Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill(mercurynews.com)
mercurynews.com
Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalties-under-proposed-bill/
118 comments
I interviewed a couple years ago with a startup that was a commercial and research leader in personalized medicine with a portfolio of patent-protected genetic tests. After a laughably bad interview, I looked a little deeper into their business model.
A little Googling revealed the real business model was to convince doctors and medical groups to order these tests and pass the costs along to insurance companies and Medicare. These tests are pretty useless in most cases, probably not a lot different from 23andMe. Your grandmother goes into see her doctor with a cough. Her doctor now throws in a couple genetic tests to go along with the normal blood tests and obligatory cat-scan. And the cost of American medicine continues to rise with the same lousy results.
A little Googling revealed the real business model was to convince doctors and medical groups to order these tests and pass the costs along to insurance companies and Medicare. These tests are pretty useless in most cases, probably not a lot different from 23andMe. Your grandmother goes into see her doctor with a cough. Her doctor now throws in a couple genetic tests to go along with the normal blood tests and obligatory cat-scan. And the cost of American medicine continues to rise with the same lousy results.
Are 23andMe tests useless? Don't get me wrong, I am just curious about it.
23andMe saved my friend Lara's life. They discovered her BRCA mutation, which led to her getting an MRI rather than a normal mammogram (which she was too young for anyway and which missed the tumor). This caught her cancer in time.
Her blog about it: https://larasgenealogy.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-genealogy-sa...
Irony #1: Stupid and paternalistic laws meant she had to mail in her spit kit from another state, rather than Maryland, where she lives.
Irony #2: She got her diagnosis the day the FDA shut down 23andMe's ability to give people their medical test results.
Her blog about it: https://larasgenealogy.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-genealogy-sa...
Irony #1: Stupid and paternalistic laws meant she had to mail in her spit kit from another state, rather than Maryland, where she lives.
Irony #2: She got her diagnosis the day the FDA shut down 23andMe's ability to give people their medical test results.
Depends on the definition of "useless" :)
They used to be better until FDA cracked down and prohibited them from providing a detailed analysis of the DNA results where they would do a very decent breakdown of what kind of decease you might be predisposed to based on the results etc.
From what I understand they still do this in Canada though, also there are online services that can take your results and provide some sort of an extended analysis, never dealt with them though.
They used to be better until FDA cracked down and prohibited them from providing a detailed analysis of the DNA results where they would do a very decent breakdown of what kind of decease you might be predisposed to based on the results etc.
From what I understand they still do this in Canada though, also there are online services that can take your results and provide some sort of an extended analysis, never dealt with them though.
There's also several 3rd-party tools, like promethease, that can take the raw data from 23andme and produce much of the old detailed analysis: http://www.23andyou.com/3rdparty
To help curing the common cold in a specific individual at a specific time, yes.
Isn't this exactly the premise of the movie Gattaca? Great movie, BTW.
Sadly a lot of SF movies are reaching reality, and it doesn't feel that good.
IMO Gattaca makes a great case for genetic testing. An idiot with a major heart condition bluffs his way onto a space mission where he's likely to die and endanger the rest of the crew. If the testing had been a bit more thorough (say, if the doctor in charge of testing had done his job) then the mission wouldn't have been endangered.
It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
The conflict at the heart of the movie is between the rational vs the emotional. In so far as it makes an argument, it's a weak one; but the core it is in the discussion between the brothers about the race / rescue from the sea. It's rational to curtail ambitions; it's rational to give up if you see no hope of an endeavour succeeding. But Ethan Hawke's character didn't let his rational mental model limit what he could achieve; he tested himself by doing, and found that it was possible, and thus he was able to outswim his brother.
The swimming story is the inner story for the bigger outer story, but that's the heart of it. The bitter cripple who lends his blood points a very harsh light at rational disillusionment. Any system for genetic selection will impose a model of what ought and what ought not be; we should be wary of what it selects for, because it might not be what matters most.
The swimming story is the inner story for the bigger outer story, but that's the heart of it. The bitter cripple who lends his blood points a very harsh light at rational disillusionment. Any system for genetic selection will impose a model of what ought and what ought not be; we should be wary of what it selects for, because it might not be what matters most.
I agree with that. It's unfortunate that the movie attempts to illustrate this emotional drive to achieve with something that puts others in danger. If the protagonist had only been risking himself, it would have gotten the message across far better.
It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.
It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.
> It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
Interesting viewpoint! It seems to me that the genetic testing was nothing more than a convenient proxy for measuring actual performance. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and by actually performing, Vincent proved that the proxy was (in many ways) flawed.
> either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price
The whole story is about emotion vs. reason, about whether or not the human spirit can be neatly quantified, categorized and filed away, and about the complex trade-offs involved. I think it's more likely that the writers were aware of this aspect of the plot, and gave us that much more food for thought...
Interesting viewpoint! It seems to me that the genetic testing was nothing more than a convenient proxy for measuring actual performance. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and by actually performing, Vincent proved that the proxy was (in many ways) flawed.
> either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price
The whole story is about emotion vs. reason, about whether or not the human spirit can be neatly quantified, categorized and filed away, and about the complex trade-offs involved. I think it's more likely that the writers were aware of this aspect of the plot, and gave us that much more food for thought...
The risk to the rest of the crew is never discussed, and is implied to lightly that most people don't even notice it. (For examples, see the other replies I'm getting.)
The tradeoffs are never discussed, and the protagonist never so much as acknowledges that his pursuit of his dreams might cause harm to others.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding isn't eaten until Vincent's mission returns safely. When the movie ends, he has not come close to proving his performance for that.
The tradeoffs are never discussed, and the protagonist never so much as acknowledges that his pursuit of his dreams might cause harm to others.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding isn't eaten until Vincent's mission returns safely. When the movie ends, he has not come close to proving his performance for that.
You're committing the same mistake that is expressly argued against in the story. The story is directly criticises rationality taken too far; it's advocating a triumph of will to achieve. Who are you to say that the mission is more likely to fail without someone with that will to succeed, and instead with yet another rationalist who will lose hope when their models tell them it won't work out? Who will give up the swim when they see no way back to shore?
Teams generally work better with a mix of different people, rather than uniformity. I'd be willing to bet that if the scenario was real, the mix would work better.
Teams generally work better with a mix of different people, rather than uniformity. I'd be willing to bet that if the scenario was real, the mix would work better.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocating the inclusion of people with fatal heart defects on space missions just to satisfy a goal of improved diversity.
There are a lot of people out there who want to become astronauts and are rejected because they're not healthy enough. The reaction is almost always "that sucks for you, maybe you could go into something related to space so you're at least still doing something related to your dream," not "NASA sucks, they're building weaker teams by excluding people they think aren't healthy enough for space travel."
There are a lot of people out there who want to become astronauts and are rejected because they're not healthy enough. The reaction is almost always "that sucks for you, maybe you could go into something related to space so you're at least still doing something related to your dream," not "NASA sucks, they're building weaker teams by excluding people they think aren't healthy enough for space travel."
Is there a reason why you decided to completely overlook the aspects in the film around discrimination and segregation of the labour force?
That's all in the background, whereas what I described is the main plot. The movie tries to make a point against testing, but the main plot rather wrecks it.
I think it shows that their model had too few features, and was an excellent example of the streetlight effect of genetic testing. Because genetic results are so easy to obtain the signal is readily overweighted by people for decision making.
I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do that because I saw two instances in the movie of him out-performing his brother in feats of swimming endurance when under pressure.
His character is statistically more likely to die on the mission. Just to get a handle on the numbers let's say that with their filtering a 30 year old has about 1/20,000 chance of dying in a given month, and he might have a 1/1000 chance. We haven't seen anything about how he outperformed other candidates, but we can consider the respect of his peers and that he has succeeded in spite of appreciable time spent on establishing an identity and tracking down his DNA.
It probably doesn't matter if he dies on a routine mission. It is the rare mission with an anomaly where someone who is truly exceptional matters. If he is only 20 times more likely to provide the unusual solution that saves the mission, then it is a wash.
Anyway, my point is that one perspective on filling positions is to develop a long list of dis-qualifiers like health forecasts (and minimum competence). That is different than choosing the most extraordinary people possible (where negatives play a role in that determination). I know there is a tendency toward the former when choosing people for very selective and highly sought after roles, but it probably only appropriate when trying to fill out a large headcount with minimal resources for selecting the people. Those who can excel during crunch time are probably far more important for high level positions that are routine but punctuated requirements for extraordinary performance, than the people who look good to a hiring manager playing it safe and relying on clear but potentially less important signals.
I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do that because I saw two instances in the movie of him out-performing his brother in feats of swimming endurance when under pressure.
