boondocks
Well-known member
How do y'all feel about this? (No politicking please).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... ation.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... ation.html
True Grit Farms":ek1auwgn said:I don't think employers should be entitled to DNA information myself. But that's a slippery slope for me, because I believe an employer has the right to demand drug testing for their employees. If everyone's DNA was on file with the government a lot of the old unsolved crimes would end up being solved using DNA data.
boondocks":14uin72q said:True Grit Farms":14uin72q said:I don't think employers should be entitled to DNA information myself. But that's a slippery slope for me, because I believe an employer has the right to demand drug testing for their employees. If everyone's DNA was on file with the government a lot of the old unsolved crimes would end up being solved using DNA data.
Do you think we should swab babies at birth (or if they're home-births, as a prereq to getting SSNs?)
And that is why we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights... if we were all required to wear tracking equipment we could solve a lot more crimes as well, but I won't sacrifice my rights for "security".True Grit Farms":13inybvf said:boondocks":13inybvf said:True Grit Farms":13inybvf said:I don't think employers should be entitled to DNA information myself. But that's a slippery slope for me, because I believe an employer has the right to demand drug testing for their employees. If everyone's DNA was on file with the government a lot of the old unsolved crimes would end up being solved using DNA data.
Do you think we should swab babies at birth (or if they're home-births, as a prereq to getting SSNs?)
Yes, I think it would be a good tool for the safety and health of the US of A. But mandating stuff like this scares me because of government over reach and abuse. That's the only down side of a DNA data base that I can come up with.
Clodhopper":2si1ahfm said:And that is why we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights... if we were all required to wear tracking equipment we could solve a lot more crimes as well, but I won't sacrifice my rights for "security".True Grit Farms":2si1ahfm said:boondocks":2si1ahfm said:Do you think we should swab babies at birth (or if they're home-births, as a prereq to getting SSNs?)
Yes, I think it would be a good tool for the safety and health of the US of A. But mandating stuff like this scares me because of government over reach and abuse. That's the only down side of a DNA data base that I can come up with.
hurleyjd":38g2vtgf said:Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.
+1Jogeephus":2hvvxq6p said:hurleyjd":2hvvxq6p said:Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.
I noticed but in most cases the only difference between a D and an R is the lobby that's funding them. Pretty obvious who this congresswoman is working for and its not you or me. Until we demand a flat tax and a fair tax system that doesn't allow for influence peddling the people will have to be satisfied with the hind teet and this will never change as long as these two parties continue keep the country divided just like the want.
The only request the OP made was "no politiking" and you just couldn't resist.hurleyjd":t84pijtz said:Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.
boondocks":uwwgf2y8 said:Soooo, getting back to the question at hand: Seems lots of people are against collecting genetic info (too subject to abuse and hacking of the info). But what about health care conditions? I have no problem with drug testing by employers. What about testing for, say, high cholesterol or high blood pressure or excessive alcohol use, or smoking? If someone else (whether employer or taxpayers) are paying for your medical care, how much info are they entitled to? I believe the current proposal will allow employers to require that employees participate in company "wellness plans" (which would have access to such info) and employers would be allowed to seriously increase premiums for non-compliant employees...These are interesting policy questions (to me anyway...).
Jogeephus":k6knlvw2 said:hurleyjd":k6knlvw2 said:Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.
I noticed but in most cases the only difference between a D and an R is the lobby that's funding them. Pretty obvious who this congresswoman is working for and its not you or me. Until we demand a flat tax and a fair tax system that doesn't allow for influence peddling the people will have to be satisfied with the hind teet and this will never change as long as these two parties continue keep the country divided just like the want.
True Grit Farms":1l2pz78q said:An employer having to pay more for an employees health insurance because of their lifestyle is not right. Those folks that cause damage to themselves through drugs, drinking, smoking, sex or any other know health issues should have to pay a premium for their health insurance. To me it's no different than automobile insurance, those with tickets, crashes, and DUI pay more than those that are safe drivers. Those with a higher risk pay higher prices, and some folks are just un - insurable. Life insurance is a good example of that.