This law is good as it is the basis to ensure that as we learn more about genetics that our genetics can't be used to discriminate.

Lets say we find a gene sequence that predisposes a person to a higher risk of heart disease, or brain tumors. Insurance companies and others would love to be able to say..."because of this gene sequence, we get to charge you so much more for health insurance.".

Genetic research is very much a double edge sword. We need to learn, but what we learn can be used to discriminate against people and begin down a very dangerous path of eugenics.

Actually, what I assume will happen is that insurers and doctors, particularly with the health and wellness type healthcare reform that's coming into play. Insurers won't be able to charge a person outright for having various propensities for certain medical conditions, but they could theoretically begin to charge a person more if for example

Subject A has a propensity for heart disease per genetic tests.

Subject A's BMI has increased X points in the last few years

Subject A is not taking adequate measures to prevent against heart disease

Subject A's member rate and annual deductible will now increase accordingly

This example is not discriminating against pre-existing conditions per se, but it is a type of actuarial system that we currently see with auto insurance. Think of having your "safe driver" discount revoked because you've not followed your New Years resolution to lose some weight.

Lets say we find a gene sequence that predisposes a person to a higher risk of heart disease, or brain tumors. Insurance companies and others would love to be able to say..."because of this gene sequence, we get to charge you so much more for health insurance.".

I haven't had a problem with health insurance because I get it from my (rather large) employer. But...my father had a heart attack in his 40s; another one in his 50s killed him. I have been looking into purchasing life insurance privately (not through my employer), and have found that my father's early death from heart disease means that my life insurance will be MUCH more expensive.

FlyNavy, this is good reason to outlaw the whole principal of risk pooling in Health Insurance. That gimick is certain to keep some folks paying far more for the same Insurance than his neighbor.

OK, right up front, unless laws have changed, employees have the right to demand to see and get copies of whatever is in their employment files. Periodically asking for this information would be a way to tell if the employer is going where no employer should have ever gone before...LOL

Another thing is, applicants have the right to request, in writing, copies of everything the employer uses to make the hire or not hire decision in their particular case. That means copies of whatever the employer used - the credit report, the background check, the job references, and the medical information obtained in things like pre-employment drug tests.

The way to request that is to add a statement to the little paragraph on the back - the indemnity paragraph on the back of applications that most of us have to sign which basically states the employer can ask anybody or entity they want to about you and you won't take any action against anybody no matter what they said or wrote or transferred in some way to the employer about you. If you don't hand out blank checks, then don't sign away your ability to defend yourself.

I noticed, for instance, that, once the 'want ads' in the 70s stopped listing which gender could apply for jobs, those 'pre-employment' physicals also stopped. I'm pretty sure they were to find out if a woman was pregnant or not.

And just before you give notice, you should ask HR if you can have a copy of what they have in your file so you can tell if what you have matches what they tell the next employer. Just to keep them honest.

Since this law applies to employers of 15 or more (and that usually means 15 full time employees, so be careful), don't be surprised if some small employer tries to ask these questions or get you to take a physical. You may want to think about working for someone like that.

Finally, if a company is a 'self-insurer', that company actually has certain rights to see your medical records, because the company, as the insurer, needs to know re: bill paying.

I know all this from either working in HRs, large companies, and small, or from people I've known who worked in HR.

There are some ways you can protect yourselves from employers who think the rules don't apply to them.

@ skeptic-227981

Good advice! I'll keep this in my back pocket.

However, companies will often effectively sidestep accusations of age discrimination and other "protected" features by over-dwelling on something else on a resume as a diversion.

It is EXTREMELY hard to prove a company is committing wrongdoing in its hiring practices! Just look at how in this economy, it is almost impossible for a 50 year old to find adequate employment that even remotely matches their previous job and responsibilities! Even at lower pay!

Somehow, companies are avoiding these legal pitfalls, and I think it is because of how easy it is for a company to nitpick other features of 1 resume while blanketly ignoring the same ones on another that they end up accepting! After all, such matters are confidential and the burden of proof is on the accusor

Thank you, Seriously, and I hope those tips help. The reason you do ask for the information they used to make their hiring decision is exactly about age, gender, or racial discrimination. Here's how discrimination is usually proved (unless someone knows someone on the inside): a complaint is filed with the EEOC or Human Rights Commission and either of those agencies examine the patterns of hiring.