His character is statistically more likely to die on the mission. Just to get a handle on the numbers let's say that with their filtering a 30 year old has about 1/20,000 chance of dying in a given month, and he might have a 1/1000 chance. We haven't seen anything about how he outperformed other candidates, but we can consider the respect of his peers and that he has succeeded in spite of appreciable time spent on establishing an identity and tracking down his DNA.
It probably doesn't matter if he dies on a routine mission. It is the rare mission with an anomaly where someone who is truly exceptional matters. If he is only 20 times more likely to provide the unusual solution that saves the mission, then it is a wash.
Anyway, my point is that one perspective on filling positions is to develop a long list of dis-qualifiers like health forecasts (and minimum competence). That is different than choosing the most extraordinary people possible (where negatives play a role in that determination). I know there is a tendency toward the former when choosing people for very selective and highly sought after roles, but it probably only appropriate when trying to fill out a large headcount with minimal resources for selecting the people. Those who can excel during crunch time are probably far more important for high level positions that are routine but punctuated requirements for extraordinary performance, than the people who look good to a hiring manager playing it safe and relying on clear but potentially less important signals.
Does this just come down to a difference in the assessment of the protagonists chances? I came away from the movie thinking there was a ~75% chance he'd die en route.
It must, because I'd feel different if the actual likelihood of him dying were that high. I haven't watched the movie in a while, but was it hyperbole and were they using statistics as a figure of speech? With intellectual laziness being the defining characteristic of the movie's society, exaggerating risks as post hoc justifications of biases against "in-valids" seems possible.
DNA makes more sense than, let's say, blood type or astrological sign for hiring decisions, since there is a conceivable mechanism for determining future job performance. However, I wonder if the permission society that they lived in was capable of doing good analysis.
How would they cope with the relative weight of environment or even gut flora when DNA practically part of a civic religion with people being randomly tested on the street? Given a situation like the declining accuracy of Google Flu Trends over time, would they insist that the predictions were right, and the indicators of inaccuracy were wrong?
DNA makes more sense than, let's say, blood type or astrological sign for hiring decisions, since there is a conceivable mechanism for determining future job performance. However, I wonder if the permission society that they lived in was capable of doing good analysis.
How would they cope with the relative weight of environment or even gut flora when DNA practically part of a civic religion with people being randomly tested on the street? Given a situation like the declining accuracy of Google Flu Trends over time, would they insist that the predictions were right, and the indicators of inaccuracy were wrong?
It's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.
Nope, he's correct, and his synopsis would make a great episode of "How it Should Have Ended". The protagonist wasn't an idiot, but the rest of that is accurate.
There's a ton of other stuff in the movie that attempts to make the case against testing, but IMO it's all overshadowed by the main plot wherein a failure of testing likely results in a major problem for an important mission.
You'll have to remind of of the part in the movie where dude's presence on the mission is a problem for the mission.
Or, wait, is that just your conjecture? Sorry. My bad.
Or, wait, is that just your conjecture? Sorry. My bad.
He was the navigator. That seems kind of important. If it wasn't, why would they bother to bring him along?
You either missed or evaded my point, simply to re-state your own. (Also: nice shadow-edit.)
I don't see where I'm evading or missing your point. Perhaps you could explain? And I didn't make any shadow edits. You sound rather paranoid.
Did he die during the mission? Did he really have a heart condition?
He really had a heart condition which put him at high risk of death during the mission. That is stated in the movie. We don't know if he died during the mission, but I didn't say that, merely that it was likely.
I'm pretty sure that in the movie they say that the genetic tests point to a high probability of a heart condition.
It's left ambiguous as to whether he actually has a deadly heart condition.
There's the scene with the treadmill, but that can just be to show that he is normal.
It's left ambiguous as to whether he actually has a deadly heart condition.
There's the scene with the treadmill, but that can just be to show that he is normal.
Perhaps that happened in Gattaca 2 because the movie ends at the launch and there is no problems
It's stated that his heart condition is likely to kill him before the mission is over.
This is like, "Perhaps that happened in Thelma & Louise 2, because the movie ends with them alive and in midair."
This is like, "Perhaps that happened in Thelma & Louise 2, because the movie ends with them alive and in midair."
> It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
I read the movie as a criticism towards a society that grew accustomed to certainty, to a very narrow notion of physical perfection and the removal of all risk in favor of that. In that sense, the testing depicted in the movie induces society to an error, optimizing for a narrow set of traits, the expectation of fashionable accomplishments, where the explorers are not those who yearn to explore, but those whose genetic makeup makes them best suitable.
