House GOP would let employers demand workers’ genetic test results
A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information.
Giving employers such power is now prohibited by legislation including the 2008 genetic privacy and nondiscrimination law known as GINA. The new bill gets around that landmark law by stating explicitly that GINA and other protections do not apply when genetic tests are part of a “workplace wellness” program.
The bill, HR 1313, was approved by a House committee on Wednesday, with all 22 Republicans supporting it and all 17 Democrats opposed. It has been overshadowed by the debate over the House GOP proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the genetic testing bill is expected to be folded into a second ACA-related measure containing a grab-bag of provisions that do not affect federal spending, as the main bill does.
LOVE IT. Genetics are all fun and games until your boss finds out your momma was a leper.
Elsewhere:
New bill would let companies force workers to get genetic tests, share results
Despite the heavy financial pressure, employee participation is still considered voluntary. Under HR 1313, GINA wouldn’t apply to anything voluntarily collected through wellness programs, and companies would have access to genetic data. That information would be stripped of identifiers, but in small companies, it could be fairly easy to match certain genetic profiles to specific employees.
Moreover, employers tend to hire third parties to collect and manage health data. These companies are not heavily regulated and can review genetic and other health data with identifiers. Some of the companies even sell health information to advertisers, STAT notes.
Read the HR 1313 bill on congress.gov →
I have to apply an EEG setup to every patient I see for a sleep test. The more redneck and backward, the more I love ‘em, of course, but sometimes I’m in no mood. Some people are naturally suspicious of anything they don’t understand and want to know if I can tell what they’re thinking or dreaming. (We can tell if you’re asleep, and if you’re dreaming. We don’t know what the dream is about, but sometimes we can assume. :})
I have been so tempted to tell people that I can tell they love negroes or clown porn.
Reply
Post
I was talking to someone recently on how it’s okay to say “white trash” and also not okay to say the N word.
What’s jimi’s take on “black trash” as a socially acceptable stand in for the latter?
Reply
Post
I wrote all of the following very quickly and then had a good laugh at myself. I replied as if I were an expert and you had consulted me. LMAO. Suffice to say, my opinion is worth spit.
Original reply:
Yeah, it’s not necessary to say what color trash we’re talking about. It becomes complicated but only because we make it so. When we talk about “white trash” that’s completely cool because we’re white. We shouldn’t comment on other races until it’s necessary, and the necessity then transcends the rule and we can comment but we don’t have to say “black trash” because it’ll be inplicit (sp?) by context. Does that make sense?
White people can always say white trash.
White people rarely need to comment on black people’s shortcomings, but when we do we shouldn’t “colorize” it because then it can sound like we’re saying “only” black people. The context almost always makes it clear. If we purposefully don’t say what race we might be trying to make a (slightly) different point.
Black people can say the N word. (BTW, Gay people can say the Q word too, same difference.)
Just like white people shouldn’t use the N word, black people shouldn’t use “white” trash.
When white people talk about other white people and call ‘em white trash they risk offending them. Some exceptions apply.
When black people use the N word about other black people, they risk offending them. Some exceptions apply.
WHEW!
I think if it’s absolutely necessary to make a disparaging judgement call when we’re describing a group, “trash” is stand alone useful and prudent, making the color unnecessary.
Reply
Post
Same topic, different example. White trash is kind of tricky to define. It’s not necessarily a poverty or education thing. Example?
Donald Trump. Epitome of white trash. He should be so far above and removed from almost all of the stuff he puts himself in the middle of. He’s the President of the US for cryin’ out loud. He’s drawn to gossipy slander like a welfare mother to Nat’l Enquirer.
Some examples work the best. The whole Nat’l Enquirer aura is what we’re talking about when we talk about Trump. His supporters, being eyeball deep in it, don’t understand or appreciate that it’s them we’re describing when we talk about the problem. They got what they voted for and I will accept zero excuses. It won’t be long now and people that you know damn well voted for Trump are going to start back-pedaling. I usually stop myself before going this far. I think it’s going to be painfully obvious before it’s through, and it’s heartbreaking.
Reply
Post
Your opinion is worth more than spit — White people rarely need to comment on black people’s shortcomings, but when we do we shouldn’t “colorize” it
In all seriousness that bit is from a socially sound scholar.
Reply
Post
Speaking of Trump and white trash…
Reply
Post
they were only banned due to a health code restriction on the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” clause. they’ve since been shod and found a clean shirt but that manager bears a grudge. i think there were cousins involved.
Reply
Post
Also: “they got what they voted for” is pure gold. Accept no excuses.
New this morning is that I will continue to listen to them (it’s important to listen to the other side) but when I hear any hint of back pedaling or “had no choice” or “aw shucks” or “damn, I didn’t know he was mentally ill” or “damn i didn’t know he was a criminal” or “damn i didn’t know he was retarded” or damn “i didn’t know…” I am going to be so fucking smug it will kill them.
Also new this morning, and it deserves it’s own bleat: Have you ever seen such a group of “sore winners”? It’s hard to tell they won, listening to most of ‘em. Already.
Reply
Post
Reply
Post