Both entities only examine companies with 15 or more full time employees, that's why that fact is so important. It's also one very important consideration when applying to a very small company which might not have to follow the federal rules.

As for the 50-something situation, I'm right there with you. Some companies avoid it because we don't ask for the hiring criteria info. And yes, they do try to nitpick other factors. Right now, the ratio is reported to be 6 applicants for every job in America, so yes, it might be easy to mask the age discrimination. If, however, someone were to look at all candidates who applied, were interviewed, and then who was actually hired, a pattern could be found in many cases.

I have a story to tell you if you are interested that will help confirm what you already know, but won't post it here because it's kind of long.

go ahead and PM me, I'm curious

There's lots of things that insurance companies are forced to pay for (which means the policy holders pay for it) that I don't think they should be paying for. IVF is one example. I know how heart-breaking infertility can be, I went through it - but insurance companies shouldn't be forced to pay for it. We have limited resources, limited financial resources, and health insurance isn't about making people's dreams come true, it's about keeping people healthy and treating those who aren't.

And I'm not homophobic whatsoever. I have relatives who are homosexual, lots of friends who are too. It's a none issue to me. And it's also not a case of not having sympathy for your situation. I do. But it really isn't reasonable to expect everybody else to pay for you surgery, which whether you like it or not, IS elective. Maybe not in your eyes, but it is nonetheless.

I wish there WERE unlimited financial resources so every could have everything they wanted, but that just isn't reality.

If you don't like the terms and conditions the employer sets out, don't work there!

Let's be honest, people are not going to volunteer that they are a healthcare expense risk.

Now I personally wouldn't want to work somewhere that has that policy, and you wouldn't either.

So once again our Gov't is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.

On the plus side for freedom, if you have good genetics, the regulation specifically says you have the right to present the findings to a prospective employer as evidence that you are not hiding a future healthcare liability. It may just give you a leg up on those that will be more of a burden to the business.

You will probably already be giving them a fluid sample, your credit history, life history, professional history, educational history and criminal background. I don't see DNA as much more intrusive than what they already get.

you seem to assume that I haven't paid my share of premiums over the years. I have given thousands to my insurance companies with little pay-back (I'm fortunate to be in good health.)

It seems to me that if my health and mental well being are based on the necessity for my transition AND I have paid substantially to these crooks we call insurance companies; I should be entitled to the assistance I require.

But then... I look at things different than most.

Yeah, so you're insurance company won't pay for your transgender operation. Why should my premiums go up because of it? Your life as many in your situation would say, is none of my business. You're right, it's not so don't expect me to pay for any of it. I have two tattoos I gotten as a young, drunken soldier that I would now like removed; should I expect my insurance company to pay for it? Who knows, I one day decide I need regular botox injections; should I expect the same? Insurance companies also don't pay for vasectomies, tubal ligation, infertility treatments, facelifts, breast reductions/enlargements or hair replacements. Are they heterophobic?

If it's not a physical health issue, then you're on your own. If you want to be paranoid and blame a homophobic society for you problems, so be it, but if they paid for everyones elective surgeries, they'd be put out of business.

I don't think transcalifornia was saying insurance should pay for the procedures.

I thought they were just saying that the DNA test would reveal the genetic sex to the prospective employer.

I do believe people should have the freedom to do what they wish, I just happen to believe that goes for employers, too.

No one forces anyone to take any job.

fiscalconservative: Not being able to bear children isn't a health issue?

I'll think about changing my view when insurance companies stop paying for men's Viagra in order to "make all their dream come true".

Ryan: No one is forced to take a job, but everyone, including employers, are forced to respect the rights of others.

A lot of people are not born with the body they want. I myself am an extremely attractive male that would put Brad Pitt to shame with my looks - born into the body of an average male (kidding... well, not feeling sorry for self).

Unfortunately, there isn't a surgery that actually changes sex for those that feel they have the wrong body. The closest available option is definitely elective. Hopefully, someday, truely transgendered people will have a real option. I would be fine with a real sex change surgery being covered by insurance. Until then it is clearly breast and genital augmentation only.

