get healthy people in the pool paying in more than they take out, but only sick people tend to buy private insurance.

One side effect of this is genetic testing has traditionally been a bad idea, since if it turned up something negative it could make you un-insurable. Ignorance was safer.

3
0
Silver badge
Boffin

@Orv

Actually no.

There are a couple of ways to become a member of group healthcare.

The IEEE used to offer health insurance for its members. They stopped because only older members would take advantage of it because most of the younger members were getting their coverage from their employers who also paid a portion of the insurance if not all of it. Chambers of Commerce used to offer the same thing, some may still do. The problem is that each of these groups are in their own risk pool such that it can get expensive for members because the insurance companies still have to make a profit. (Note: Their profits are limited and they must spend at least a certain percentage of their premium incomes. )

IEEE stopped doing this in the 90's because the premiums became to expensive.

If you're an independent, you can make your wife or significant other an employee and pay them a salary and get group coverage. It only takes two people to become a group.

You also dont' really understand the pre-ACA market.

If you had a pre-existing condition, depending on the condition, you may or may not be able to get coverage. The insurance company could write a rider so that you get coverage for everything but your condition. If you are an employee of a company that offers group insurance, you cannot be denied coverage.

There's also medicaid if you can't afford medical coverage and you make less than the maximum allowed. There were also risk pools for those who can't get coverage.

And yes, I do know a bit about this. I'm also a licensed agent. ;-)

Health insurance is a bit confusing and this is just on the consumer side. You should see what its like to run a small practice.

Obamacare really fscked up the healthcare environment. Socialized medicine is a failure waiting to happen.

0
12
Silver badge

Re: @Orv

If you allow people to group together to spread the risk then you ultimately end up with the ludicrous situation of everyone together in one pool run by the government.

0
0
Silver badge

@Ian Michael Gumby

The Affordable Care Act has absolutely nothing to do with socialised healthcare, your Republican idiots ensured that.

I'm so glad I don't have to rely on the utterly insane US lack-of-healthcare system, I am fortunate enough to live in a country that DOES have an extremely successful socialised health system.

11
0
Silver badge

Re: @Orv

If you had a pre-existing condition, depending on the condition, you may or may not be able to get coverage. The insurance company could write a rider so that you get coverage for everything but your condition.

So if you are ill and cannot work due to a pre-existing condition, not only do you get more expensive insurance premiums, but it won't cover the thing you are actually ill for, what do you do then? Go bust and then die due to inability to pay to treat your treatable condition?

What a delightful country you live in. Your medical insurance companies make more profit than most healthcare systems cost in total. You should be proud of how exceptional America is.

6
0
Silver badge
WTF?

@Yet anbother anonymous coward... Re: @Orv

No offense, but your comment doesn't make sense.

Every group is part of a risk pool. Its not the existence of a risk pool that's the issue.

My company is a small company so its grouped together with other small companies in the same plan as a way to establish a risk pool. IBM is large enough that not only could it self insure itself, but it could be its own risk pool.

Your insurance rates are based on factors like age, and medical expenses.

The ACA capped the ratio of expenses between the young and the old causing the insurance premiums on younger adults to increase significantly more than older folks however overall they went up for everyone.

The issue wasn't the existence of a risk pool. The issue was that companies came on to the exchanges pricing insurance with no prior history to base their actuarial formulas. Obama promised to make the insurance companies whole, with funds he didn't have. So the insurance companies under priced for the actual risk and lost BILLIONS. Now these insurance companies that got in to the game with Federal Loans, got hammered and all have gone under. Because insurance is regulated by the states, they can only raise premiums by a certain percentage each year, so in year 2, they also lost billions.

The reason they lost billions is that the young healthy people didn't want to pay for something that they didn't want or need. They could have purchased a catastrophic insurance policy that would meet their needs. So the risk pools got skewed and more 'unhealthy' older people jumped on the insurance.

So its not the issue of having risk pools, but the insurance companies not being able to manage their risks. Obama et al thought that could balance the risk by forcing younger people in to buying something that they didn't need. Didn't work out.

This is why the ACA is DOA. There are one or two counties where you can't buy insurance because no one is offering it. In most markets only BC/BS is offering policies once UHG pulls out. And if BC/BS pulls out... what happens when you can't buy insurance and the law requires it?

This is why Trump and the Republicans have an opportunity to fix things. Only problem is that while they agree that ACA is crap, they can't agree on how to fix the damage.

