Well, if so it would be quite natural to do genetic testing to all the Congress members and also the POTUS. Even better, it should be done to all the candidates, so the US people can vote using all the information they need. If they don't need it, the rest of the employers do not need it either.

Agreed. Technically they work for us.

Wait, wait, can we get psychological evaluations covered first?

It's not like government mandated insurance isn't going to demand this at one point anyway. Health care should take genetic factors into account for health care optimization; If it doesn't, it's probably not the best health care you could get.

There is an obvious difference between your doctor using genetics for medicine and your insurance company using genetics to set premiums.

Insurance doesn't need to know anything about the person covered. Doctors are the ones who provide healthcare.

Only if you think insurance shouldn't optimize for cost (this obviously includes age and pre-existing conditions). Either insurance should be optimized for cost, or insurance should be outlawed.

None of that is obvious to me, nor does it seem like it has to be a binary choice between two extremes. That only makes sense if you are thinking of insurance purely as a business proposition between the insurer and an individual (well, millions or billions of individuals).

Insurance has a societal benefit, in the sense that it spreads risk around the population as equitably as it can. I'm not required to have car insurance to drive in California because the nanny state wants to protect me from myself. I'm not required to have car insurance to drive in California because some insurance company donated a bunch of money to the relevant politicians. Both of those things might be true, but that's not why I have to have car insurance. I have to have car insurance to protect everyone else from me, and vice versa. The alternative is a world in which many more people have accidents and go bankrupt or sue each other for damages, and that's a worse world for everyone, even the people who never get in an accident. Insurance is like a low-pass filter for tragedies.

Health insurance is a similar situation. Access to preventative care, or just being able to see a doctor outside of an emergency room situation is a lot less expensive in the long run for everybody. Medicare and Medicaid costs (that all taxpayers eventually have to shoulder the burden of) scale with the health of the population on Medicare and Medicaid. Giving everyone the opportunity for health has a selfish reward as well as a humanitarian one, even if you don't care about poor people being able to see doctors when they have problems. It's much cheaper for everyone in the long run. This necessitates solutions in between the two extremes you presented.

This! If insurance companies aren't allowed to know anything about customers AND they have to insure people with pre-existing conditions, then we're not paying for insurance, we're just paying for our healthcare out of pocket before we get sick (or other people's healthcare in the case of young healthy people with high premiums).

It very well may be what's best for society, but it's definitely not insurance.

> it's definitely not insurance.

Do you ....know what insurance is? Optimization based on feature of the population is not part of the definition. If a million people all paid into a pool that would cover any one of them if they got sick, and they all paid the premium, that would still be insurance.

The problem is that optimizing for cost creates situations our society isn't ok with.

Medical care should be a basic human right; part of society being a place worth living in.

If you want to pay extra for faster or 'better' treatment maybe you can get insurance for that.

As a society, the cost cutting measure should be based around buying in bulk and forming deals where a given area has at least enough coverage capacity contracted (presumably via some dutch-auction like mechanism) to cover projected needs.

Why should the cost of insurance be optimized to the individual and not the aggregate?

If the point of insurance is to flatten the price of health care to something everyone can afford, then the cost is the sum of all health care expenditures for a period, not the health and precrime health of Joe Mightgetrectalcancer.

Agreed. Same reason we won't get Trump's tax returns without some sort of discovery process. Ours are protected, so his are too.

That was what this was about:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1288509

It only took a couple of years. See, it's easy to look at technology in the light of whatever the political climate is at the moment. But you should not be worried about what the present administration is going to do with it, you should be worried about the next and the one after that.

And your genes are not exclusively yours, your parents and children's genes are also exposed if you give away your genetic code.

Now employers are demanding genetic testing, next up insurance companies with some nice file sharing options to boot. It's all just a stroke of a pen somewhere away.

Think of most people, who are too busy broadcasting their personal information everywhere, given the chance. People like you, me, and most of HN are a statistical anomaly.

Those fools leaving their DNA all over everything. Didn't they watch Gattaca and remember the part about your whole world being torn apart by a strand of hair?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Sure, they watched it, ate popcorn, and felt better about their lives by comparison. Most people don't watch things like that for the lesson, they're just entertained. The rest of us find it hard to believe, but go to a NASCAR rally sometime... you'll see. There are all kinds of people there, but there are vast swathes of... fools. Fools who you could never hope to reach or educate, even if they wanted you to do, which they vehemently don't.

The problem facing the Western world, and America in particular, is that the attributes and skills required to get and maintain a job are orthogonal to what society needs to survive.

Being handsome, tall, white, heterosexual, male, aggressive, assertive, ruthless and remorseless can make you an exceptionally successful person within the business world. It's also not the sort of thing you'd want society made out of. Every day would be a struggle for survival for most, but for the tiny few that've fought their way to the top and can now have others do their fighting for them.

There's no room for things like wisdom, intelligence, for care or concern, for the pursuit of long-term goals instead of chasing short-term gains.

Management doesn't care that you've saved the company a billion over ten years if your project makes them come up 5% short on the Wall Street projections this quarter. Politicians don't care that they're destroying an institution that's saved millions of lives if they can get re-elected because they saved money. People don't give a shit if their neighbour gets thrown in jail because they're an "illegal" even when they're the one committing crimes: Dodging taxes, stealing from their workplace, bribing a school executive to admit their stupid kid...

It's a rough world out there, and the thing that's killing us is a lack of long-term vision.

I've spent plenty of time working in a cubicle. I've overheard my coworkers say a lot of dumb stuff. Going a NASCAR race seems like an Ivy League board meeting by comparison.

Look in the mirror. Odds are you're just as bad plus or minus a few %.

Working in a cubicle could mean a lot of things, including working at a call center. I'm not seeing the relevance, other than as an opening to take a personal swing because I assume you're offended.

I strongly suspect that this is a rearguard fight and that - barring something along the lines of a French revolution - sooner or later this will all be made acceptable and what few jobs will be left are going to come with mandatory genetic testing, assuming it isn't done at birth and made part of your files which are either made public or will be accessible in the same way credit records are today. Medical privacy is on the way out.

I think you'd be right, but I'd guess that we'll be failing as a civilization before the worst privations can come to pass. War, chaos, and dissolution is more likely our future, fueled by climate change and global conflict.

In 2008, GINA was virtually unanimous in the House and Senate.

What the hell has happened to this country.

Between 2008 and now, the Republican party was taken over by its most extreme members. Many things that would have been solidly advocated by Republicans then are now out of the question.

Just compare the 2008 Republican Party platform [1] to where they stand today. A couple things that illustrate just how different the 2008 GOP was compared to today.

On climate change:

> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.

There are several other mentions of climate change in the 2008 platform. To the extent that dealing with climate change and economic growth are at odds, they wanted a balance close to growth than Democrats did (and do), but they knew that climate change did have to be dealt with.

On renewable energy:

> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.

If you want to get banned from /r/republican, just wait until the next time cap and trade comes up, and someone says that it is a socialist liberal democrat commie approach, and point out that Ronald Reagan used it for the phaseout of leaded gasoline, and the first Bush used it for reducing the emissions responsible for acid rain, with overwhelming support from Republicans in Congress...and you will likely get banned from that subreddit for advocating anti-republican positions. Yup...RONALD REAGAN is anti-republican in today's GOP. (Well, his policies are...they never miss a chance to praise him or claim to be like him).

[1] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78545

> Between 2008 and now, the Republican party was taken over by its most extreme members

I don't know if I agree. Whatever the platform says, the GOP have been active climate change denialists for decades (unless my memory is way off). They supported torture, the invasion of Iraq (along with many centrist Dems), the propaganda that Iraq was going well, and much more. They impeached a President for political reasons. They've been using dog-whistle politics to appeal to racists and their agenda since the 1960s (look up the Southern Strategy, or for a succinct explanation find the famous Lee Atwater interview).

Maybe it's a matter of degree (well, of course it is), but I don't think the degree of change in 2008 is that great. George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the rest were considered pretty radical.

Democrats opened the door to your employer checking on your "wellness".

"Are you going to the gym? Did you sneak a cigarette in on Friday night? Did you have a chili dog or a salad for lunch)? Oh you won't tell us? Don't worry you don't have to. Okay we'll just slap a surcharge on your health insurance!"

Not sure why you're getting down-voted. The "I don't want to share" surcharge sucks.

What are the details on this? I'm unfamiliar with what you're describing. It sounds like people getting charged extra for not sharing nutritional and exercise information with insurers? What is the legal context here (the Democrats were mentioned in the GP).

They're couched as wellness plans with insurance discounts if you disclose certain aspects of your behavior. All endorsed by employers (who tend to pay the lion's share of insurance premiums) and political parties (because who doesn't want a healthier <insert country here>).

Thanks for the info. I had deduced as much, but I was asking about the legal side of things. Is there anything more concrete than "endorsed by" (which I take to mean "they said nice things about it)? I understood "Democrats opened the door to" as meaning something like perhaps a tax or legal incentive for these plans: I just wanted to know the specifics because government involvement in our healthcare system is complex enough that it could have been any of a million possible things.

A clear example of how poor the modern GOP is: they've been complaining about the ACA since 2010... and they still don't have a workable replacement policy. Nearly two full presidential terms, and only now are they saying "hey we need time, this stuff is hard!".

What's also interesting is that in other western democracies, it's the left wing that's heavily fractured and damaged by infighting, with the right-wing generally able to get along and not get sidetracked by ideological purity. In the US, it seems to be the other way around.

The US doesn't have a left wing.

The GOP today is basically a neoconfederacy, and it's going to end the same way. Hopefully we won't wimp out on reconstruction this time.

Nothing that you could not have predicted a decade ago. Once data exists it will be used, for good and for bad. Which is one reason why privacy really matters, we simply can not extrapolate to what evil uses a future bureaucracy will put our data.

And you can bet that these 'wellness' programs results, especially the genetic data will be filed for future use.

What has happened is that a clickbait inflammatory article was written. GINA already had an exception for wellness programs, this bill appears to just change the incentives allowed.

> GINA already had an exception for wellness programs, this bill appears to just change the incentives allowed.

Completely reversing the meaning of the word 'voluntary'.

Yes, the title is clickbait but the situation is a bit more serious than you make it seem.

Oh it's voluntary. You can choose to pay more if you value your privacy! See we gave people a choice!

2 things. One of the most corrupt administrations in history took control of the Oval Office, combined with one of the most ideological Congress. If it even looks like a regulation, it will be suspect. No thought, no debate. Whatever makes donors money will be done.

This is like when you see looting on television, where windows are smashed, things stolen, other stuff just thrown on the ground for no reason. Things set on fire.

I don't think people realize the magnitude of the problem here. This is a Category 5 situation. They're pouring gasoline on important institutions that will take decades to rebuild, and the costs are going to be staggering.

The basis for making genetic info fair game started under Obama under the guise of wellness information. If you're going to blame someone start with him.

Is now really any different than the last 25 years?

We ban accounts that post uncivilly and/or unsubstantively, so please stop commenting like this.

HN is a bad place for partisan battle, so please don't comment like this here, and especially please don't make it personal, like you did at the end there.

I actively refuse to participate in all workplace wellness programs now. If it ever became mandatory I would quit. No question.

No, of course they're not mandatory... but your insurance premiums will go up with $500/month if you don't 'voluntarily' agree to do this.

A few years back when I refused to have my data filed electronically the nurse just said dismissingly.

"Suit yourself, next year you won't even be given a choice"

More often, I see wellness programs that offer yearly FSA credit in the hundreds range for filling out a health survey and then potentially additional credit for using the program. The psychology is better there for the base premium (bonuses are better than penalties).

Source: I work for a company that makes a wellness app.

That's just a sales trick which is effectively the same thing.

A bonus to fill it out is the same as a penalty for not doing so.

The psychology is not 'better' it's just sneakier.

This is an overwrought and inflammatory headline. Even snopes says it's false: http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/

Well, technically they rate it as "mixture".

djrogers is misrepresenting the Snopes conclusion about as much as that headline misrepresents the bill. No, your employer can't say “take this test if you want to keep your job” but doubling your premiums isn't too far off of that for many people and removing the restrictions on sharing information with non-healthcare professionals is just asking for abuse.

Snopes specifically says that employers would not be able to demand genetic testing results, while the headline says they would. It's a pretty clear cut case of a false and clickbaity headline.

And the headline - which is specifically what I called out - is overwrought and clickbait because it makes the false claim of 'let employers demand'.

I agree this is bad but why is it bad if an employer says they want a genetic workup done and just don't hire you if you say no? I just wouldn't take the job and I don't see what's wrong with that.

If you're employed as a test subject for a new cure to something getting a genetic workup seems very reasonable and is about the only time I'd acctually say yes to something like this. That's really the only case I can think of where this makes sense.

Why do companies actually want to do this? Do they think people will still work for them if they do?

If most people are willing to say yes, it becomes more difficult for you, or rather a hypothetical prospective job candidate, to say no.

And here's the same thing applied to car insurance: https://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/

It's not a surcharge if you don't plug it in, it's a discount if you do. Semantics...

Government 1 - Privacy 0

Somehow, the GOP can't stop making the case for single-payer stronger by the day.

You may think that, but it appears the voters are perfectly happy to hedge their bets with the GOP in the voting booth.

Trump lost the popular vote by more than 3 million. The Senate majority sits on a vote deficit of 6 million. And the GOP holds the House by a margin two digits greater than their share of the portion of the vote they won.

If you think the government we have is a reflection of the popular will, you are deeply mistaken. Indeed, the whole point of gerrymandering, Voter ID, registration purges, and a host of other practices that have flourished in post-VRA era, is to ensure that the will of the majority is not embodied in the government.

We've never had a minority in power that was this formally unopposed, while being this hostile to the popular public interest. As far as the health and even survival of our republic's democracy goes, this is uncharted territory.

>perfectly happy

"less terrible" is a phrase you should get to know.

Judging by the turnout numbers in 2016 and 2008, and also the popularity of the GOP candidate at his rallies, it appears that isn't the case; instead, GOP voters really were happy to vote GOP, and others simply didn't bother to vote.

We need to march on washington for control of our privacy again. This and the spying under obama shows democrats and republicans need to be removed quickly.

Be sure to wave at the surveillance aerostats[1] in Maryland as you head that way.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/28...

You make the category error of thinking this is about privacy.

It's about control.

It's about neither. It's about money. Insurers would love to be able to increase premiums based on pre-existing conditions and all the pre-emptive language of this bill notwithstanding this is opening the door a crack. And once the door is open it won't stop opening further. After all, if you don't want to cooperate with the 'voluntary' wellness program it's your own fault that your premiums will go up. After all, non-cooperation is a sure sign there is something you know that you don't want them to know (or so the argument will go...).

Wellness, what a nice example of newspeak.

It looks like it is going to unravel, but the trajectory between 2000 and 2015 was that US insurance companies had to consider less and less information when pricing policies.

I think it is hard to extrapolate that into a guaranteed bleak future.

Less information -> more fairness. The bleak future isn't there when it does not affect you but for people with pre-existing conditions (and that's a fair number) it just got a little bleaker. (Because having some life-long health issue is already bleak enough by my reckoning and such people should be aided rather than hindered in having an otherwise as normal life as possible. It's a lottery, no point in penalizing the losers even further.)

Yes, that's what I meant. The medium term trajectory has been towards a fairer system. A bill passing out of a committee now doesn't guarantee things will be worse in 2030.

Even if the ACA is completely repealed it's hard to say where things will be in 8 years, never mind the forever.

That's true, but in the intermediary it will make peoples lives worse, possibly much worse.

Why bother? What's a march going to accomplish? If we were worried about this stuff, we should have spoken up in November, but we didn't. We voted for the GOP to have strong control of both houses of Congress. All a march does is show that there's an angry minority of voters who lost the election. The GOP politicians in Congress know that these disgruntled people are not the ones who voted for them, so they really don't care about your opinions.

And as for removing both Dems and Reps, how do you proposed to do that? They, together, control the whole government.

It'll accomplish a hell of a lot more than doing nothing. If they won't respond to peaceful protest then they can be removed by other means.

Like what? The only option at that point is violent revolution. Good luck with that. Besides, the Trump supporters are the ones with guns.

Oh you Americans, always jumping right down the slippery slope. There's a whole spectrum of strikes and civil disobedience between here and there. And no, the Trump supporters are not the only ones with guns, even though they have been gearing up for civil war for longer.

Civil disobedience requires a large amount of cooperation from many people to be effective. Good luck with that. The anti-Trump side couldn't even be bothered to show up to vote against him (for anyone; there were more choices than Hillary on the ballot, and there's all the Congressional and other positions too). If they couldn't be bothered to cast a ballot, you really think they're going to be bothered to risk their freedom and jail time on civil disobedience demonstrations? Hah!

The only people with guns in any substantial numbers are the Trump supporters, the anti-Trump conservative Republican voters, and maybe a few violent radical leftists. The only ones there who are going to take a real stand against the government are the last ones, and they're 1) too few to make a real change, and 2) not people you want to side with anyway--people like Timothy McVeigh. In case you've forgotten, almost all the people on the left are anti-gun and consistently support anti-gun legislation. They're not going to be stockpiling arms and ammo. The ones who have are either happy with the current situation (Trump supporters), or somewhat unhappy but confident they'll be able to get politicians they prefer elected in the next election or two since they've already succeeded in getting many in Congress now ("mainstream" conservative GOP voters). It's only the leftists, liberals, progressives, etc. who are hopping mad, and they generally don't believe in gun ownership and certainly don't believe in civil war.

The bill does no such thing:

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1313/BILLS-115hr1313ih....

Relevant quotes:

"...workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that provide for more favorable treatment of individuals with adverse health factors as described..."

"...the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member..."

But nothing about forcing genetic testing on employees.

No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty.

In other words, it's mandatory.

I also like how they pre-emptively state that this is all in accordance with GINA when it really isn't.

The whole 'wellness' thing has fuck all to do with the wellness of the employees, it's all about case building and shifting responsibility onto employees.

IANAL and not even US resident, but "provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs" [emph mine] sounds pretty clear to me - they can make your healthcare plan unaffordable if you don't participate in the "program". They mention established limits to rewards but not to penalties, so unless some other law is protecting you, this bill looks like what headline says it is.

The first "relevant quote" is.. irrelevant to genetic data collection.

If you expand the second quote, it reads:

"the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information"

As the article stated, genetic testing isn't forced upon employees. If you don't do it, you might have to pay an increase of up to 50% for health insurance or.. if your employer doesn't sponsor healthcare, they can deduct your paycheck.

There is nothing in this bill that allows your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place.

To quote jacquesm and MisterBastahrd:

"No, it's considered voluntary. Except that if you don't comply with the voluntary wellness program you will end up with a steep financial penalty. In other words, it's mandatory."

"There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain."

--

You're right, there's nothing in this bill that explicitly forces your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place. HOWEVER, if a wellness program asked for your genome, and you denied it, then you would incur a heavy penalty. This is new.

IANAL, but if I'm reading this right sec. 3(a)1(A)(iii) (not sure of what the right way to cite that is) says that collection of genetic information is OK if you say it's workplace health promotion plan (and remember, you're allowed to charge employees way more for insurance if they don't participate in these "voluntary" health promotion programs).

There's no difference between 'voluntary' and 'mandatory' if the penalty for not doing the 'voluntary' thing is so harsh that you can't afford to refrain.

I disagree. It depends how you define "force". Let's stipulate that most people don't have the resources to simply walk away from a job providing them with their income and with health insurance.