A hideously ugly person, a woman with unusually small breasts, a man with an unusually tiny penis, or practically anyone that despises the body they have could make similar mental health arguments to receive insurance coverage for surgeries that a transgendered person could make. Life is definitely unfair for these people, but if you allow coverage for any elective operation for one of these people, it will be hard to draw the line on which elective surgeries for given situations are covered and are which not.

I hope a real sex change operation is available for you someday soon transCA. In the meantime, I hope you raise the money you need for the augmentations, and find happiness with the results.

Just because you're healthy now doesn't make the insurance company "crooks." Ever consider that you pay premiums throughout your whole life and your use of the benefits isn't always the same? When you're young you pay into the system and when you get older you will be a drain on the system, most likely using more benefits than you pay in monthly premiums.

There seems to be some kind of a balance there. Hmmmm...

augmentation should not be covered by insurance......the proceedure is a choice

The whole point of insurance is to protect you against significant financial loss in the even of a major illness or health threat. It is not there to cover you for every desire you have regarding your appearance, or for every little sniffle. I sold individual health insurance for one (soul-sucking) year for Humana, and it never ceased to amaze me what people wanted covered, and you'd be surprised how many people were specifically looking for plastic surgery to be covered.

Having small breasts or flabby calf muscles is not going to kill you. Heck, being ugly isn't going to kill you. Insurance is there to help you stay alive, and therefore, should not be responsible for covering elective surgeries.

Prohibiting genetic screening for jobs is ultimately a good thing. Thousands of people with serious medical conditions rely on their employer's insurance to survive. Genetic screening would allow employers to discriminate against people with current (and potentially future) health issues, resulting in a company paying far less for health coverage for its employees. Sure, unhealthy individuals end up raising group rates, but you know, if my premium goes up a few bucks a week so that my coworker can suffer less, I have no problem with that. A lot of people DO seem to have problems with that, which never ceases to sicken me.

Isn't it odd that the one thing that prevents people from doing the right thing is usually money?

I personally have never heard of anyone committing suicide because they had tatoos they hate; or because they have tiny breasts (or deformed calves). You seem to lump these issues in with just any...

Speaking from my own personal perspective... I got news for you... gender dysphoria is an entirely different issue.

And... Thanks 205; it's nice to know there are compassionate individuals out there.

I do not know your friends particular situation, but often companies that are hiring people for physically demanding job will require comprehensive physicals prior to employment. This is done to protect the employer from fraud. If an employee gets hurt on the job, the employer takes a hit because of the workman's comp claim that normally results from an on-the-job injury. The employer wants to know ahead of time if the employee has back problems or any other physical condition that might affect their ability to do the job or that the employee might later try and claim as a job related injury. I do not think that these extensive physicals should be allowed for jobs that do not have a significant physical component to them. However, where and employer has a compelling interest in making sure that an employee is fit for the job they are being hired to do, I do not see these types of physicals as unreasonable. When I went to work for a shipyard as an engineer they even went so far as to take x-rays of my back so they would have a baseline to go off should I claim an injury later. They did not conduct any genetic testing I did not see anything unreasonable in the company doing this, it was to protect the company as well as myself should I have been hurt in the job. The x-ray, as well as the results of the physical could also be used by the employee as proof that they did not have the injury before they started with the company.

I do not think that genetic testing should be allowed, particularly since having a genetic predisposition to something is by no means a guarantee that you will actually develop the disease or condition later in life. Also, for a non physical job, a person's physical health has little if any impact on their ability to do the job. In cases where the company's only reason for concern about an employees health is what their health condition might do to the company's health care costs or the potential for having to provide accomodations for a disability at a later date, there is no reason to allow the testing.

Now they need to pass a law that prohibits those stupid personality tests. My abilities and experience are all that an employer should be able to use, not whether I am introverted or not.

JS in SD getting baseline data is only a protection caused by past abusers of the Workmans Comp Ins. Unfortunately I can understand that entirely.

Those stupid personality tests - you can never pass them, only fail them. They only hire the people who fill out the optional aid forms (have you received government assistance, etc.) - because business gets tax breaks for hiring people on welfare.