There's so much more but its hard trying to explain it when many here don't have a grasp on both sides of the industry.

0
1
Silver badge

@Rattus Re: @Ian Michael Gumby

You live in the UK?

Funny, I was in the UK for a year. Kept seeing the morning news on TV where they talk about the fact that doctors and nurses haven't had a raise in many years, and how they had trouble keeping ERs clean.

The NHS is breaking at the seems.

You slip on the ice, and hurt your back. You need PT, but you have to wait 6 months before you can see someone. But if you have private insurance, you can see a doctor right away, most of the time its the same doctor or therapist.

You have no clue about the ACA. It was designed to fail so that you have a single payer system.

Oh and BTW, as a Yank, I was outside of the NHS but when I had to see a doctor... I got to see first hand on how the system doesn't work.

0
4
Silver badge
Boffin

@Tom 38 ... Re: @Orv

I'd take the US healthcare over the UK system any day.

So to explain how it works...

Prior to the ACA... if you were part of a group, you couldn't be denied coverage, even for a pre-existing condition. So if you worked for a company that offered health insurance, you would be covered.

If you were on an individual plan or in a group and then left the group, its possible that you could get coverage but have a rider for the pre-existing situation. (e.g. pregnancy).

If you were disabled and couldn't work due to a medical condition, you could go on medicaid. If you made too much money and were uninsurable. You could fall in to a group and the state would cover you. However you're going to be limited in your options.

What most people don't realize that if you are really sick or injured, you can go in to a county hospital. They will treat you regardless of insurance if your illness or accident is life threatening. Think Chicago, Think wounded by gunfire. They keep you alive regardless of your ability to pay.

1
3
Silver badge

Re: @Rattus @Ian Michael Gumby

Nope, Australia. Where our health care system work extremely well. Of course our neoliberal party bleats abouty it being unsustainable, but thet's the same line they trot out about every kind of public infrastructure they can't sell to the highest bidder. They've tried to destroy it ever since it was introduced by Labor but it's been so popular and successful they cannot.

Incidentally, you are mischaracterising the NHS. But that is unsurprising, all your posts show you are a selfish neoliberal yourself.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: @Tom 38 ... @Orv

Yes... Thery keep you alive, then send you a crippling bill a couple of months later that bankrupts you.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Rattus @Ian Michael Gumby

You slip on the ice, and hurt your back. You need PT, but you have to wait 6 months before you can see someone. But if you have private insurance, you can see a doctor right away, most of the time its the same doctor or therapist.

And if your poor in America and you slip on ice? do you just live with the injury? How quick is the treatment provided, whats the cost?

Oh and BTW, as a Yank, I was outside of the NHS but when I had to see a doctor... I got to see first hand on how the system doesn't work.

And yet it doesn't matter what money you earn you can still get treated, doesn't matter if your poor or not, you don't need paperwork to prove you are eligible to be treated as a human being and provided medical care (especially long term non life threatening but life changing), you don't have to worry about being made bankrupt, you don't get to hear stories of people living with mnor injuries becuase ethey can't qfford to have it looked at. You don't need specialists selling insurance and having to wade through all the legalese to work out whether someone can be treated, it is considered a basic human right.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: @Rattus @Ian Michael Gumby

The NHS is a long way from perfect, it's wasteful and underfunded at the same time and the working conditions are crap.

However, it is a *lot* better than nothing I can assure you. I wish I had the power to improve it and cut down on waste etc. (and idiots turning up to A&E with a broken nail but that's another story).

If you've done something stupid and injured yourself, yes you will be on the receiving end of some very unsympathetic arsehole in a white coat and have to wait 5 hours to be treated, but they *will* treat you.

You can criticize the NHS when your country has something better that we can all look to for inspiration.

4
0
Orv
Bronze badge

Re: @Orv

"If you had a pre-existing condition, depending on the condition, you may or may not be able to get coverage."

I've been lucky enough to have group plans, but friends I know who have similar health issues to mine were always turned down flat by private insurers. Insurers really don't like mental illnesses, even minor ones that are well managed by inexpensive medications.

"If you are an employee of a company that offers group insurance, you cannot be denied coverage."

In the current political climate I am not sure that rule will continue to be in force.

"There's also medicaid if you can't afford medical coverage and you make less than the maximum allowed."

Pre-ACA, Medicaid was not available to childless adults in most states. In states that offered it, there were caps on membership that lead to long waiting periods. I knew at least one person who waited for two years to get covered. Pre-ACA there were also asset caps, so if you had a car or a house you wouldn't qualify.

"There were also risk pools for those who can't get coverage."

High-risk pools are prohibitively expensive. The economics of insurance break down if you pack all the sick people into one group. They're strictly a fig leaf intended to create the *appearance* that people can be covered, without actually covering anyone.

"Socialized medicine is a failure waiting to happen."

It seems to be working elsewhere in the world. Obamacare's problem is it was an unholy Frankenstein's monster that tried to protect insurance company profits while also achieving universal coverage.

It's true there are tradeoffs. I'm reminded of the Canadian emigrant I knew who remarked that the health care he got in Canada was not as rapid or as high-tech as the health care he couldn't afford here. The US system provides the best care in the world for the rich, but only for them.

3
0
Orv
Bronze badge

Re: @Yet anbother anonymous coward... @Orv

"The reason they lost billions is that the young healthy people didn't want to pay for something that they didn't want or need. They could have purchased a catastrophic insurance policy that would meet their needs."

This doesn't fit with what I've heard from the actual young people I know. Their complaint is their politics have deductibles so high, they still can't visit the doctor, even though they're insured. When their only choices are catastrophic policies, that will only get worse.

A relatively young friend of mine was taken to the hospital for heart problems last year. She refuses to follow up, and instructed everyone not to take her to the hospital if she starts having chest pains again, because she can't afford the bills from the first visit. A single ICU stay of less than a day resulted in her being in seven figures' worth of debt in deductibles and copays, and she has a "good" plan. She's an extreme example but I know many people who are neglecting chronic health problems because they can't afford to treat them. Some of these will eventually become emergencies, and end up costing all of us as the hospital writes off the bad debt and raises their prices for everyone else to compensate.

"This is why Trump and the Republicans have an opportunity to fix things. Only problem is that while they agree that ACA is crap, they can't agree on how to fix the damage."

They don't want to fix it. They fundamentally don't believe government should be involved, and their plans are all designed to make the ACA fail so they can get back to some semblance of the old system...which worked fine for the elderly (who already had socialized medicine) and the rich, their two main constituencies.

3
0

Employer health coverage was a great way for employers to attract and retain talent. Now with this ACA abortion there is no options since the goal of the ACA was to force out private insurance so all that was left was the government. Go back to the days of Employer sponsored healthcare with competition and watch premiums drop back to the $500/month for a family instead if the 1500+/month now.

0
1

Re: @Ian Michael Gumby

ACA was a democrat only program. Hated by all who had employer healthcare as their premiums went up 1.5 to 2.5 times more than previously for less useful coverage.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: @Ian Michael Gumby

And LOVED by all those who couldn't get healthcare coverage any other way.

Seems, as they say, you can't please everyone. And the families of those who DIE tend to sue.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Tom 38 ... @Orv

"They keep you alive, then send you a crippling bill a couple of months later that bankrupts you."

Well, how much is being alive worth? They could let you die for free.

0
1
Orv
Bronze badge

Re: @Ian Michael Gumby

Here's another anecdote to counter yours: Premiums for my employer plan went *down* during that period. But it's hard to pin employer plan changes on the ACA, since it had very little to say about employer plans. It did require certain coverages, but most plans already covered them anyway. The so-called "Cadillac tax" on especially generous employer plans doesn't even go into effect until 2020.

One obfuscating feature in this debate is that people arguing against the ACA will usually blame it for all premium increases since it passed -- in fact I heard Republicans blaming it for increases that happened *before it had even taken effect*. The major problem with this logic is premiums were *already* increasing at a steep rate. Overall, they increased less rapidly under the ACA.

Some individuals did see steep increases, especially people on catastrophic plans that didn't actually cover anything, since there were minimum coverage levels required under the ACA. But that was not the overall trend. Unfortunately voters continue to think that "data" is the plural of "anecdote," and there's a whole wing of the news media devoted to encouraging that.

0
0
Orv
Bronze badge

Re: @Tom 38 ... @Orv

"Well, how much is being alive worth? They could let you die for free."

That *is* a fair point, but I'm not sure that it's useful economically (or morally) to have people trapped in debt for the rest of their lives because they happened to get sick or get in an accident. If they *do* manage to declare bankruptcy -- which is quite a bit harder for individuals nowadays, by the way -- then the hospital will have to get that money somewhere else. So society at large ends up paying anyway, just less efficiently.

