FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
And here we were hoping for scientific and medical break though in Genetics
Instead US are using it for Evil or Stupid reasons
And here we were hoping for scientific and medical break though in Genetics
Instead US are using it for Evil or Stupid reasons
I can't figure this part out. Who pays a penalty? And why?
Additionally, I'd like to point out that the American abortion law doesn't allow an offered health insurance policy that includes abortion to be used as a tax-writeoff for companies (Hyde amendment excluded). I don't have much of a problem with this, all told.
But this law seems to allow subsidies (in the form of tax writeoffs) for companies who use genetic testing to get a better deal on their health insurance policy.
Really stupid. Genetic testing has a huge potential for reducing total healthcare costs in the longrun. But this system of making insurance 'for profit' and then allowing them to access genetic data is a really great way of just inhibiting progress and throwing more people under the bus.
The ACA allowed them to charge employees 50 percent more for health insurance if they declined to participate in the “voluntary” programs, which typically include cholesterol and other screenings; health questionnaires that ask about personal habits including plans to get pregnant; and sometimes weight loss and smoking cessation classes. And in rules that Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued last year, a workplace wellness program counts as “voluntary” even if workers have to pay thousands of dollars more in premiums and deductibles if they don’t participate.
Rigorous studies by researchers not tied to the $8 billion wellness industry have shown that the programs improve employee health little if at all. An industry group recently concluded that they save so little on medical costs that, on average, the programs lose money. But employers continue to embrace them, partly as a way to shift more health care costs to workers, including by penalizing them financially.
Except the precogs in Minority Report actually worked most of time. It's like Minority Report except everyone involved is miserably incompetent.
The Terminator. Trump is a Skynet bot disguised as a human, while Schwarzenegger is himself.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,306
Just watched that on Sunday for the first time; was in the mood for an Arnold film and it was near the top of Amazon's Action film list. Pretty good film, and some relevant observations on culture as well. Of course Reagan (president at the time it was filmed) was also from the film world, albeit the more traditional side of it. They did do a surprisingly good job of predicting the 2017-2019 time frame. Most films are way off, and Back to the Future came out shortly after Running Man but was IMO much farther off, with its flying cars and so forth. Running Man scored points for voice-activated appliances - which may well be hitting a heydey right around the 2019 the film showed, relatively normal daily activities (such as Amber's leisure activities before Arnold showed up), tightening border controls with travel, a slight over-taste for violent entertainment, an increasingly oppressive government with too close of ties with reality TV, a war on truth, and blurring lines between government, news, and entertainment. The computer systems and media cartridges looked dated and we haven't put explosives around prisoners' necks yet, and the show itself hasn't come to be so far (though some reality TV is questionable), but overall it's the best prediction of the not-too-distant future I've seen in film. Hopefully the helicopters-firing-on-innocent-civilians and crashed economy remain in the fictional version of 2017-2019 and don't cross over into the real one, though particularly on the economy one I'm not super-optimistic.
For Trump's faction, I think fascist is appropriate. The combination of populism, nationalism, and the government never being wrong essentially is fascism. For the broader Republican party leadership, I think it's largely capitalists who think the fascist arm they allowed to get their nomination this time will be beneficial to enacting their policies, but they'll be able to control and don't mind ceding a few points to in order to get the ones they care about more passed into law. Whether they are correct about either being able to remain in control or getting their policies remains to be seen; as Franz von Poppen found out the hard way, sometimes you think you'll be able to control someone as the power behind the throne, but they wind up being Hitler. I disagree with both the fascists and the capitalists (though the former more strongly), and my main concern is that the capitalists will play along with the fascists as they already have for too long, and lose control (assuming the policies don't backfire and doom both of them). At this point the mainstream Republicans could easily say "enough is enough" on Trump's war on the media, Mexico (where they've traditionally supported free trade and NAFTA), and the Muslim ban, and still likely get policies they care about enacted; the fact that they've allowed Trump's lines on those policies to continue is a reason for serious concern. Perhaps they'll be tougher on Trump in 2019 after mid-term elections and when they can make a clean break in 2020 if he implodes, but it's a risky strategy in the mean time lest his faction becomes a majority rather than a minority that overcame the fractured traditional Republican minority.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,306
On the specific issue, I see no benefit to adding genetic info to this sort of wellness program, of which my employer has one but which I have not participated in. There's certainly something to be said for being aware of genetic risk factors, but it should be something where a doctors suggests it as a good idea and a patient agrees or disagrees to do it, not something where you're financially penalized for not doing it, and if you do it the information can be shared with unregulated third-party organizations including advertisers
More broadly, cultural aspects likely can have far more impact on improving health, and companies can look at this more seriously. Instead of having number-based wellness programs, build an on-site gym, or offer free/discounted gym memberships to employees. Donate to the local parks department, or municipal programs to add sidewalks/increase walkability of neighborhoods. Look at the corporate cafeteria and see if it has healthy, appealing options, or if it's serving a bunch of high-calorie fried food, and make changes if need be. Make sure that if there is a mix, the unhealthy options aren't always the cheapest. Make sure you aren't having people work 12 hour days and not have any time to exercise even if they do want to. Organize intramural sports leagues, or make information about community ones readily available and offer to pay part of any fees to join. And if you want to offer a discount if you get your annual physical to encourage catching issues early instead of finding out when you have to visit the ER, that seems fair enough, but I'd rather have a company lead by example in improving health than say "show these 5 measurements are within the recommended zone, and if not talk with a couple company-approved health people."
From conversations at the office it's obvious that few people really changes their habits due to the wellness program itself, beyond perhaps eating a bit healthier for a few days before their numbers are taken (and then going right back to their normal habits after that). And it doesn't provide the employee with any information they wouldn't already have from an annual physical; if anything, some employees may interpret good numbers from it as a sign they don't really need to get their annual physical, which likely is not a net positive health outcome.
More broadly, cultural aspects likely can have far more impact on improving health, and companies can look at this more seriously. Instead of having number-based wellness programs, build an on-site gym, or offer free/discounted gym memberships to employees. Donate to the local parks department, or municipal programs to add sidewalks/increase walkability of neighborhoods. Look at the corporate cafeteria and see if it has healthy, appealing options, or if it's serving a bunch of high-calorie fried food, and make changes if need be. Make sure that if there is a mix, the unhealthy options aren't always the cheapest. Make sure you aren't having people work 12 hour days and not have any time to exercise even if they do want to. Organize intramural sports leagues, or make information about community ones readily available and offer to pay part of any fees to join. And if you want to offer a discount if you get your annual physical to encourage catching issues early instead of finding out when you have to visit the ER, that seems fair enough, but I'd rather have a company lead by example in improving health than say "show these 5 measurements are within the recommended zone, and if not talk with a couple company-approved health people."
From conversations at the office it's obvious that few people really changes their habits due to the wellness program itself, beyond perhaps eating a bit healthier for a few days before their numbers are taken (and then going right back to their normal habits after that). And it doesn't provide the employee with any information they wouldn't already have from an annual physical; if anything, some employees may interpret good numbers from it as a sign they don't really need to get their annual physical, which likely is not a net positive health outcome.
Ah, it's kept in-house. The idea that companies are able to jigger their insurance costs within the organization and employees, based not on health but on participation is interesting. A little fascistic, but interesting. It's one of those things where we're supposed to have many individual corporate 'experiments' that will eventually bear fruit and successes will propagate. But it's arrange poorly, as often is the case with sociological experiments. Other than morale, there's very little incentive to iteratively improve the outcome.
This criticism is fair, but also useless. You'll not see any benefit from a program within two years. The information doesn't flow that quickly.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,356
Once health insurers have this information, everything will be regarded as a preexisting condition: existing in your genetic predisposition toward X.
Nobody agrees on the definition of fascism wrt specifics. But broadly speaking, it is known as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." Nobody sane would dispute that (unless with square/rectangle arguments).
See also: extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
See also: extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Sowing the first seeds of the Eugenics wars......
Historically "right wing" meant "side with the power of the king". Facism merges the powers of the state and the powers of the corporation as tools to make 'the whole' stronger and more powerful than can be attained with regular free society.
So Obama and the Business Elite made the US Fascist?
No.
It's about now, not then.
VicRatlhead5199
King
Hard to use that definition of right-wing in the States. I'm not even sure right-wing and left-wing really even apply to US politics anymore.
In general right-wing here means less government, less regulation, lower taxes/govt spending, traditional fundamentalism and advocates of free market capitalism. Unfortunately that's an absolute load of horse ****. The right-wing here only advocates states' rights/less government when it's convenient. It is perfectly willing to use regulation to aid big donors. Spends gobs of money on defense contractors. Is only Christian on the surface (willing to use religion to gain votes but is far too draconian to ever be truly considered "Christian"). Both the right and left here are pretty capitalistic any more so I'm not sure why the right even tries to use that as part of their platform. Hell, the Left actually has leaned more towards free market than the right has in recent years.
