[Basic Human Unit]

Because there is another law on the books that prohibits involuntary DNA collection. This law will bypass the other one. It was mentioned near the end of the article I posted. I really don't see any good coming out of his at all. Beyond what I already said, I can see employers letting people go or not hiring people based on the DNA results. I can almost guarantee that these kind of things will occur given time. That is if the bill passes..

I have major misgivings about the casual collection of genetics from the masses. But is it government's decision to allow or disallow the practice among private businesses?

 

[JeanneLynn]

Who's brilliant idea is this? Pelosi again? Everyone needs to protest. This is a really bad idea.

 

[RKW]

I have major misgivings about the casual collection of genetics from the masses. But is it government's decision to allow or disallow the practice among private businesses?

It's for our own good. According to the American Benefits Council by not allowing the DNA tests, employees are deprived of benefits like “improved health and productivity.” The American Benefits Council helped Obama craft ObamaCare. Now they are back working their lobbying magic for the GOP. Isn't crony capitalism great? Much better then that unproven free market theory.

 

[RKW]

Who's brilliant idea is this? Pelosi again? Everyone needs to protest. This is a really bad idea.

The bill just passed the House committee part of the process with 100% of the Republicans voting for passage and 100% of the Democrats voting against passage. So yeah, protest would be in order here. Just make sure you are protesting against the correct side.

 

[sarco2000]

The unconstitutional part is that government now has a vested interest in heath care, and governmental policy drives many insurer and employer decisions. So it really is government DNA testing (and records retention) by proxy. And they can force your exclusion from the job and business markets, erecting barriers to entry either because of genes they can demonize ("He has a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic, so we can't have him working at a defense contractor because he'll become a drunk, despite his lifelong distaste for booze") or because they can demonize your refusal ("He refused the genetic testing, therefore we don't know what dangerous predispositions he has, but Oppositional Defiance Disorder must be among them, so he can't work for a defense contractor.").

Imagine that ten years down the line they see a "need" to discredit you. All they have to do is go into their massive database of your phone calls, credit card expenditures, medical records, and even DNA, to make you out to be whatever the popular monster du jour is at the moment.

Again: if you don't like the job requirements, don't take it. If you're already employed there, leave. Better yet, start your own business and hire your own employees rather than depend on others to take care of you.

But if you'd rather work for someone else who had the balls and the vision to create a business where YOU want to work, then you have to deal with it. If you want your paycheck to be subject to the whims of other people, deal with that too.

The feds shouldn't be deciding how private employees can hire people.

.

 

[JeanneLynn]

The bill just passed the House committee part of the process with 100% of the Republicans voting for passage and 100% of the Democrats voting against passage. So yeah, protest would be in order here. Just make sure you are protesting against the correct side.

These bozos need to be thrown out for suggesting something like this. Next they will want IQ testing and brain scans. They'll be implanting the chips soon.

 

[Iamfarticus]

This had been percolating for a while. Before my company changed hands, the previous parent company was up our cabooses to jump with both feet into a wellness program and there were cash incentives given. I managed to steer clear of it but I know nurses were around to check vitals and blood may have been taken to prove cholesterol and blood sugar at the minimum.

 

[JeanneLynn]

This had been percolating for a while. Before my company changed hands, the previous parent company was up our cabooses to jump with both feet into a wellness program and there were cash incentives given. I managed to steer clear of it but I know nurses were around to check vitals and blood may have been taken to prove cholesterol and blood sugar at the minimum.

My husband's employer has a wellness program and he had to make an appointment to go in and have everything checked. Fortunately, he is not overweight, is relatively healthy and doesn't drink or smoke. The insurance company is Independent Health.

 

[Pitbull_Dallas]

This had been percolating for a while. Before my company changed hands, the previous parent company was up our cabooses to jump with both feet into a wellness program and there were cash incentives given. I managed to steer clear of it but I know nurses were around to check vitals and blood may have been taken to prove cholesterol and blood sugar at the minimum.

Mine did too, but if you filled in a questionnaire stating that you got regular checkups, got all the usual blood tests done and exercised there was no affect on insurance costs. I did all that stuff anyway. I was suprised to find out that many hourly paid people didn't do that, even though we had great Cadillac insurance at virtually no cost. They had it and didn't use it..

 

[RKW]

Again: if you don't like the job requirements, don't take it. If you're already employed there, leave. Better yet, start your own business and hire your own employees rather than depend on others to take care of you.

But if you'd rather work for someone else who had the balls and the vision to create a business where YOU want to work, then you have to deal with it. If you want your paycheck to be subject to the whims of other people, deal with that too.

The feds shouldn't be deciding how private employees can hire people.

.

You are conflating two different issues: the pending legislation that allows the Federal government to leverage an employer into violating a citizen's right to privacy and the employer's right to run his business as he sees fit. There are some good examples of clueless employees who have unreasonable expectations of a employer. This isn't one.

