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.