Posted on 03/10/2017 10:00:17 AM PST by tekrat
I don’t think anyone is listening to you, VitacoreVision.
There are things to dislike about this, but I would rather keep the things in the domain of what we really need to worry about.
If that text is in there, unless there is a title III, IV, V, or so on, then we shouldn’t get worked up by it.
If you like your genes you can keep your genes but can not be hired by a company seeking to keep health nsurance premiums low
Just out of curiosity, do you have any experience/familiarity with corporate wellness programs? If not, that explains a lot.
You think? I did one of those mailorder DNA tests. All it took was a small vial of saliva. Getting enough DNA isn't that hard for the scientists.
What's an even creepier thought is that when I sent in my saliva for the test, they had no way of knowing it was mine....you provide the sample yourself. What's to stop a mischief-maker from providing DNA that isn't actually from that person and saddling them forever with that bogus test?
Saying "employer" and "genetic testing" in the same paragraph is bad news. It doesn't matter how it's framed.
Q: How is the word “manifested” defined as it it is used in the legislation? Do you see a definition provided, because I surely didn’t.
The government has access to it all anyway.
the collection of information ... shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information ... and shall not violate title I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233).
= = =
In forked-tongue lawyer speak, there is a big difference between shall and will. I forgot the details, that may help understand this issue.
I interpret this law as: information can be collected.
That collection shall not be considered as unlawful,
and shall not [be considered] as violating title 1, etc.
I have interpreted using the other fork of the lawyer tongue.
Fascism. Go to hell, regardless of party affiliation.
I heard that diarrhea is hereditary. If runs in your jeans.
Let’s just summarize section b: the collection of information shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information.
People should not put their medical information on the information on the Internet. Tell Hospital send you the test results.
People should not put their medical information on the Internet. Tell Hospital to send you the test results.
My genetics (Congress) and genitals (TSA) are none of your gosh darned business. Go away!!
Start by making employees use E-verify.
Yeah, I did:
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;
They are supposed to be repealing said act.
And this:
Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).
IE...forced participation
C’mon, Virginia Foxx...you know better than this....
I agree that is a problem, that wording. I am not convinced yet there is a nefarious component to it (as described below) but unintentional loopholes are still loopholes.
I think context is important. Are they discussing the types of questions someone might be asked, for example, about Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, since that being an Ashkenazi Jew makes a woman more susceptible to various kinds of breast cancer, and this is currently asked when a woman has a breast exam with an accompanying breast cancer risk assessment. It isn't against the law now to ask this, but...a person can decline to answer, although refusing to answer changes a woman's risk assessment grade.
In medical terms, “manifested” would be something that appeared or existed, in my opinion. I think many medical people would probably agree with that. I admit not to being convinced it is malicious, but trying to keep an open mind.
Just for background on how I feel about this, I work in an environment where they offer you a substantial discount on your health insurance if you submit to the provider’s examination and physical. It is pretty benign, asking about smoking history, doing a blood pressure, blood sugar, etc.
I refused to do it, and my wife was, well, not happy about it because the money saved is not insubstantial, and it literally would take about 15 minutes to submit.
I refused because I don’t agree with greasing that slippery slope. Right now, we get a discount if we submit to the test. But using the relative sense, that is the same as getting a premium increase by the same amount for NOT submitting to the test.
And I have real problems with that.
*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.