HR 1313 -- Emloyees will need to choose: disclose genetic information or pay higher premiums

[Anonymous]

Give my genetic information to a government entity? Ho ho ho she chuckles. I think not. I've seen X-Men.

[Anonymous]

Taxpayers should not have to pay for sick people who hide genetic conditions they know about. These people should be moved to the high risk pools instead of hiding in healthy people's insurance pools. People like this drive up costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taxpayers should not have to pay for sick people who hide genetic conditions they know about. These people should be moved to the high risk pools instead of hiding in healthy people's insurance pools. People like this drive up costs.

Genetic conditions are highly heterogeneous. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, this is the GOP - now the big brother party - sponsoring the legislation.

The GOP has no moral core, no moral center. They are guided by whatever gets them power and money. They say one thing one day and the next reverse it if it gets them what they need. They are shameless and shameful. GOP = party over country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow who is sponsoring this and what industry group is behind it? you'd think some conservatives with libertarian leanings would be upset.

Insurance companies and money would be my guess.
Republicans have yet to met a $ they don't like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Expanding wellness programs, and including a stick to make "voluntary" disclosure more likely, seems to be the motivation. But then the part about removing GINA privacy protections from information received through these wellness programs seems to be based on an intent to monetize people's private genetic and health information for the benefit of health care companies.

It seems like someone had an idea, wrote it down, and didn't think more than a half-second about the potential results or problems with any of it.

If you haven't noticed yet, this is the Republican approach to policymaking. They're trying to protect insurance companies from having to cover everyone by looking for ways to cull the rolls.

As some callous person pointed out upthread, it's one way to lower costs - people with predisposition for needing costly medical care can be forced to pay more. They put it on employers, but it's a fundamental question about the role of government: If they have to provide health care, should they also require people to get healthy.

Japan took a shot at this a few years ago. Everyone gets health care but, to control costs, there's a penalty to being unhealthy.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

Don't be so quick to blame the Republicans. For the genetic part yes, but one of the articles another PP linked to pointed out that the concept of these "voluntary" plans -- which come with a huge penalty if you don't "voluntarily" take part -- were approved in the ACA. The article noted that under the ACA employers who use these plans could even ask about your plans to have kids and if you didn't answer, you could be penalized by paying higher penalties. What a gross invasion of privacy. The genetics part is even worse but if the article is correct, the concept originated with the Democrats.

I'm on the ACA and this is not correct - there are no penalties for not answering wellness questionnaires. Everyone in a certain age range pays the same monthly premium price. You are asked to fill out/participate in wellness for a one time modest "incentive" lump sum. It's less than $500 for me, which is less than one month's premium. It's enough to incentivize participation, but also structured in a way so as to be something you can forego. It's not stuctired as apenalty you incur, but rather as a rebate to money you already are obligated to pay. I don't participate because I view them as intrusive and without sufficient privacy protections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Expanding wellness programs, and including a stick to make "voluntary" disclosure more likely, seems to be the motivation. But then the part about removing GINA privacy protections from information received through these wellness programs seems to be based on an intent to monetize people's private genetic and health information for the benefit of health care companies.

It seems like someone had an idea, wrote it down, and didn't think more than a half-second about the potential results or problems with any of it.

If you haven't noticed yet, this is the Republican approach to policymaking. They're trying to protect insurance companies from having to cover everyone by looking for ways to cull the rolls.

As some callous person pointed out upthread, it's one way to lower costs - people with predisposition for needing costly medical care can be forced to pay more. They put it on employers, but it's a fundamental question about the role of government: If they have to provide health care, should they also require people to get healthy.

Japan took a shot at this a few years ago. Everyone gets health care but, to control costs, there's a penalty to being unhealthy.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html

Don't be so quick to blame the Republicans. For the genetic part yes, but one of the articles another PP linked to pointed out that the concept of these "voluntary" plans -- which come with a huge penalty if you don't "voluntarily" take part -- were approved in the ACA. The article noted that under the ACA employers who use these plans could even ask about your plans to have kids and if you didn't answer, you could be penalized by paying higher penalties. What a gross invasion of privacy. The genetics part is even worse but if the article is correct, the concept originated with the Democrats.

I'm on the ACA and this is not correct - there are no penalties for not answering wellness questionnaires. Everyone in a certain age range pays the same monthly premium price. You are asked to fill out/participate in wellness for a one time modest "incentive" lump sum. It's less than $500 for me, which is less than one month's premium. It's enough to incentivize participation, but also structured in a way so as to be something you can forego. It's not stuctired as apenalty you incur, but rather as a rebate to money you already are obligated to pay. I don't participate because I view them as intrusive and without sufficient privacy protections.

Just reporting what the article said. I would far rather believe you! It's incredibly intrusive otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taxpayers should not have to pay for sick people who hide genetic conditions they know about. These people should be moved to the high risk pools instead of hiding in healthy people's insurance pools. People like this drive up costs.

stupid

[Anonymous]

What is the next bus stop? Eugenics?

eu·gen·ics


/yo?o?jeniks/

noun

noun: eugenics

the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.

[Anonymous]

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

This is a very old concept and you can find tons of info, facts, and documentaries.
Just look up things like: America’s Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement

[Anonymous]

So we should not trust big government, but corporations let's give them more control over our lives. Yes sign me up Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Donald Trump on Eugenics (there are plenty of articles and videos)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/29/1575870/-Shocking-video-of-Trump-explaining-his-dangerous-theory-that-people-like-him-have-superior-genes

[Anonymous]

And the Eugenics/Master race mask comes off for the GOP

Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.

https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/840980755236999169


Anyone on the GOP side want to defend this?

[Anonymous]

This is an incredibly invasive proposal that benefits the workplace wellness industry, which does not have much success in changing outcomes in workplaces so far, according to researchers not tied to the programs. If you don't "volunteer" to take the testing under the wellness program, you pay a huge penalty. What if something is found that might or might not happen down the road? What if you then are fired and downsizing is cited. What if you can't find new work? What if that happens to your kid? How credible is this testing?

[Anonymous]

Too people just assume it won't pass. Contact your representatives.