Are they fascist? Not in the traditional early 1900s European strongman sense, no. They definitely have no problem legislating morality and attempt to exert as much control as the US govt system will allow. I think Donny Tiny-hands would love to be a fascist dictator if he had the chance. It's just not going to happen though.
Both sides are pretty bad any more. It won't improve until we can push to end Citizens United.
Last edited:
The Right Wing is not just 'low regulation, low taxes' in the States. It's about increasing corporate power at the expense of workers. It's about stronger borders and a stronger military. It's about taking away your right to seek redress against corporate destruction of the environment or to sue your doctor.
Remember the Ebola crisis, and how "the Right" responded. They wanted closed borders. They wanted increased power given to bureaucrats to detain and contain.
Actually, yes. By tying people's healthcare to entrenched corporate interests - by law - they moved in that direction. I mean 'fascist' means very little in the modern developed world - we just have no idea. But yes.
And then by boosting corporate power to intrude on your basic liberties, in the name of "efficiency", it's another step in the direction.
Remember the Ebola crisis, and how "the Right" responded. They wanted closed borders. They wanted increased power given to bureaucrats to detain and contain.
Actually, yes. By tying people's healthcare to entrenched corporate interests - by law - they moved in that direction. I mean 'fascist' means very little in the modern developed world - we just have no idea. But yes.
And then by boosting corporate power to intrude on your basic liberties, in the name of "efficiency", it's another step in the direction.
VicRatlhead5199
King
Hey! don't forget that I immediately followed that with "that's an absolute load of horse ****". I did forget the strong borders part and I suppose we could toss in strong foreign policy for kicks too. Increasing corporate power is all part of that draconian capitalism. They have gotten their base to believe that employers will always just do right by their employees if they can afford it even though the rest of the world knows that's insane.
Most people can only see fascism when it has a sufficiently ugly face. Obama was charismatic and the ACA did extend insurance availability to a large portion of the population. It may have been a fascist policy but it's hard to look at it that way. Funny thing is the ACA is pretty similar to the plan Romney was peddling in 2012 and it was essentially written by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing group. The liberals attempted to add a public option but that was shot down by conservatives.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
The first thing I thought of when I heard about this was GATTACA. I even remember, when I watched it in theaters, that this movie would never work as long as medical information remained private. No one could discriminate because they wouldn't know who to discriminate against. But if an employer can compel an employee to submit genetic data, then they could do anything they want in justification. It's actually even easier to do that now because there is precious little that can be correlated with certainty in a genomic analysis. Unless you have certain genes, like BRCA1/2 or the gene for Huntington's Disease, most genes can only correlate to any condition with a probability. That means that an employer can just claim that your 20% chance of getting diabetes is too much of a risk for the company to keep you hired, and you have to be let go.
And indeed, this new movement afoot can indeed be labeled fascism. It has all the trappings of an authoritarian rule that appeals to nationalism, ethnic purity, and strength, and a disdain for intellectualism, equality, and moderation. The only difference is the scapegoat. In Nazi Germany, it was Jews and Communists. Now, it's Muslims and "Liberals" (including SJWs). Another rebranding of neofascism is that it doesn't necessarily seek to silence criticism. It does so selectively, focusing on just agitating the base of support to maintain momentum while allowing the same base to enforce its policies. This way, it can disavow itself of any connection. If you look at Russia, freedom of speech isn't strictly disallowed, but if you're someone too prominent, you might accidentally fall down a flight of stairs and die by striking the back of your head against a gun barrel.
And indeed, this new movement afoot can indeed be labeled fascism. It has all the trappings of an authoritarian rule that appeals to nationalism, ethnic purity, and strength, and a disdain for intellectualism, equality, and moderation. The only difference is the scapegoat. In Nazi Germany, it was Jews and Communists. Now, it's Muslims and "Liberals" (including SJWs). Another rebranding of neofascism is that it doesn't necessarily seek to silence criticism. It does so selectively, focusing on just agitating the base of support to maintain momentum while allowing the same base to enforce its policies. This way, it can disavow itself of any connection. If you look at Russia, freedom of speech isn't strictly disallowed, but if you're someone too prominent, you might accidentally fall down a flight of stairs and die by striking the back of your head against a gun barrel.
Similar threads