It's also worth noting that "keep you alive" is very narrowly defined here. They can't let you bleed out, sure. But they can discharge you as soon as you're stable. If the incident was due to a chronic medical problem like asthma or diabetes, you won't get any help treating it, so the cycle will just repeat until it finally kills you.

This keeps a lot of people out of the labor force. It's easy to end up in a situation where you COULD work if you could get medication to treat your chronic illness or mental health issues, but because you're not working you can't afford the meds. Then you get told it's your own fault for not holding down a job. Catch-22.

0
0
Silver badge

extreme

"It is another sad reminder of just how extreme the Democrat party and their liberal allies are becoming."

Of course it is. Just imagine .. trying to provide healthcare for people who are actually ill!

Whatever next ?

Everyone knows you're only supposed to have health insurance if you're going to stay well.

38
2
Silver badge

Re: extreme

Well when extreme is the new normal a commitment to not being extreme is a pretty extreme position.

1
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Adrian 4 Re: extreme

".....Everyone knows you're only supposed to have health insurance if you're going to stay well." I have car insurance despite having no intention of getting into an accudent. If I were driving a company vehicle, my company would pay a car insurance premium for that. But I want my car insurance to be priced based on a statistical analysis of the likelihood I will be involved in an accident - my previous history of good driving, my likely car use, and my experience due to my age. But, if the car insurance company was unable to see that data (which, as a good driver, I am happy to give), they would have to assume there is a statistical chance I am a knuckle-dragging, moronic (usually a genetic and hereditary condition) boy-racer, and charge me a higher premium. Suddenly, my company's ability to employ lots more drivers is limited by the additional cost of unreasonable insurance charges. Please drop the emotional insistence "this is all just Big Bad Bizz" and explain why you think it is reasonable for companies to be unable to employ more people because they have to pay extra for insurance simply because the insurance provider cannot provide an accurate assessment of health risk?

0
22
ST
Silver badge

Re: Adrian 4 extreme

> [ ... ]I have car insurance despite having no intention of getting into an accudent.

Just like you have no intention of getting into an accident, someone else has no intention whatsoever of developing diabetes, or Parkinson's disease, or cancer.

While it is entirely possible that you can drive a car for your entire life without ever getting into an accident, it is statistically impossible to live without becoming sick., at some point.

The difference being that you also have the choice not to drive a car. Don't buy or lease a car, no vehicle insurance required. No such choice exists in aging and becoming ill.

Do we really have to re-litigate this argument about the difference between commodity insurance - i.e. vehicle insurance - and health insurance?

Health insurance companies are perfectly capable today of assessing health risks, today. Give me one concrete example of a US health insurance company that has filed for bankruptcy because they have under-estimated the average health risks of their subscribers' risk pools. Last I checked, all health insurance companies in the US were for-profit corporations, and were eminently profitable.

This sudden need for coercing employees into handing over their genome is nothing more than excessive greed disguised as an actuarial optimisation exercise. These companies are some of the major donors paying for the GOP's re-election campaigns. They get a nice fascist law on the books in return. Quid pro quo.

For our British friends: GOP == Grand Old Party. The chest-thumping official name of the US Republican Party.

19
1

Re: Adrian 4 extreme

@Matt Bryant

This does not consider the aggregate risks associated with groups rather than individuals and the predictability of the cost of providing health care cover for a group of people.

Health insurance companies have pretty good statistics regarding the chances of, say, five people in a population of a hundred developing cancer. So the cost of providing health care for that population is statistically predictable up front and doesn't change just because you do not ascribe all possible risk factors to individuals. The risk is aggregated and the cost is distributed. That's why group plans are usually cheaper than individual plans.

The problem is not the net cost for a given population - the problem is the unrestrained attribution of risk factors to specific individuals in that population which excludes them from the only market for an essential service based on factors that they have no means to control or influence nor which society considers reasonably fair to discriminate on.

Should regulation allow discrimination against the individual or should the risk be aggregated in a larger population? To what extent should companies be able to include or exclude people from their staff by examining personal factors?

I agree some exclusion/selection is always going to be appropriate (I think gender should be a factor on car insurance even though the EU says 'Non'), but IMO the moral imperative is why the car insurance versus health insurance analogy breaks down for individuals and why distributed cost for genetic factors is fairer without affecting the economics.

5
2
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Rob D. Re: Adrian 4 extreme

"....Health insurance companies have pretty good statistics regarding the chances of, say, five people in a population of a hundred developing cancer....." Yes, they do. They also have excellent genetic research that allows them to remove the guesswork and provide a far more precise estimation of an individual's risk. Statistically, I can predict a certain number of apples I buy from the supermarket are going to be bruised - examining the apples prior to purchase allows me to exclude the bruised ones if I wish to do so (I may prefer bruised apples). Estimations based on examination of a group are always going to be more exact and preferred than having to take statistical norms.

"....So the cost of providing health care for that population is statistically predictable...." But why should an employer be forced to use inaccurate figures based on general population statistics when they are only concerned with a small subset of the population? For example, if I was an employer hiring recent graduates, it is unlikely to include many people over forty, at which age the statistical occurrence of cancer increases markedly, so why should I have to pay extra to insure my grads as if one-in-two were over forty (median age in the US population is 37.8, IIRC)? It is an unnecessary cost. As an employer it is not my responsibility to cater for the healthcare of the general population (I pay taxes and the company pays corporate taxes to cover welfare anyway), but it is my responsibility to provide the best healthcare deal for my employees and my company, especially if those savings can be applied to other investments such as employing more people. I know the majority of posters here desperately want to baaaaaaaaahlieve that the savings would go into fat cat bonuses but that's not always the case.

0
12
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ST Re: Adrian 4 extreme

"....you also have the choice not to drive a car....." You also have the choice not to work, or not to work for a company that has genetic testing as part of their healthcare requirement.

"....Do we really have to re-litigate this argument about the difference between commodity insurance - i.e. vehicle insurance - and health insurance?....." Yes, because so far you haven't argued anything, just bleated another emotional appeal.

".....This sudden need for coercing employees into handing over their genome is nothing more than excessive greed disguised as an actuarial optimisation exercise....." And you proved that.... Oh - surprise - you didn't prove that at all, just regurgitated that preformed conclusion.

"....These companies are some of the major donors paying for the GOP's re-election campaigns....." IIRC, not only did Shrillary and her party receive far more in donations from US companies and fat cats, her shadowy Clinton Foundation has an even bigger take from foreign "donors".

".....They get a nice fascist law on the books in return..." And their is your sociology-political failing exposed - you can't see past the "Big Bad Capitalists" bullshit.

0
14
ST
Silver badge

Re: ST Adrian 4 extreme

> You also have the choice not to work, or not to work for a company that has genetic testing as part of their healthcare requirement.

You also have the choice not to buy a health insurance plan offered by your employer.

If you believe the cost of your employer-provided health plan is skewed, or too expensive, you can always buy your own individual health insurance plan on the open market. Or, you can opt not to buy health insurance at all, and pay for your medical expenses from your own pocket. Nobody is forcing you to buy health insurance from your employer, or on the open market.

In the US, driving without vehicle insurance is a criminal offense. Depending on the state, the penalty can be jail time.

Not carrying a health insurance plan is not an offense of any kind, and is not mandatory.

1
6
Silver badge

@Matt Bryant

Die.

Go bankrupt.

Go bankrupt and die.

Lose your job, go bankrupt and die.

Those aren't choices, stop claiming they are.

Under the rules you're recommending, if you get sick and are not incredibly wealthy, you die. In many cases painfully and slowly.

If you're lucky, you bankrupt your family to pay (or even "co-pay", what a term!) for your treatment. You then can't get any insurance at all ever again, and next time, you die.

When you get sick, think on the thousands of people you have doomed to die. Then die, alone, in pain and having spent everything you have.

A civilised society cares for its sick.

A civilised human being is happy to pay into a central pot to care for all the sick.

A self-interested human being is happy to pay into said central pot because they themselves may get sick.

Only a fool thinks that pot shouldn't exist. Only a psychopath thinks the only pot is for them alone.

21
0
Silver badge

Matt Bryant

That sounds like an excellent argument for private health insurance to be completely abolished and all health care to become entirely government-run. Remove the profit motive, remove the high costs, spend a little tax money, everyone wins! Except the wealthy clamouring for ever lower taxes and reduction of assistance to poor people. But fuck them, selfish pricks that they are.

12
0
Silver badge

Re: Adrian 4 extreme

Matt - ever heard of line-breaks? Sentence formatting?

It's bad enough trying to read your blinkered drivel, but trying to read it in a mass of undifferentiated text makes it even worse.

Add some line breaks. And (if it's not too hard) a little empathy.

