genetic tests

[boondocks]

How do y'all feel about this? (No politicking please).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... ation.html

 

[TCRanch]

I wasn't thrilled about being forced to take an Aids test for my job back in 1999. The company had to carry policies on employees that traveled and that was one of the requirements. No one ever came back positive so I have no idea what the results/repercussions would have been. This does not surprise me.

 

[True Grit Farms]

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.

 

[Jogeephus]

Sounds like the makings of genetic discrimination in the workplace. I see no good in allowing this. Sounds like another protection for the insurance companies so they don't have to insure people prone to certain diseases. Where does this end?

 

[boondocks]

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?)

 

[True Grit Farms]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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".

I agree with all that, do you have any kids Clodhopper? We all feel differently about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means to our individual rights and freedoms. And the government has the ways and means to manipulate the public for the safety and security of the country. This is a tough subject because there's no denying it's benefits.
How much is one life worth?

 

[Clodhopper]

I have three, two on the ground and one to come this summer. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I'll let the literal interpretations of the Constitution stand for themselves, how I feel about them does not change the basic rights and principles of the documents. I believe the founders would agree something of this nature is an overreach of the governments authority, as do I. Our personal rights are basically restricted when it comes to infringing on the rights of others. If I'm hungry, I can't walk in your house and make myself a sandwich without your permission, although it benefits me and costs you little. This is the same in principle.

 

[Jogeephus]

I imagine Hitler would have loved to have this tool at his disposal so he could check to see who were true Aryans. Why the gov't thinks your employer should have access to this information is scary. I can see so many ways this could be used against people its just scary. Envision a company's Wellness Program director negotiating with their health insurance provider and the insurance company demanding higher premiums from the company because an employee carries the gene that could cause Down's in a child so to lower the insurance cost for the company this employee will have to be eliminated.

I feel sure this isn't about our well being but the well being of the pocket books of those paying the politicians to sponsor trash like this.

 

[greybeard]

Why the gov't thinks your employer should have access to this information is scary.

It's much much easier for any govt to force the information from an employer, than it would be to get it from dozens or hundreds of individual citizens.

 

[hurleyjd]

Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.

 

[Jogeephus]

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.

 

[Clodhopper]

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.

+1

 

[TexasBred]

Did you folks on here notice the R behind the name of the woman advocating the bill. And the D's against.

The only request the OP made was "no politiking" and you just couldn't resist.

 

[boondocks]

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...).

 

[True Grit Farms]

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...).

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.

 

[Jogeephus]

The way I see it, insurance companies already charge a premium to people who use tobacco and things like that so if they already do this why is it important for the employers to have access to your personal information?

The video at the beginning of this link stresses the importance of genetic testing for potential addiction and this is all well and good but I think this is a ruse to sell an agenda for the insurance companies because if an anesthesiologist or a doctor are concerned about the threat of addiction all they'd have to do explain this to the patient and perform the test so they can be sure to prescribe the appropriate meds.

I see this as a very slippery slope ripe with potential abuse. I can easily envision genetic screening by companies - just like drug testing - of potential employees and what will happen when the company and their insurer sees that a potential new hire might be prone for sickle cell anemia? Or heart disease. Carry it on further and look at what this might do to prenatal situations where the unborn child might have Downs. Will the company give you a choice to abort the child and keep your job or will you have to lose your job to keep the child because as mentioned its not right to make someone else help you pay for something you could have prevented, right? Of course, that is what I always thought insurance was designed to do. To pool your and my money together in the event one of us gets sick and I'll help pay for your illness and you mine in the event something happens.

But if all goes back to this I think.

 

[bbirder]

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.

You make a very good point Jo!

 

[boondocks]

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.

I agree with you, up to a point. There was a book out a few years ago called NUDGE, about the psychology behind trying to encourage people to do the "right thing" rather than forcing them to. For example, have new employees auto-enrolled in the company's 401k plan unless they choose to opt out (rather than the other way around). I believe this showed that the number of people enrolled and saving for retirement went way up, when employers made the "right thing" the easy/default choice. A lot of people seem to not like this, but to me it's just common sense. I have no problem with treating health care the same way. But I think it gets a little harder, because we know many medical conditions have weak links to lifestyle. You mention sex. How would an employer possibly monitor that to know whether you practiced safe sex or not? I don't really think you mean to say you'd agree with Uncle Sam having a tracking device on, well, ya know....
Other cases are (to me) easier (smoking, e.g). Any smokers on here want to argue that an employer (or Uncle Sam, if you're on a gov't plan) shouldn't be allowed to charge you more for your health care?