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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.