Back in the US once our bought-out politicians succeed at their current goals.

That's because of all the blood-sucking vampires on the Board of Directors of all the companies and corporations, and all the politicians they have in their pockets, and you know about the age old feud between werewolves and vampires.

You forgot about us dragons sitting on our piles of Jew-gold. 8D

I think I dated a werewolf once....a vampire too for that matter.

What a biased statement.... What makes you think the Milirtary can be bought?? I spent 20 years of my life in the USAF and NEVER heard of anyone "Buying " the military. WE CANNIOT BE BOUGHT> How many years have YOU served your country??

Right on Bud!

I wasn't referring to the military as a whole, but to individuals. We have the guy who sold all the info to the Wikkileaks dude.

We have the finest military in the world, but it is rife with actions for which it is ashamed...or should be. Testing on human subjects without their knowledge of deadly viruses and diseases, disavowing responsibility for thousands of deaths of American soldiers due to Agent Orange and refusing to pay for treatment of diseases caused by it.......

Oh, yes, Gentlemen, there are people in our military who can be bought and bribed.

scremimmini, do you say that because of your ability to be bought? It has been my experience of 71 years that folks that are so cynical, do so beacuse it is what they would do in the same situation.

It seems only fair since the government is allowed to tax the dead.

well not yet - should see some of the ' walking dead ' I've worked with

Actually, if what you do OFF the job affects your performance ON the job (excessive drinking, recreational drug use, etc.), then your employer has the right to be concerned. However, that concern should be expressed by negative employment reviews, write-ups and, in the worst case, termination for failure to perform one's job duties.

Also, look at the recent spate of Facebook firings. If what you do on your own time either maligns your employer and/or their reputation, OR if you post photos, etc. of yourself doing something contradictory to what you have told our employer (out partying when you're supposed to be home "sick"), your employer does have the right to take corrective action.

I agree but that is not 100% true since employers can randomly drug screen you after employment.

You mean I can't fire the cannibal serial killer working for me?? After all, he pursued his "hobby" in his time away from the office?

So you think big government should stick its nose in our kitchen and our bedroom? BS.

Even if you own a company your employee's genetics are none of your business. Your prospective employee's genetic make up is also none of your business.

Just because someone has a recessive gene or the potential to come down with a particular illness does NOT mean it is a definite given. Basing employment on what might be will leave many unemployed or unemployable.

If by communicable disease you mean HIV you probably won't know anyway the ADA ensures that is confidential. It is also NOT a genetic anomaly. If by communicable disease you mean the flu...

Word about your employees should not "get out" unless you broadcast it. I went blind but still did therapy with my clients I just had to get a ride to work and have the conditioned corrected. You are over reacting.

You have no right to pry into your employees' genetic information, none whatsoever. People like you would see GATTACA become a reality for the sake of profit.

I certainly would want to know if this person is going to be at work our because of some illness I know nothing about, he/she will be out 10 days of every month, or becuase of a certain condition

Work and attendance history will tell you these things... DNA not immediately needed. Even so, can you not be more accomodating to your employees or are you that lazy?

my insurance costs are going to skyrocket and myself and/or other employees will have to foot the bill.

Don't want to help pay for someone elses health? Foot the bill for your own policy... don't offer insurance to your employees. I find it really amazing that we as a society regard insurance as something that everyone "needs" to have until we consider that the money in the insurance pool is not magic money that just exists... then all the sudden we become selfish with our premiums and what's covered.

If I hire someone with a communicable disease and word gets out, do I lose my customer base?

What if your customer base has a communicable disease? Will you notl provide your service to them? What if you were the customer that found out? Would you stop doing business at that point? I'd bet not in either case.

Employers can require physicals to ensure that a new/potential employee is free communicable diseases. This law doesn't say that you have to have hire someone that has TB, or the like.

Jim, that is what job performance reviews are for.

I guess as a diabetic I certainly do not deserve a job. I am simply too expensive. I think I will give up looking for a new job, quit where I am currently working, and sign up for all the government benefits I can get! Free housing, medical insurance, food, money... Plus I'll have enough time to create a drug habit!

High-five bro

Think the Nazi's attempted that, but fortunately it didn't work out for them.

