Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2017, 11:12 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 11:51 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 10:36 AM)natachan Wrote:  Again, that's not how I read it. Those who partake get a discount. Those who don't participate do not get a discount. It's a semantic argument when you get down to it.

If only that were true I'd have no problem with it. Hell employers and insurance companies already can offer discounts and redeemable health care coupons for participating in Wellness programs. Its a good idea and I participate in Aetna's and if Aetna wants to add a free comprehensive genetic proifile to that program I got no problem with it. Both of us would like to know what to prepare for and what preventative actions can be taken. Unfortunately,l that's not what the Bill says,

"3) in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs, including rewards of up to 50 percent off of insurance premiums for employees participating in programs designed to encourage healthier lifestyle choices; "

Everything looked good until I came on the bolded business. And it's bullshit, the ACA never intended its wellness program provisions to be perverted in such a way to violate HIPPA, GINI, the ADA and a host of other laws to protect patient privacy. They always try to hide their bullshit in a bunch of otherwise "That sounds reasonable to me." statements because they take Girly for a fool. I find it rather insulting.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-03-2017, 11:13 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
The system is so broken, I honestly don't know what would fix it.

At least the ACA was a start. Sad

"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu."

[Image: parodia-michal-aniol-flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShadowProject's post
16-03-2017, 11:15 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 11:13 AM)ShadowProject Wrote:  The system is so broken, I honestly don't know what would fix it.

At least the ACA was a start. Sad

Single-payer, like universal secularism, is a foregone conclusion. They are the only systems which are sustainable. The only question is how long they take to happen.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-03-2017, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 11:20 AM by kim.)
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 10:54 AM)natachan Wrote:  I don't assume that the people behind this are evil. I think they're wrong.

The store is about to see a dramatic rise in their supply costs. In order to keep prices manageable they need the economics of scale. But the increase in price will drive away people. So they offer a sale to attract more people. The price stays the same, but they keep their customers.

So, say you are with a company who pays half your insurance premium. They offer to pay 80% if you do genetic testing. You say, "Yes, please.".

Your tests return and that test puts you in a high risk category for a long term illness. (Being female of childbearing age won't even be included in this genetic assessment but uh, strike two)

Has the bottom line moved? Sure.
It has moved from:
We have a productive employee we only have to partially pay insurance for.

to:
We have a potentially high risk, long term liability.

What to do, what to do? Consider

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
16-03-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(15-03-2017 08:32 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Your system is so bad that you've found a way to empower (and further empower with this new bill) employers to actively dictate how their employees can live their own lives in order to save said employer money. "If you eat that burger you're fired" and now "if your great uncle twice removed had the lowest type of diabetes for a year of his life you're fired because you're costing me an extra 5c a year".

There's precedence. Henri Ford employed an army of private eyes snooping out his employees underpants. If they didn't pass the test, of living the puritan lifestyle he envisioned for them, they were fired.

There's also European precedence, although unthinkable these days. The Krupps, I believe, did the same to their workforce.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 11:20 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 11:16 AM)kim Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 10:54 AM)natachan Wrote:  I don't assume that the people behind this are evil. I think they're wrong.

The store is about to see a dramatic rise in their supply costs. In order to keep prices manageable they need the economics of scale. But the increase in price will drive away people. So they offer a sale to attract more people. The price stays the same, but they keep their customers.

So, say you are with a company who pays half your insurance premium. They offer to pay 80% if you do genetic testing. You say, "Yes, please.".

Your tests return and that test puts you in a high risk category for a long term illness. (Being female of childbearing age won't even be included in this genetic assessment but uh, strike two)

Has the bottom line moved? Sure.
It has moved from:
We have a productive employee we only have to partially pay insurance for.

to:
We have a potentially high risk liability.

What to do, what to do? Consider

I could be wrong, but I don't think employers currently have access to the results of their employees' medical tests. Just the insurance company, docs, and labs. No? I know mine doesn't but I'm special. And fancy.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 11:24 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 11:19 AM)abaris Wrote:  ---
There's also European precedence, although unthinkable these days. The Krupps, I believe, did the same to their workforce.

Watch it, there .... you're talking about my beloved, electric tea kettle. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
16-03-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 11:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 11:16 AM)kim Wrote:  So, say you are with a company who pays half your insurance premium. They offer to pay 80% if you do genetic testing. You say, "Yes, please.".

Your tests return and that test puts you in a high risk category for a long term illness. (Being female of childbearing age won't even be included in this genetic assessment but uh, strike two)

Has the bottom line moved? Sure.
It has moved from:
We have a productive employee we only have to partially pay insurance for.

to:
We have a potentially high risk liability.

What to do, what to do? Consider

I could be wrong, but I don't think employers currently have access to the results of their employees' medical tests. Just the insurance company, docs, and labs. No? I know mine doesn't but I'm special. And fancy.

Mine doesn't. Girl_nails I'm special, too.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
16-03-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 11:27 AM)kim Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 11:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I could be wrong, but I don't think employers currently have access to the results of their employees' medical tests. Just the insurance company, docs, and labs. No? I know mine doesn't but I'm special. And fancy.

Mine doesn't. Girl_nails I'm special, too.

And fancy. Never forget the fancy.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-03-2017, 11:32 AM
RE: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
(16-03-2017 11:16 AM)kim Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 10:54 AM)natachan Wrote:  I don't assume that the people behind this are evil. I think they're wrong.

The store is about to see a dramatic rise in their supply costs. In order to keep prices manageable they need the economics of scale. But the increase in price will drive away people. So they offer a sale to attract more people. The price stays the same, but they keep their customers.

So, say you are with a company who pays half your insurance premium. They offer to pay 80% if you do genetic testing. You say, "Yes, please.".

Your tests return and that test puts you in a high risk category for a long term illness. (Being female of childbearing age won't even be included in this genetic assessment but uh, strike two)

Has the bottom line moved? Sure.
It has moved from:
We have a productive employee we only have to partially pay insurance for.

to:
We have a potentially high risk, long term liability.

What to do, what to do? Consider

So if what you're implying is that they'd fire the employee or take some other negative action we get into very dangerous territory. Because that would be MASSIVELY illegal.

My father is a corporate lawyer. He's also a communist. Let's just say, he and I disagree a lot. We talked recently about something similar. If your company fired you or let you go following a negative result from a genetic test (or some type of surgery, or because of some health problem), they would be liable for an incredible amount of damages. I cannot stress this enough, the law is VERY clear about this and they would be in a LOT of trouble. The case he and I are discussing could cost the business its license, and it's over one employee. Imagine if this was ten workers, or one hundred.

I don't like how our current system is set up. But I value being fair and accurate. I am not going to accuse the people who wrote this of trying to cow tow to corporations so they can screw over disabled persons, especially when the law is already very clear on that. They might be, I don't know. But I don't ascribe negative intent when I have reason to suspect otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: