Gold Member BOHICA Posted March 11, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) I'm sure some here thinks it is bad for healthy people to pay less for their insurance.... but it looks reasonable to me for this voluntary program http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/ Edited March 11, 2017 by BOHICA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Then employers can rule out potential employees who may cost more in premiums. Making more people less employable and uninsured! That sounds like a great idea! What a fucktard. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, Anler said: Then employers can rule out potential employees who may cost more in premiums. Making more people less employable and uninsured! That sounds like a great idea! What a fucktard. How many handicapped people do you employ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: How many handicapped people do you employ? I employ 1 heart patient, 1 diabetic and 1 senior citizen with all kinds of health issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Just now, Anler said: I employ 1 heart patient, 1 diabetic and 1 senior citizen with all kinds of health issues. Other tan yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Just now, Sleepr2 said: Other tan yourself? Your hilarious. I employ over 50 people. How bout you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted March 11, 2017 Author Gold Member Share Posted March 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Anler said: Then employers can rule out potential employees who may cost more in premiums. Making more people less employable and uninsured! That sounds like a great idea! What a fucktard. It's not forced... it's voluntary and the employee that volunteers for the wellness program savings money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Anler said: Your hilarious. I employ over 50 people. How bout you? None now, from 1983- 1993 ,,,,,, 20- 30 a year, and I paid them more than the Liar pays one of his employees today , go fuck with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Anler said: Then employers can rule out potential employees who may cost more in premiums. Making more people less employable and uninsured! That sounds like a great idea! What a fucktard. Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 hours ago, BOHICA said: It's not forced... it's voluntary and the employee that volunteers for the wellness program savings money. For life insurance etc sure, not for basic medical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted March 11, 2017 Author Gold Member Share Posted March 11, 2017 3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said: For life insurance etc sure, not for basic medical. It Is voluntary program for those that want to save money on there premiums. We already have similar things concerning health that are mandatory... DOT physicals for CDL drivers. Those physicals aren't voluntary. The bill purposes is just voluntary for those that want to pay less on their health insurance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Well, I think genetic testing may be extreme but there are already some pretty stringent health physicals for many in the upper echelon of company control. And that's not "voluntary" unless they just don't want the position. So, I don't think it's such a bad thing if ee's in the common workforce want to volunteer for health physicals to drop their rates....and it may prompt more to get a bit healthier. But it will strengthen motives for employers who practice adverse health selection in their hiring. Again, maybe not such a bad thing. Why should everyone have to pay for the fatty, lungers? But genetics? Hmmm.......so now employers can choose between "possible" non-risk induced cancer or other major medical risks when hiring? Slippery gross slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.