Thats the next logical step. Thats why I for one am happy our lawmakers could finally come up with a useful piece of legislation.

SreminMimi, that remark brings back painful memories of a friend who, during her pregnancy, discovered her child would be born with a rare genetic disorder, would live a short and painful life, and would die before her second birthday. What would you do in that case?

Just wondering.

Bunny, just got back to the thread and read your post.

I honestly don't know. In her place, I would probably curse every known version of God known to man.... in my place at this moment, I'm thanking every known version of God known to man that I have not been in her place.

I would probably have terminated.

Ya me and my wife have discussed this too and we both agree we would terminate under that situation. It is for the best. doesnt make a child suffer, drain our finances and future, or cause a hindrance on society

You missed the most important reason why health insurance is offered through employers, and that is because health insurance is a non-taxed form of compensation. If u need a better plan than what your employer offers, then health insurance companies suspect you need the additional coverage because something is wrong with you....and charge you a fortune.

Thus, as long as health care remains non-taxed form of compensation, we will all be stuck with whatever plan our employer picks or pay a hefty premium.

Gina/ALABAMA: I was for insurance reform, but in a different direction. Either a single payer system where the sheer might of customers would force the insurance companies into a reasonable contract, or plain old regulation of the insurance companies because they can't seem to behave on their own.

For the life of me, other than removing the practice of denying coverage, I don't see how the Health Care Reform will benefit the masses. Please explain. :)

Poor thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It will however, benefit the insurance companies.Health care costs will never go down until the insurance companies are eliminated completely and we have something like "Medicare for all".

Putting one 12 million dollar a year CEO in the unemployment line would allow for 12 million dollars worth of healthcare for a lot of people who need it.But eliminating the middleman seems to be too difficult a concept for opponents of healthcare reform to grasp.Either that or they must be on the insurance companies payroll.

I too would prefer a more universal system, but....

I'm happy that I was able to get my adult kid on my insurance. I am glad that Affordable Care Act fixes the medicare doughnut hole, and does away with lifetime caps. It gives tax credits to small businesses to help with employee insurance needs, and will eventually give tax credits to individuals to help them to buy insurance. It makes sure that physicals are covered, which should help catch diseases before they get big and expensive. Many more people will have insurance under this law than currently do, which I am also glad about -- it is awfully expensive to treat people in ER's all the time, which is the current default system. The CBO says this will save the country billions of dollars.

How does it do this? It does regulate the insurance companies, that is how the companies can be kept from denying coverage for people, and made to cover physicals, and not have lifetime caps.

And by the way, that not denying coverage is a pretty damn big benefit, right there. Especially if you have ever, you know, been sick and needed health insurance. There are many Americans with chronic diseases or genetic defects that will benefit from this. (And now the people with possible genetic issues will also be able to get jobs, which is excellent).

Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. It needs a lot of tweaking. But it is sure better than nothing, which is what the Republicans are offering in its place.

Now, if only this thing either made premiums AFFORDABLE for those going to the open market, or required employers to pick up the bulk of the tab for their employees ....

Therein lies the rub.

After a little help for Medicare recipients, small business (if they can even afford to provide insurance coverage for employees) and a few bones thrown in for the masses (physicals, no denial of coverage and adult children coverage), the insurance companies still get to name their price and operate under the motto of "deny, deny, deny".

This new Health Care Reform has not helped me one bit, but I'm sure I'll be paying for it.

As a recent college grad who hasn't yet even entered the workforce, I'm glad that my parents can keep me on their policy until aged 26. I would've lost coverage last year and with my disabilities, it would be catastrophic.

I didn't realize we worked for the same company!

>^.,.^<

ditto i work 5-10 hours of overtime a week and am not allowed to claim it!

The government regulates businesses all the time, on the basis of the Commerce Clause; for instance, you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. You do not have the right to check anything you want -- you can't ask someone if they have children or are pregnant, even if you think it will impact their job performance.

So this legislation seems well within their bounds.

Says the person who does not have, for instance, the gene that commonly cause breast cancer, or genes that indicate early heart disease, or diabetes. Just about everyone has some genetic indication of possible illness. With the greater prevalence of gene testing,people could very easily be discriminated against. This law seems like a good idea.

The U.S. Gov. is great at addressing problems that do not EXIST.....

.... yet!

With any kind of luck, this useless law will keep it that way! Consider it "preventative medicine". 8D

Economan, I worked for over 30 years with a physical disability, I didn't lose more than a month in those over 40 years due to illness or my disability. I never collected SSDI nor got my medical bills paid for excepting for my Union or employer paid Healh Insurance.

But I could shave my face every day and not want to slit my throat. That is called personal pride. If my disability had not caught up to me at 65 I would still be working, and loving it.

"Economan,"you wouldn't necessarily have to get a job, just arrange it so that you can get married to someone who has the right kind of medical insurance. Just offer them that you will do their laundry for them, cook their meals, help them immigrate, and etc. I knew a woman who got divorced and re-married five times just so that she could support her kids, put herself through college, buy a computer, and have a hysterectomy.

I agree about job-related insurance. Yet another example of the Federal government creating a problem where none should ever have existed.

But, Corporate America at its worst? How so? Should the local Seven-Eleven have to hire me knowing I would cost them an extra million dollars to be a gibbon-work laborer for a few years?

Should the local Seven-Eleven have to hire me knowing I would cost them an extra million dollars to be a gibbon-work laborer for a few years?

No... they would have plenty of other reasons not to hire you. Besides, odds are good that you would not be allowed to work enough hours to qualify for insurance anyway.

Companies should have a certain amount of responsibility for their employees and not just use them like disposable cups or like fruit to squeeze juice from and then throw away. It has been a perceived problem that companies create health hazards not addressable with workman's comp and that companies don't always pay high enough for people to afford medical insurance on their own. Also, a worker might not always know what is best for themselves in regards to buying health insurance instead of spending their money on something else as influenced by companies like for instance commercials and advertising that create desires and artificial needs for unnecessary stuff that compete for a person's income.

Maybe this is reaching a bit, but I tend to think that we will eventually reach a new age of eugenics. Not as evil or insidious as seen with the Nazis, but I tend to think that people may start publishing their genetic histories on their resumes as a means of giving themselves a competitive edge. This might also appear on some Facebook-type networking site of the future as well.

Think of all of the items that employers can't ask, and don't explicitly require, but LOOK FOR, on job applications none the less!

I bet in the not too distant future, if you don't put your genetic info on your resume to show the lower chances of high insurance costs, increased away-time and disability, employers will pass you over for someone "who is a better fit for the position"

It's not discrimination if you can't prove it in court!

a tad bit paranoid?

Nope!!
Actually Paranoid is when you are freaked out that "others" are out to get you or do you harm! I am not worried about anyone or pretty much anything!
I am also laughing my ass off at you because you and so many others are so damn blissful and perfectly unaware of what is actually going on in this world!
We find out that they (the powers that be) were feeding radioactive cheerios or whatever cereal it was to what they deemed at the time "retarded" children as an experiment on humans! The powers that be say that "That was then, this is now, we wouldn't or couldn't do anything like that ever again! We later find out about the Tuskegee experiment, which was actually before the radioactive cereal bit, but no less barbaric!
Look at what has come to light in the last 20 years and then tell yourself that "we are safe now"! My fellow man would never do anything that would be underhanded or unethical now!
I find it hilarious, and seriously, I do mean absolutely hilarious that you are so confident and convinced that everything that is going on in the United States is on the up and up with everyone's best interest in mind and that there isn't any of the big business operations who would do anything unethical or just plain wrong, with your urine!!
There is nothing you can do about it because they have lawyers that they pay to make sure that you don't!
Lol.... paranoid? Not one bit, I actually love it, I support it, I think it is one of the best things that has happened in a long time! We will get rid of unwanted sickly people, and I get to laugh my ass off at the people who are getting their genetics mapped now, so their descendants who are genetically inferior and prone to disease will be the one's doing the "dirty work"! Keep turning the blind eye, it will do you much better in the long run!
Good stuff!

zman-2918716

What about employers who refuse to hire you (when you are fully qualified) just because you don't speak spanish...

hey, I can swear in German, french, Celtic, Chinese, and Arabic......would that count as being bilingual?