Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another quote from the article from an EEOC Attorney;
“Employers certainly may have voluntary wellness programs — there's no dispute about that — and many see such programs as a positive development,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC Chicago district, in the EEOC's statement.
“But they have actually to be voluntary. They can't compel participation in medical tests or questions that are not job-related and consistent with business necessity by cancelling coverage or imposing enormous penalties such as shifting 100% of the premium cost onto the back of the employee who chooses not to participate. Having to choose between complying with such medical exams and inquiries, on the one hand, or getting hit with cancellation or a penalty, on the other hand, is not voluntary and not a choice at all.”
In 1992, I was working a front office job in a medical facility. A middle aged man came in for his pre-employment drug test. When I got his results, I was shocked to find that aside from the standard drug test, they were also screening for blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, and cancer drugs.
This is what the for profit health insurance providers have given us. And it has been that way for a long time.
This is just another way that the psychotic stalkers in HR can find out every last little detail of everyone's lives. I have come to believe that mentally ill people are attracted to the Human Resources field of pseudo-scientists.
I really feel for all of you in this generation, this is something that I would never have even thought of. I never dreamed life/society would be what it is now back when I was growing up and as a young adult. This is absurd. I still have a problem with nosiness/credit checks for employment, insurance purposes, new utilities accounts, and whatever else a credit check is done for except extending credit. I am so blessed that I do not have to go through what you all are having to go through in your work lives. I also have a big problem with those pre-employment personality exams. I did not take one (just didn't do it) when I applied for a retail position at holiday time 2 years ago, and still got the job.
There are several dimensions or planes to the issue, and it's not always easy to sort them out.
Many people do hold to an irrational fear of medical procedures; I spent several months in confinement to a body cast, with major surgery in the proocess, at the age of ten waaaay back in 1960, when conncerns over patent discomfort and "violation" weren't so strong. I had to get used to shots and rectal treatments pretty early, but having that IV forced into the back of my wrist is still a painful memory five-plus decades later.
But all of that was a sideshow; I've lost relatives to degenerative disease that might have been avoided, or at least ameliorated, if they'd consulted a physician sooner and/or had the common sense to stop smoking, and control overeating or drnking. And I saw the other side as well -- a well-educated elderly relative so obsessed with mortality that he wasted thousands on quackery. "Exit options" are an issue that can only become more complicated.
And an employer has some justifiable interest in encouraging his employees to live healthfully, but "cherry picking" to avoid employees whose genetic picture is something in which they had no choice is another matter. Ironicaly, this is one of the few theatres of medicine and finance in which I can see public-sector participation as a positive. Employee privacy, and curbs on micromanagement in the "Orwellian workplace" is a talking point that touches on a lot more than health concerns.
"Obamacare" is loaded with potential mistakes and pitfalls, and likely subject to all sorts of power plays, and Medicaid is still a "ghetto" -- which is not entirely negative because it provides the foresighted and responsible with an incentive to escape it. But what's done is done, and the goal now should be to allow ithe present arrangement to evolve into something along the lines of Canada's system, which focuses heavily upon the needs of the millions of immigrants who keep the economy going "at street level" and providing quality care, at a somewhat steeper price, but without "instant impoverishment" for those who've already paid their dues.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-14-2014 at 08:28 AM..
We have it here at work. It isn't required though and since my wife (she is covered through my plan)and I opt out it costs me $70 bi weekly instead of $35.
From the people I know here that are in it, the doctor is a quack and really not that thorough with any of the testing. So it really isn't that big of a deal at least for now.
I think this is on the way at my firm (the mandatory part). I've never done the health screen but I've had numerous people remark at how extensive it was. It's become more and more important as part of the cost package of the health insurance, to the point where you'll almost certainly be paying more unless you get it.
I can see a point where the cost could be much higher. I can see a point where NOT getting it could be grounds for not covering something or covering it to a lesser degree or percentage.
I shake my head at people who seem to think we'll never get to where this is mandatory and widespread. Things change. It's baby steps. Gotta warm it up slowly.
I don't use health insurance much myself:I'm about to turn 40 and I haven't been to a doctor in 25 years Part of that is because I have good genes (just the luck of the draw), part of that is because I take care of myself, part of it is that I don't want to live forever (I'm checking out somewhere between 65 and 75), and part of it is I realize I can make it through a lot of things with no intervention. My father was a physician as well so I could consult with him on a few things.
I also don't think if we got rid of employer-paid healthcare and went to single payer that that would prevent this -- in fact I think that would ultimately lead to even MORE stringent screening as well as penalties or lower level of care for people who engage in riskier behaviors (rock-climbing, motorcycle riding, sports, etc.) or who are outside of the ideal range and fail to eat properly or take in too much sugar or alcohol, for instance. When we're ALL paying for EVERYONE we can't have some people making choices that lead to much higher costs or risks. This type of thing wouldn't happen at at once. It would be done as baby steps.
There was a good docudrama / infotainment a few years ago, I think called Earth 2050. One of the episodes was about what healthcare looks like in the future. It was single payer. Private health care was illegal. Everyone was monitored several times per day in a variety of ways. If you for instance drank too much alcohol one night or consistently ate too much or engaged in a behavior with a higher risk of incident, this could bump you down to a lesser level of coverage. In the show's dramatization, the character indulged in too much alcohol one evening and this dropped his level of coverage / care down. He got sick or hurt from something and the government apparatus had BIG DATA on every single thing he had done and his entire genomic and proteomic profile, and denied him the good or mid level of care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