I read the movie as a criticism towards a society that grew accustomed to certainty, to a very narrow notion of physical perfection and the removal of all risk in favor of that. In that sense, the testing depicted in the movie induces society to an error, optimizing for a narrow set of traits, the expectation of fashionable accomplishments, where the explorers are not those who yearn to explore, but those whose genetic makeup makes them best suitable.
It's never shown that he actually has a heart condition.
The character is also clearly not an idiot.
The character is also clearly not an idiot.
It's stated repeatedly. Cmd-F "heart": http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Gattaca.html
That's a draft of the script though, not the final film.
Which of the instances in that script are not in the final film? As I recall, all of them are. The fact that his heart sucks is a pretty major part of the movie.
Compare how much of the geneticist scene is struck out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRpQMW77T_o
At 1 minute in that clip the nurse talks about probability of heart disorder. 99% probability.
At 1 minute in that clip the nurse talks about probability of heart disorder. 99% probability.
I think the treadmill scene very very strongly suggests he has a heart condition, given that he partially collapses in the locker room and we can hear him having a palpitation.
Except that no amount of scrubbing should make you undetectable.
The trick was he overwhelmed his real traces with fake ones from Jude Law's character. Vaccuuming out his keyboard and then dumping in somebody else's skin and hair. Traces of the janitor would be reasonable to expect, right?
> Traces of the janitor would be reasonable to expect, right?
Wasn't that also a major plot point?
Wasn't that also a major plot point?
Meanwhile in Canada, the House voted to ban genetic discrimination, over the objections of the Cabinet (who believe this should be a provincial issue and not a federal one).
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...
not so much that it "should" be as that the Constitution mandates it be
Isn't the ability to live on native land based on genetic discrimination?
No. It's based on ancestry. While those are obviously tightly related, the distinction is important.
There are no genes that are identified as "First Nations genes" for this purpose.
There are no genes that are identified as "First Nations genes" for this purpose.
Is one more acceptable than the other?
I heard of stories where two kids are playing on a reserve, they go to the same school, share the same culture, both know the same amount of words from their ancestral language etc...
But when they turn 18 the one which is 40% native will have to leave the reserve, will suffer from racism inherent to "being native", and will have no special advantage while the other who is 60% native will be considered native and able to stay on the reserve.
I heard of stories where two kids are playing on a reserve, they go to the same school, share the same culture, both know the same amount of words from their ancestral language etc...
But when they turn 18 the one which is 40% native will have to leave the reserve, will suffer from racism inherent to "being native", and will have no special advantage while the other who is 60% native will be considered native and able to stay on the reserve.
In some places it's much more confusing than that, and highly political[1].
1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/...
1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/...
This is based on theory of 'wellness': the insurance company / employer should take a holistic approach to health. Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives.
So they are doubling down on a disproven theory to invade people's privacy. Hat trick to the GOP House if they can pull this nonsense off.
So they are doubling down on a disproven theory to invade people's privacy. Hat trick to the GOP House if they can pull this nonsense off.
This is my objection. I don't so much object to the notion of insurers considering genetics when evaluating risk, but the demonstrated inability of organizations to keep private personal information private. Once an insurer has your DNA sequence, you must assume that the government also has it, plus any number of criminal organizations.
> Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives.
Why don't they?
Why don't they?
A number of reasons.
-- Most healthcare monies are spent on the sickest individuals and they're least likely to participate in a wellness program. And the most motivated participants in lifestyle change sort of program would probably have been the most motivated to make changes outside of a program.
-- Many chronic illnesses and other expensive medical conditions/procedures are not prevented by wellness programs, getting an annual physical, etc.
-- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)
-- Most healthcare monies are spent on the sickest individuals and they're least likely to participate in a wellness program. And the most motivated participants in lifestyle change sort of program would probably have been the most motivated to make changes outside of a program.
-- Many chronic illnesses and other expensive medical conditions/procedures are not prevented by wellness programs, getting an annual physical, etc.
-- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)
The wellness programs were never about changing behavior or making people healthier. They're about satisfying actuaries to reduce the cost of insuring more healthy individuals. Determining how much someone's health care premium should be depends on assigning them to a risk pool. The more data you have on that person, the more nuanced you can make that assignment. These wellness programs gather that data and appropriately discount the health insurance premiums of lower-risk employees. That they may change a few people's unhealthy behavior would just be a bonus.
I've never seen a problem with that. I do believe that everyone should have the right to health care, but I don't think that everyone should have the right to health care at the same price. If people are actively making choices that make them, statistically speaking, more costly to insure, why shouldn't they have to pay more as a result?
I've never seen a problem with that. I do believe that everyone should have the right to health care, but I don't think that everyone should have the right to health care at the same price. If people are actively making choices that make them, statistically speaking, more costly to insure, why shouldn't they have to pay more as a result?
> -- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)
A discounted gym membership sounds like it'd save me money though. Is that what people are having problems with?
I thought this was about the question I get in open enrollment if I'm a smoker or not, or the forced yearly checkup other countries' employers have.
A discounted gym membership sounds like it'd save me money though. Is that what people are having problems with?
I thought this was about the question I get in open enrollment if I'm a smoker or not, or the forced yearly checkup other countries' employers have.
Congress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill?
It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
According to the article (I haven't checked congress.gov yet), said bill hasn't even passed committee yet. As foul as the proposal is, this isn't indicative of a regression or collapse of the legislative process.
This [0] WP article says it passed the House Education and the Workforce committee, but the official bill tracking page [1] hasn't been updated yet, and is still being considered by two other committees.
I read the text of HR 1313 [2] and can't actually find the part where it allows penalties described in this article.
The final paragraph seems close, but not quite what is described:
>(c) Rule Of Construction.—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).
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...
[1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
I read the text of HR 1313 [2] and can't actually find the part where it allows penalties described in this article.
The final paragraph seems close, but not quite what is described:
>(c) Rule Of Construction.—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).
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...
[1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
>How could they even consider this bill?
This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.
This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.
Well I guess if you cannot legally discriminate on a person's looks, they can use this method. Someone said Gattaca, but I think more like syfi's Incorporated
Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
[deleted]
Land of the free. It's the free market and all that bullshit that USA like to get proud of. Now people is going to be a nice resource and a cheap and easily replaceable one too.
To be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.
You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.
Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism.
Why not just make the data free and open to all?
Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition
Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism.
Why not just make the data free and open to all?
Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition
Because it slams straight into body autonomy, what is more personal than the building blocks that make you who you are (to a large extent).
I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully.
I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully.
I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
When did I agree to be in this world with everyone else? I am free to go off and live my own private life without being part of this "global community" if I choose.
That's actually very difficult, possibly impossible. Virtually every square inch of land has been claimed by someone else. Much of the ocean is open to you, but it's very difficult to bootstrap without substantial resources from land-based civilizations.
I dunno, there are still places in the US where you can buy decent land, outside of any city limits, for under $1,000 an acre. And there are absolutely scads of places you can buy NICE parcels (including tree lines, water, etc.) for around $2K / acre or less.
This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily.
... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.
This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily.
... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.
And then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia.
Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
Just for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles?
This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?"
I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?"
I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
“Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1]
See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2]
[1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci...
[2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2]
[1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci...
[2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
The hypothetical "pedo gene" is probably too emotionally charged; some may find it difficult to engage rationally as a result.
Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die.
I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you.
I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die.
I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you.
I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?
See my other question below. If there were a 10% chance that children who were exposed to your presence might sicken and die from a toxic reaction to your sweat, would you take steps to avoid any such contact? Would it be wrong to prevent you from working in schools?
A 10% incidence rate is different from a 10% increase in incidence rate.
Or we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
Also, all of your activities both at work and at home will be monitored for compliance with our "Helping Our Employees be Safer and Healthier" policy. No smoking, no drinking, no refined sugar, no red meat, no extra-marital or unprotected sex or your coverage may be denied. Don't forget to do your morning calisthenics: we will be watching. Welcome to the firm.
Employers already check credit reports, so they know about problems with your financial history. I don't see how porn is relevant.
We need to know too. Just to make sure you're safe around children. Of course you have nothing to hide, so this shouldn't be a big deal.
Don't worry, the public is perfectly competent to draw relevant conclusions from that information too.
Hmmmm... perhaps maybe some privacy might be called for then?
> Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination,
Sure there is, are you familiar with the Age Discrimination in Emloyment Act of 1967 [1]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...
Sure there is, are you familiar with the Age Discrimination in Emloyment Act of 1967 [1]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...
Easy to understand why someone working in tech might assume it was legal though :-/
Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them. Which some companies make you stand in front of someone watching you pee. When there's less invasive methods such as a spit or hair sample(Maybe they cost more to use or somthing?). Now they want to do genetic testing?
Well my aunt's work does somthing like this, if you get your blood checked once a year you get a discount, but I don't know if the company gets a copy of the results. I would think that would violate HIPPA, but I know if you switch doctors you can sign a release so your new doctor gets the information. So I assume it's all done with your permission(Signing a release with the doctor).
America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.
Edit: Looks like some positions only urine tests are allowed by federal law but looks like just DOT jobs. So If you have a desk job or working retail, looks like the companies are free to pick any much any method. https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-a-hair-drug-test-for-pre...
Well my aunt's work does somthing like this, if you get your blood checked once a year you get a discount, but I don't know if the company gets a copy of the results. I would think that would violate HIPPA, but I know if you switch doctors you can sign a release so your new doctor gets the information. So I assume it's all done with your permission(Signing a release with the doctor).
America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.
Edit: Looks like some positions only urine tests are allowed by federal law but looks like just DOT jobs. So If you have a desk job or working retail, looks like the companies are free to pick any much any method. https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-a-hair-drug-test-for-pre...
>> Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them.
This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them.
>>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.
It's not. Also, you're free to decline the coverage through your employer and buy your own (or not buy any). Which used to be a viable option until Obamacare kicked in - now you either buy what's called a "short term" insurance OR buy the same coverage and pay 2-3 times more for it. Why would you do that you might ask? Because short-term policies impose tax penalties and can only last up to 6 months so you have to constantly change providers which is an ordeal...
This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them.
>>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.
It's not. Also, you're free to decline the coverage through your employer and buy your own (or not buy any). Which used to be a viable option until Obamacare kicked in - now you either buy what's called a "short term" insurance OR buy the same coverage and pay 2-3 times more for it. Why would you do that you might ask? Because short-term policies impose tax penalties and can only last up to 6 months so you have to constantly change providers which is an ordeal...
From my experience it's not 2-3 times more, depending on your specific conditions and possibly region. For me, a male over 35 in not very great shape, it's maybe a 20-30% difference IIRC.
From what I've seen it was $100 vs $350 type deal.
My work provided plan is about $350 for a fairly cheap Kaiser plan.
>This is more of a liability issue then anything else
If this was true why shouldn't they also test for alcohol use?
If this was true why shouldn't they also test for alcohol use?
As much as some of them would like to - it's very hard to do so legally (which is their way out of being on the hook legally too) - even in situations where being drunk can realistically cause physical harm, let alone office type job situations.
One company I worked for had a manufacturing operation, talking to their supervisors - they would call the cops sometimes if someone is visibly drunk and the worse case scenario for the employee is they would get sent home w/out pay for a day or something along those lines. They were actually happy when some of those dudes would get drunk AND high at lunch so they can get busted by the cops :) There was also a union involved so that tied supervisor's hands even more.
One company I worked for had a manufacturing operation, talking to their supervisors - they would call the cops sometimes if someone is visibly drunk and the worse case scenario for the employee is they would get sent home w/out pay for a day or something along those lines. They were actually happy when some of those dudes would get drunk AND high at lunch so they can get busted by the cops :) There was also a union involved so that tied supervisor's hands even more.
companies can make you sign all kinds of waivers when giving employment. shits fucked up
Not seeing anything about any penalties in the bill.
These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become a part of if this passes.
These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become a part of if this passes.
It's kind the way that credit card companies don't allow you to charge a higher price for credit purchases but do allow businesses to offer a cash discount. So businesses raise their prices and offer that cash discount, effectively charging a higher price to people using credit.
This is the same thing. They can't penalize people for not participating in the Wellness Program. So they increase the employee contribution for everyone and then offer discounts for people who participate. The net effect is to penalize the people that don't participate.
This is the same thing. They can't penalize people for not participating in the Wellness Program. So they increase the employee contribution for everyone and then offer discounts for people who participate. The net effect is to penalize the people that don't participate.
The companies can charge you higher premiums for opting out. I think 30% higher.
You don't have to participate in their coverage though, so even if that was the case (which I personally never encountered this - the programs I've seen were centered around gym membership discounts, free cholesterol level testing, some small monetary compensation - like $100 - $300/yr type deal for partaking in some kind of a "weight loss challenge" etc) - the whole thing is not mandatory.