2
0

Re: Bryant - Rob d. Adrian 4 extreme

So costs can be used to justify any hiring decisions imaginable? You already went on record against women, how about making up some race-based costs? Are you actually endorsing getting rid of all employment bias laws? Just getting a pretty harsh vibe here, and it's more than the usual Libertarian "I got mine" selfishness.

2
0

Re: @Matt Bryant

In socialized medicine you get sick, put on a waiting list, then you die because your appointment has not come up yet.

Many pots are better than one big corrupt pot!

0
1
Silver badge

Re: @Matt Bryant

"In socialized medicine you get sick, put on a waiting list, then you die because your appointment has not come up yet.

Many pots are better than one big corrupt pot!"

But at least you have a shot. Without it, you basically let down everyone that depends on you. Widows, orphans, etc.

And one big pot is a single point of failure, it's also a single point of repair, too. Lot easier to repair or even rebuild one big pot than a number of small ones. Thus why modern airliners have two honking big engines instead of four smaller ones.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Matt Bryant

"In socialized medicine you get sick, put on a waiting list, then you die because your appointment has not come up yet."

What country, more specifically, are you talking about here?

You know there are hundreds of other countries in the world, right?

2
0
Orv
Bronze badge

Re: Rob D. Adrian 4 extreme

"But why should an employer be forced to use inaccurate figures based on general population statistics when they are only concerned with a small subset of the population?"

Actually, in the US this is taken into account in many cases. The overall premiums for a group plan are based, in part, on the age and size of the workforce and what jobs they do.

Story: I used to work at a casino chain. The majority of our employees were restaurant staff. It turns out health insurers HATE restaurant staff -- they have high turnover and, at least at the time, they worked in smoke-filled environments and often smoked themselves. Combine this with a relatively small workforce, and our group insurance premiums were very high. Eventually we found a company that would keep them more reasonable -- but one of their criteria was we couldn't let anyone opt out, because they wanted healthy people paying in to offset the sick ones. (This is, of course, what the ACA's individual mandate was trying to accomplish in the private market.)

There are perverse incentives here for employers. They'll sometimes try to force older workers into early retirement, or simply not hire them, in order to keep their premiums down. Other groups likely to have more expensive claims (e.g., women) often got the same treatment.

My fear with genetic testing is it will create a class of people who, due to "bad genes," are simply not employable, even though they may not be showing any signs of the conditions they're at risk for.

0
0
Silver badge

And force everyone to use those auto insurance monitoring devices too.

And let's put cameras in all your bathrooms, so we can look to make sure you are using bath mats and cleaning up spills to reduce the risk of slips.

Sigh--one of the crap parts of getting older is remembering when conservatives actually stood for small government.

19
1
Silver badge
Pirate

Re: And force everyone to use those auto insurance monitoring devices too.

"one of the crap parts of getting older is remembering when conservatives actually stood for small government."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers those days. Days when there was a delineation between Liberals and Conservatives, but things weren't so polarized. Your opponent could be "wrong", but that didn't mean he was necessarily "bad". As it is now, it's like two oppositely charged plates in an enormous capacitor just waiting for the electrolyte to break down.

(oh, and if this bill passes and a future employer wants my DNA for health insurance purposes, fine, they just have to get on their knees and suck it out...)

23
0
Silver badge

Re: And force everyone to use those auto insurance monitoring devices too.

"oh, and if this bill passes and a future employer wants my DNA for health insurance purposes, fine, they just have to get on their knees and suck it out..."

You might change your mind when you see the guy they've got lined up for the job.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: And force everyone to use those auto insurance monitoring devices too.

The won't have to do anything except grab your discarded Starbuck cup from the trash. You left your DNA on it and in a gazillions other places.

As to the legality of this? They've got bigger lawyers than you. Next question?

1
1
Devil

Wait for the ammendments...

Punishments will involve the removal of redundant organs such as an eye, a kidney, a lung, or a testicle.

May his merciful shadow fall upon you.

7
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
WTF?

Sometimes a quote can really make you cross-eyed.

A spokesperson for the modern Republican party said:

"It is another sad reminder of just how extreme the Democrat party and their liberal allies are becoming."

It is not often that I make use of a biblical quotation but on this occasion the following from the King James version is spot on:

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

37
1
Silver badge

Re: Sometimes a quote can really make you cross-eyed.

Now all they have to do is find the bit in the bible about DNA sequencing and they can use my information

4
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017