 

[Goblin X]

great. something else I have to pay for, for my employees to have. price of those run $99 and up, depending on detail, with a 5 to 8 month leads time. If I had to wait that long, i might as well not fill the slot. If it does go thru, I will have to lay a couple off to afford to do it for the rest....oh happy happy joy joy

 

[iyaayas]

My only surprise is this not happening sooner.

They've been doing this to the military since the 90's.

 

[iyaayas]

These bozos need to be thrown out for suggesting something like this. Next they will want IQ testing and brain scans. They'll be implanting the chips soon.

I'm afraid brain scans and chips will be the least of it dear.

Ever see those electric dog collar/fence products?

Yes, I'm paranoid. I have zero trust in the US gov't. Never in the history of mankind has any gov't on earth had so much power and control over the people they " govern " And this? Just the tip of the iceberg.

Control. Control. Control.

 

[Nomad 2nd]

How long till we all just leave the US ?

I mean South America is a ****ty dangerous place, but at least before I die I'd like to be able to **** in the woods and fire off my AK one more time.

I can do both right here.


Whereas in most south American countries if you OWN an AK you'll be sitting in a cell fir a very long time.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

Again: if you don't like the job requirements, don't take it. If you're already employed there, leave. Better yet, start your own business and hire your own employees rather than depend on others to take care of you.

But if you'd rather work for someone else who had the balls and the vision to create a business where YOU want to work, then you have to deal with it. If you want your paycheck to be subject to the whims of other people, deal with that too.

The feds shouldn't be deciding how private employees can hire people.

.

You're not reading what I wrote. There is no longer any such thing as a private agreement between an employer and government. Because government has insinuated itself into every facet of health care, they have inserted themselves into EVERY employment position from employee to subcontractor. As such, THEY have a vested financial interest in health protocols, as it is "THEIR" money subsidizing the health plans. That includes an interest in mental health and the genetic predispositions to mental health problems.

As such, there is nowhere that a dissenting individual can go to escape such scrutiny, unless he is to buy himself a job, that is to say, start a business with no employees and no subcontractors that does no subcontract work for any other company. That might work for me, doing small construction jobs, but it will never design and build a skyscraper, conduct a symphony, produce an animated movie, manufacture airplanes, or create pharmaceuticals.

So your "solution" only works for a small percentage if the population who are willing to remove themselves from just about every relevant and meaningful calling. Yes, it works for me, but it won't for my eldest daughter, who wants to be an animator, nor for my youngest daughter, who wants to start a business. The one would be caught by being employed, while the other would be strongarmed while trying to employ others.

I live a hard life. I work 80 hours a week just to get by. I've scraped together a few extra dollars to send Drudge Jr. to college this summer. I may or may not be able to do that next summer, and I sure as heck don't know whether I can cash flow much of her education after that point when she graduates from high school.in a few years. And then there is her little sister.

I don't want to allow circumstances to arise in our laws that force them to choose between meaningful work, on the one hand, and liberty on the other. True liberty affords both. I'm genuinely at the point where I run afoul of so many unjust laws just by enjoying my God-given rights as a free born American that I'm genuinely shocked that I haven't been thrown in a hole somewhere, or otherwise bankrupted with legal proceedings at taxpayer expense for doing nothing wrong, the latter consequence having recently befallen my former business partner. I'm at the point where I don't care anymore whether or not I have to be "that guy" who makes the news for some unfortunate altercation with whatever nimrods in government decide to rob my few remaining hours in the week of their tranquility.

It's now almost 11:30 PM, meaning my paint is dry and I need to get back to work to pay the taxes that fund the treasonous bastards who have the leisure to plot and scheme against me with the proceeds of my labor. Maybe I'll be able to keep this up until my youngest is through college. That's only another 8 years.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

Mine did too, but if you filled in a questionnaire stating that you got regular checkups, got all the usual blood tests done and exercised there was no affect on insurance costs. I did all that stuff anyway. I was suprised to find out that many hourly paid people didn't do that, even though we had great Cadillac insurance at virtually no cost. They had it and didn't use it..

Because using it raises the cost for everyone.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

I have major misgivings about the casual collection of genetics from the masses. But is it government's decision to allow or disallow the practice among private businesses?

What private business? Consider:

The current law forbids genetic screening, so the employer and their health insurer can't railroad the employee/insured. But now the government has a vested interest in the health insurance.

So the choice isn't between government involving itself or not, but between the government involving itself through a ban versus involving itself through mandatory action.

Government getting the **** out of the way is no longer one of the options presented, thus it falls to us to make that choice outside ofnthe boundaries of the proposed law.

 

[Stinky]

Do you think they would settle for a stool sample?

 

[Asag]

All the evidence one needs to accept that conservatives also want to own your soul.

And you all thought this kinda stuff was in the rear view mirror.....:

 

[Twilight]

I didn't read the article but I don't see the problem, from a Constitutional POV.

There is nothing "involuntary" about it from what I can see. If you don't want to submit to testing, don't take the job.

That doesn't mean that I think its a good thing, but if enough people refuse, the employer will have a smaller selection of labor to choose from.

.

The problem here is that most people are sheep and will happily submit to crap like this. That means people like us who can see the bigger picture will suffer for it.