[deleted]
If this had been required back when I got my first job, I would've learned that my wife and I are carriers of a rare genetic disorder, and it would've saved the sadness and pain of my wife having delivering stillborn twins. My wife is still dealing with medical issues years later because of this. The pain was indescribable.
Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Or how anyone would. At the point an employee gets tested, you've already hired them. What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Or how anyone would. At the point an employee gets tested, you've already hired them. What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
I'm very sorry for your loss.
> I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
Did you really mean to say "how" or did you mean "why"? Because the "why" is that if you have investors (at least in the U.S.) then you have a fiduciary duty to them to maximize their return by all legal means at your disposal. You do not have a fiduciary duty to your employees. So if you can increase profits by discriminating against employees who are more likely to be sick then you have no choice but to either do it or break your fiduciary duty to your investors. You could actually be sued if you don't.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
Yes. Exactly. And then hope they quit. Or, if you're in an at-will state, you could just fire them.
Please note that I am not endorsing this system. I think it sucks. But that's the way things currently are in the U.S.
> I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
Did you really mean to say "how" or did you mean "why"? Because the "why" is that if you have investors (at least in the U.S.) then you have a fiduciary duty to them to maximize their return by all legal means at your disposal. You do not have a fiduciary duty to your employees. So if you can increase profits by discriminating against employees who are more likely to be sick then you have no choice but to either do it or break your fiduciary duty to your investors. You could actually be sued if you don't.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
Yes. Exactly. And then hope they quit. Or, if you're in an at-will state, you could just fire them.
Please note that I am not endorsing this system. I think it sucks. But that's the way things currently are in the U.S.
That fiduciary duty myth you've just restated is just that, a myth. Created from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman.
http://evonomics.com/the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-valu...
http://evonomics.com/the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-valu...
All social constructs are myths, including the very idea of a corporation itself. When enough people believe the myth it becomes self-actualizing. The law itself is a self-actualizing myth, having power only because enough people believe that it has power. It is that shared belief that causes the law to have actual power in the real world.
It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "myth" that shareholders own corporations and that corporations hence have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders that this "myth" becomes self-actualizing in exactly the same way that the law becomes self-actualizing. The law itself even has a mechanism for incorporating such self-actualizing myths, notwithstanding that they are not formally codified into the law. That is called "common law". Common law is a meta-myth. Nowhere will you find the idea of common law formally incorporated into the law. And yet anyone who questioned the principle of common law (at least in the U.S.) would rightfully be considered out of touch with reality. Likewise for the fiduciary duty of corporations to their shareholders.
It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "myth" that shareholders own corporations and that corporations hence have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders that this "myth" becomes self-actualizing in exactly the same way that the law becomes self-actualizing. The law itself even has a mechanism for incorporating such self-actualizing myths, notwithstanding that they are not formally codified into the law. That is called "common law". Common law is a meta-myth. Nowhere will you find the idea of common law formally incorporated into the law. And yet anyone who questioned the principle of common law (at least in the U.S.) would rightfully be considered out of touch with reality. Likewise for the fiduciary duty of corporations to their shareholders.
You're verging on, if not wholly embracing, a complete dispensing of the very concept of truth.
The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law.
Which is incorporated into law through jurisprudence, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v East, 81 S.W. 279 (Texas 1904), or Pierson v. Post, as examples.
Cheers.
The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law.
Which is incorporated into law through jurisprudence, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v East, 81 S.W. 279 (Texas 1904), or Pierson v. Post, as examples.
Cheers.
> The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law.
Wrong. The matter was definitively decided in 1916:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth.
You really should do your homework before you accuse someone of "dispensing of the very concept of truth."
Wrong. The matter was definitively decided in 1916:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth.
You really should do your homework before you accuse someone of "dispensing of the very concept of truth."
Reading your own reference:
Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.
Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.
You left out an important bit of context:
"However, ONE VIEW is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time." [Emphasis added.]
IMHO that view is wrong. The fact of the matter is that if, as an officer of the company, you do not act in the best interests of the shareholders you can be sued in all 50 states, and if your conduct was sufficiently egregious you will lose. The business judgement rules gives you a lot of wiggle room, but it does not change the basic underlying principle. Whether you call this a "legal mandate" or a "standard of conduct" is just quibbling over terminology.
In any case, your claim that fiduciary duty to shareholders is "a myth ... [c]reated from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman" is plainly flat-out false.
"However, ONE VIEW is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time." [Emphasis added.]
IMHO that view is wrong. The fact of the matter is that if, as an officer of the company, you do not act in the best interests of the shareholders you can be sued in all 50 states, and if your conduct was sufficiently egregious you will lose. The business judgement rules gives you a lot of wiggle room, but it does not change the basic underlying principle. Whether you call this a "legal mandate" or a "standard of conduct" is just quibbling over terminology.
In any case, your claim that fiduciary duty to shareholders is "a myth ... [c]reated from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman" is plainly flat-out false.
I concede the point. It is a myth to which Friedman cannot even claim originality.
Stout has more to add: https://works.bepress.com/lynn_stout/3/
Stout has more to add: https://works.bepress.com/lynn_stout/3/
I'm sorry for your loss, but as I understanding it, employers are not currently forbidden from offering these genetic tests, they are only forbidden from incentivizing them or penalizing you if you refuse. That's to make sure the disclosure is entirely voluntary.
> Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A?
Not everyone is as nice as you. I can certainly imagine an employer terminating someone who tests "positive for XYZ Type A" because they don't want to pay the costs of treating the disease (though they may have to jump through some hoops to make it look kosher). Healthy employees are cheaper employees.
Also, keep in mind, not every employee is a developer-type that could be "leading a project." Think of all the other kinds of employees: phone reps, janitors, clerks, mechanics, etc. They're already treated as disposable, unlike a high skill developer.
> Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A?
Not everyone is as nice as you. I can certainly imagine an employer terminating someone who tests "positive for XYZ Type A" because they don't want to pay the costs of treating the disease (though they may have to jump through some hoops to make it look kosher). Healthy employees are cheaper employees.
Also, keep in mind, not every employee is a developer-type that could be "leading a project." Think of all the other kinds of employees: phone reps, janitors, clerks, mechanics, etc. They're already treated as disposable, unlike a high skill developer.
That same level of testing could be required without requiring an employer's involvement, and all the potential for abuse, discrimination, harassment, and pain that might imply.
You're forcing a false dichotomy. Under colour of sympathy to boot.
I'm sorry for your pain, but your suggestion and justification are both exceedingly poor.
You're forcing a false dichotomy. Under colour of sympathy to boot.
I'm sorry for your pain, but your suggestion and justification are both exceedingly poor.
Conflating a personal matter with something required is inappropriate no matter your tangentally related situation.
Your comment is incredibly insensitive and unkind. I sincerely hope that if I were to tell you what happened to our family face-to-face, you would not have responded in this way.
I was assuming that it would be a worthwhile anecdote to share, given that most people appear to find it unnecessary to get tested. If one person on the Internet reads my comment, decides to get tested, and finds they are a carrier of a severe genetic abnormality and avoids delivering a stillborn child, I frankly don't give a shit how "inappropriate" it is.
I was assuming that it would be a worthwhile anecdote to share, given that most people appear to find it unnecessary to get tested. If one person on the Internet reads my comment, decides to get tested, and finds they are a carrier of a severe genetic abnormality and avoids delivering a stillborn child, I frankly don't give a shit how "inappropriate" it is.
I don't want to minimize your pain in any way, but I think the reason you're being downvoted is that your comment sounds like you want to imply that because mandatory testing would have spared you this pain, that it is therefore a good thing. But this does not follow. Just because mandatory testing might have led to a better outcome in one case doesn't mean that overall it's a good thing. You yourself pointed out the extreme cost of mandatory testing: if an employer knows that you are at high risk of being sick, then they have no choice but to do everything they can to replace you with an equally productive but healthy person. Not doing so would be a breach of their fiduciary duties to their investors.
People with poor genetic dispositions are significant cost to our socialized healthcare systems - this is the end game and always will be when costs are shared or mostly paid by someone that is not you.
In the benefactor's view there are a few actors crashing their cars everyday and others who have never had a ticket - currently they're all paying the same.
In the benefactor's view there are a few actors crashing their cars everyday and others who have never had a ticket - currently they're all paying the same.
Yeah, what the hell has Stephen hawking ever done for us? Socialized medicine supports the guy, and we get nothing in return.
I wasn't questioning right or wrong of socialized medicine, just calling out what ultimately happens and the viewpoint of those who truly control/manage the system
co-founder of genetic testing company floated for position in administration and now provisions start showing up in bills that would enlarge the market for genetic testing. Reminds me of Solyndra.
Interesting source...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848599