SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We recently received two different submissions relating to HR 1313, the "Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act". HR 1313 is a new bill in Congress that will impact privacy protections for people's genetic information.
House Republicans Would Let Employers Demand Workers' Genetic Test Results
A bill that passed its first hurdle yesterday in Congress threatens to take away genetic privacy protections put in place with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008. H.R.1313, the "Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act," might instead be called the "telling on relatives" ruling.
According to GINA, employers can't use genetic information to hire, fire, or promote an employee, or require genetic testing, and health insurers can't require genetic tests nor use results to deny coverage. The law clearly defines genetic tests – DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, metabolites – and genetic information –genetic test results and family history of a genetic condition.
Nancy J. Cox, PhD, ASHG president, in a letter to the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, provides a frightening overview:
"If enacted, this legislation would undermine fundamentally the privacy provisions of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It would allow employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families' health, as well as genetic tests they and their families have undergone. It would further allow employers to impose stiff financial penalties on employees who choose to keep such information private, thus empowering employers to coerce their employees into providing their health and genetic information."
http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2017/03/09/saving-gina-is-genetic-privacy-imperiled/
Give Us Your Genes or Pay 50% More for Company Healthcare
Force employees to take DNA tests for bosses? We've got a new law to make that happen, beam House Republicans - Give us your genes or pay 50% more for company healthcare:
[...] House bill HR 1313, dubbed the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act, was introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and would allow employers to request genetic data from workers – and their family members – if they want their health insurance covered. It wouldn't be mandatory, but those who refuse could see their health costs rise by up to 50 per cent.
Genetic information is protected under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed legislation would do an end-run around these protections.
"Preserving wellness programs and ensuring employers have the legal certainty they need to help lower health care costs for workers must be part of the process of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with patient-centered solutions," the bill's fact sheet [PDF] reads. "The Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (HR 1313) reaffirms existing law to allow employee wellness programs to be tied to responsible financial incentives."
From the Wikipedia page of Virginia Foxx who introduced this bill:
Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (H.R. 1313; 115th Congress) – Foxx introduced this legislation that among other things, eliminates the genetic privacy protections of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233) and which allows 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.
Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/us_legislation_forcing_employees_genetic_info/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:05AM
Basic income in many ways is more about giving "free stuff" to companies. You need to consider that programs like welfare are in many ways economic subsidies for companies. When an individual receives their payment is generally spent in full at local businesses. That props up the revenue of these businesses enabling them to expand and grow. These businesses being propped up in turn props up higher level operations including businesses to business operations and production level operations such as, for instance, the farmers that grow produce that's sold at a market.
Taken on a high enough level a company's employees and consumers are the exact same people for nearly all companies. But as the required employment trends towards 0 for companies you end up with a problem. They don't need people to produce their product, but they do need people to buy their product or they're not generating any revenue. But with minimal employment that means no revenue going to the bottom to support the companies. This is where basic income comes in. It keeps our economic system rolling with minimal disruption - which is a kind way of stating that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Of course however you spin the motives, the results are of course phenomenal. Greater than ever room for entrepreneurship, the complete elimination of abject poverty, the complete elimination of need based crime, companies able to maximize efficiency without forcing a sort of 'tragedy of the commons' in terms of consumers/employees, and so much more.
And on top of this, I think your view of history is perhaps a bit... off. There have indeed countless times throughout history where those in power began to such levels of inherit comfort that they separated themselves from the masses and were content to see them even starve. You know, if they don't have bread - let them eat cake. The result is invariably the same and not something anybody at any level should be striving to see happen yet again.