Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mewzilla

Did you read the legislation?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text


16 posted on 03/10/2017 10:15:39 AM PST by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: VitacoreVision
Damn right I did. And this is the scary bit...

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member as part of a workplace wellness program described in paragraph (1) or (2) offered by an employer (or in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j))) and shall not violate title I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “family member” has the meaning given such term in section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Public Law 110–233).

No room for abuse there, eh?

SNORT.

20 posted on 03/10/2017 10:19:25 AM PST by mewzilla (I'll vote for the first guy who promises to mail in his SOTU addresses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: VitacoreVision

Just out of curiosity, do you have any experience/familiarity with corporate wellness programs? If not, that explains a lot.


23 posted on 03/10/2017 10:22:01 AM PST by mewzilla (I'll vote for the first guy who promises to mail in his SOTU addresses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: VitacoreVision

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....


37 posted on 03/10/2017 10:49:31 AM PST by Adder (Mr. Franklin: We are trying to get the Republic back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson