Republicans/Libertarians please share your thoughts on this
- Thread starter hollywood
- Start date
You'll have to point me to the specific language that repeals any part of GINA or any other non-discrimination law or privacy law. Seems to specifically state that wellness programs have to be in compliance.
Everything you are stating mostly appears to already exist in this law, with the exception of this "So, if you do participate in a wellness system, you would now be obligated to do DNA testing or suffer a significant penalty." Where does this bill mention suffering a penalty or mandating DNA testing?
I just don't see any language that suggests anything outside of clarification of "family" and establishing a "reasonable" time frame. I don't see any language that repeals anything of any of the law referenced in it regardless of what filter I apply.
Medic,
Again, look at the express language of H.R. 1313 (linked below)
Please note how it uses the language "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" in Sec 3(a)(1)(A)(i-iii)? Those statutes identified in (i-iii) include the following provisions:
1. Section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B))
2. Section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d))
3. Section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1(b)(2)).
Then, it provides for the changes in the sections below that, including the provisions in (b) Collection of information; and (c) Rule of construction.
In affect, using the language "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" in affect makes the other statutory provisions in any other prior legislation null and void. The new statute becomes the primary legal authority and if it conflicts in any way with the prior legislation it identifies, it takes precedence and the older legislation is to be ignored.
BTW, I will amend my prior responses to indicated that an employee may not be able to "force" an employee to participate in a company wellness program, which in turn would have the affect of forcing that employee to participate in DNA testing at the company's whim.
However, if the employer decides to go down that route (requiring DNA testing that it can review and retain) as part of a company provided wellness program, they basically only have two options (that I can see) and that is (1) Quit; and/or (2) Pay a penalty for non-compliance, which could be as much as a 50% increase in health-care premiums.
So, if you look at my previous post where I provided that applicable section of GINA, where the current privacy restrictions are set forth, you need to bear in mind that those provisions, if this legislation passes, will no longer be applicable, just as the identified provisions of the ADA and Public Health Act will be overturned as well.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/notwith.pdf (This is a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which is a creation of congress that is designed to answer inquiries as members of Congress are its constituents.)
Again, look at the express language of H.R. 1313 (linked below)
Please note how it uses the language "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" in Sec 3(a)(1)(A)(i-iii)? Those statutes identified in (i-iii) include the following provisions:
1. Section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B))
2. Section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d))
3. Section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1(b)(2)).
Then, it provides for the changes in the sections below that, including the provisions in (b) Collection of information; and (c) Rule of construction.
In affect, using the language "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" in affect makes the other statutory provisions in any other prior legislation null and void. The new statute becomes the primary legal authority and if it conflicts in any way with the prior legislation it identifies, it takes precedence and the older legislation is to be ignored.
BTW, I will amend my prior responses to indicated that an employee may not be able to "force" an employee to participate in a company wellness program, which in turn would have the affect of forcing that employee to participate in DNA testing at the company's whim.
However, if the employer decides to go down that route (requiring DNA testing that it can review and retain) as part of a company provided wellness program, they basically only have two options (that I can see) and that is (1) Quit; and/or (2) Pay a penalty for non-compliance, which could be as much as a 50% increase in health-care premiums.
So, if you look at my previous post where I provided that applicable section of GINA, where the current privacy restrictions are set forth, you need to bear in mind that those provisions, if this legislation passes, will no longer be applicable, just as the identified provisions of the ADA and Public Health Act will be overturned as well.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/notwith.pdf (This is a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which is a creation of congress that is designed to answer inquiries as members of Congress are its constituents.)
More moderate than conservative, but I'm still against.
One thing to note, as I did some research, looks like they are "moving the goalposts" as to what constitutes "forcing" someone to get the test. This legislation and the associated rules would allow the company to charge you more ($100s-$1000s) for insurance, etc. if you did not get the testing. You can't be "forced" to do the testing, but the company would be empowered to charge you thousands of extra dollars if you did not do the testing.
One thing to note, as I did some research, looks like they are "moving the goalposts" as to what constitutes "forcing" someone to get the test. This legislation and the associated rules would allow the company to charge you more ($100s-$1000s) for insurance, etc. if you did not get the testing. You can't be "forced" to do the testing, but the company would be empowered to charge you thousands of extra dollars if you did not do the testing.
With no cap or figure on what they can charge, it is still forcing, just in a sleezebag sort of way.
My company pumps a couple hundred extra dollars into our HSA accounts for participating in evaluations, but they also give several other means of getting that money, including working out and having walking meetings. They only charge us extra for our insurance if you use tobacco.
Similar threads