Given that, here's selected text from the bill and its references (emphasis in capitals mine):

""" (HR. 1313, 2017) §1(3) in enacting the [ACA], Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide...SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS...including rewards of up to 50 percent off of [sic] insurance premiums for employees participating... """

""" §3(a)(1)(B) ...any reward provided or offered by [such program] shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)) """

Here's that section from the referenced law:

""" 42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A): [T]he reward for the wellness program...that requires satisfaction of a standard related to a health status factor...shall not exceed 30 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE COVERAGE in which an employee or individual and any dependents are enrolled. ...[T]he cost of coverage shall be determined based on the total amount of EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS for the benefit package under which the ...employee and any dependents are...receiving coverage. A REWARD MAY BE IN THE FORM OF...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE...or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan. [Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase the reward available...up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage [at their option]. """

Now back to the bill:

""" (HR. 1313, 2017) §3(b) ...[T]he collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN UNLAWFUL ACQUISITION OF GENETIC INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER...and shall not violate title I or title 16 II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). """

The gist is this: Employers can "offer" programs with a "reward" for participating that is "you won't get a 30 percent surcharge" on the full bill, including both employer and employee costs, including costs for your entire family (i.e., likely a much higher amount than the employee's premium contribution). For the employee to "voluntarily" participate, the employer can require genetic testing, even if such testing is "with respect to" another family member -- and such testing is deemed by this law to expressly not be a violation of protections under PL 110-233. Oh, and by the way, the government can simply declare at any time that the surcharge rises to 50% from 30%.

You capitalize it, yet you still misinterpret it.

See:

http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/

There is nothing in this bill that empowers your insurer to sequence your genome in the first place.

I didn't say anything about genome sequencing (nor does the bill), and your Snopes citation doesn't refute anything in HR 1313 (or my analysis).

It's easy to read the bill in its entirety, along with all the referenced sections of law, and see where the Snopes analysis is incorrect or does not sufficiently embody the imaginations of the lobbyists behind the bill.

Snopes:

""" The bill...does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part. """

Bill:

""" ...employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, SURCHARGES, PENALTIES, OR OTHER INDUCEMENTS related to wellness programs... """

""" ...A reward may be in the form of...THE ABSENCE OF A SURCHARGE... """

The Snopes analysis is incorrect. The bill specifically permits employers to "surcharge" everyone who does not participate, and "reward" those who do by relieving them of the surcharge. Such relief would be based on participation in the "wellness program". The bill even uses the very weak term "related" to allow substantial latitude in the design of these programs and their penalties and rewards.

Snopes:

""" A spokesperson for the committee told us...[i]f a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313. """

The spokesman here is attempting to justify the bill by somewhat defensively comparing it to provisions of the ACA, of whose repeal this bill would be a component. Workers will "choose to voluntarily participate" because they'll receive a memo from their employer stating that their costs will jump substantially if they do not.

Snopes:

""" A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent. """

Bill:

""" [T]he reward...shall not exceed 30 percent of the cost of the coverage...[and]...may be in the form of...the absence of a surcharge...[which]...[Labor, HHS, and Treasury] may increase...up to 50 percent. """

(EDIT: Note that the language here is "cost of the coverage", not "premiums" -- vague drafting which is probably designed to allow a newly maximal interpretation of "cost".)

This speaks for itself, and what I've elided for clarity does not change the meaning, as you can verify yourself with a quick read of the bill. HR 1313 allows the option of a "negative reward" of 50% for "voluntary" non-participants, and furthermore allows genetic testing (not specifically genome sequencing, although nothing in the bill seems to prevent this possibility) of those who do "voluntarily participate" as a precondition for such participation.

The bill blithely disclaims conflict with genetic nondiscrimination law; such disclaimer would almost certainly be held invalid if tested.

> The bill blithely disclaims conflict with genetic nondiscrimination law; such disclaimer would almost certainly be held invalid if tested.

Actually, no, a later enactment explicitly stating that things it allows are not prohibited by an earlier enactment, by that explicit statement, limits the earlier enactment.

Republicans are so out to lunch. I guess it's an example of the Overton Window in action. Obamacare is essentially what the Republicans were advocating in the 90s. So now they feel like they have to stake out a position in opposition to it, which means they have to regroup in loony land.

From the other side it demonstrates both the promise and the peril of triangulation. On the one hand you back your opponent into a corner. On the other hand, you end up making your opponent's proposal the new "consensus centralism" and force the public discourse so far in their direction that the "crazy extremist" position becomes the new rational opposition.